User talk:Softlavender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


You are very wrong about Heine not being a music critic, his writings on music for the journals of the time are extensive. His comments on M's 'naivete' are about over-sophistication, not about his faith - I therefore took out the quote you added re Mendelssohn and Judaism because that belongs to a discussion of M.'s religion, not his music. Could be reinserted when I expand the section on his religion. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, I was going by the chapter in Larry Todd's book, where Leon Botstein states "Heine was neither a musician nor a music critic ..." (p. 352). More to the point -- whether Heine had any skill as a music critic or not -- is his objectivity, or rather lack thereof; as my edit summary states: "is Heine really even a valid disinterested music critic here? He seems to have had a lot of agendas of his own".
To quote Heine on Mendelssohn:

I feel malice against him because of the way he pretends to Christianity. I cannot forgive this man, whose independence is assured by financial circumstances, for serving the Pietists with his great, enormous talent. The more acutely I become aware of the significance of the latter, the angrier I become at its vile misuse. If I had the good fortune to be a grandson of Moses Mendelssohn, I would truly not devote my talent to setting the piss of the Lamb of God to music! ... I write all this to you with premeditation and in detail, so that later you can understand the grounds for my quarrel with Mendelssohn .... ~~ Todd, p. 356. (Botstein goes into six pages worth of detail; this is just one small part of it.)

From such heated vituperations, I would hardly call Heine an unbiased critic on Mendelssohn in general, and on anything Christian-related he composed in particular. Thus my footnote had nothing to do with Mendelssohn's religion, but rather everything to do with Heine's hatred of Mendelssohn and his lack of objectivity, much less disinterestedness, as a critic.
Anyway, I kind of overspent myself on the Mendelssohn article and, having taken a two-week Wiki-break, I don't know that I wish to participate further with it at the moment. I see you seem to be giving it an expansion, so I'll let you do your thing unless there is some input you would like from me (better post it here: I probably won't visit the Mendelssohn Talk page). I'm kind of in the middle of some other stuff right now. Cheers and best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for this post. It is correct that Heine's feelings were ambivalent vis-a-vis Mendlessohn, and your quote is apposite. However, Botstein (and Todd) are wrong in asserting that Heine was not a music critic. He may not have been the sort of music critic that they would have liked or approved, but his journalistic writings on music were voluminous. But whether you can say that one particular citation of Heine (in this case, the sentence about 'naivete') must therefore have been informed by his personal feelings about Mendelssohn is rather different. The one does not follow from the other. Indeed in the very citation you give above, Heine talks of Mendelssohn's 'great, enormous talent'. I am very cautious indeed about attributing any disparaging comment about a Jew to the context of attitudes towards his Jewishness, unless this is explicit. (See (if you can contain your impatience) my book 'Jewry in Music', being published next year by Cambridge).
I certainly agree however that the issues you raise need to be handled in the artticle, which I am trying piecemeal to get up to GA standard, and I am 100% in favour of raising them in a full context. Thank you for your thoughts, your interest and your pursuit of this point and do please continue any work you have in mind on Mendelssohn. Best regards --Smerus (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, Smerus; thanks for the reply. In my opinion, of course Heine isn't going to reveal his motivations in a printed piece (who would?). As far as "explicit", I don't know how much more explicit than "setting the piss of the Lamb of God to music" one could get. The musical review we're discussing is of St. Paul, the only explicitly Christian work (or 'piss of the Lamb of God', to use Heine's words) Mendelssohn wrote (or at least completed).
If it were me, I'd relegate Heine's review of St. Paul to the "Reputation" section of the article, and, if the section is expanded enough to warrant it, note Heine's unspoken antipathy (hatred, really) towards Mendelssohn and his Christian posturing, either in the article or in a footnote.
Congrats on the upcoming book publication! Sounds interesting, and I hope it's a good compilation. You've already let me know (above on this talk page) of your ethnicity and religion; and just because the whole subject of Mendelssohn and Heine and anti-Semitism and so forth can get "tetchy", I hope you did not feel that my initial footnote re: Heine seemed anti-Semitic. I have no religious affiliation (interest in some holiday films notwithstanding), and a brief review of my interests and some articles I wrote most of (Reichsmusikkammer, Leon Jessel, etc.), should assure you that my sympathies lie with exposing or eliminating prejudice of any kind. Heine simply seems to me to have, in addition to his sour grapes, some internalized anti-Semitism towards Mendelssohn. But whatever you want to call it, he certainly, in my view, is not disinterested about St. Paul (a piece I've never heard and don't really care about). :) What I do care about is avoiding overemphasizing criticisms of Mendelssohn's supposed musical "failings", especially so early in the article, and especially when from someone so wildly prejudiced on the matter as Heine. OK, I'm done; I've said my peace and will let the matter lie. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
all noted, and thanks again :-} --Smerus (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW I have now done a lot of frenzied tinkering with the Mendelssohn article and for want of knowing what to do next I have put it up for review as a Good Article. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Opera parent categories[edit]

Re Les mousquetaires au couvent (and maybe others), there are special reasons for retaining parent cats for operas, as explained in the Opera Project archives. It's a fairly complex matter so we'd appreciate it if you can leave the cats as they are. Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. As you know, I don't like all these operetta categories and think that they should be deleted. Did you really want me to go to the page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't think so. Happy Holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Em dashes[edit]

Regarding your edit at After Aida: please read WP:DASHES on the use of em dashes and en dashes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Image problems[edit]

I am confused - see my talk ! GrahamHardy (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's my syntax see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Image server problem? GrahamHardy (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Need someone to edit an IMAGE for me[edit]

{{help}} Could someone please edit this image file to remove the bordering (left and right) white space? Thank you. I am unable to do it, even after having read the MediaWiki information. If no one who reads this is able to do this, please direct me to [where I can find] someone who can. Thank you! Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Done - I hope that is OK?  Chzz  ►  05:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kewl. You rock. Thanks so much. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the message. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Balieff/ Wooden Soliders/ Tsar Paul I[edit]

Hi - Glad to hear you enjoyed the article. That's going back a ways. The reference to Balieff using the legend about Tsar Paul I's soldiers as inspiration can be found in a 1927 Time Magazine here:,9171,731097-4,00.html .

Hope that helps. J. Van Meter (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed that you changed all the punctuation at South Pacific to be inside the quotes, calling this "American". In fact, WP:MOS#Punctuation inside or outside requires that punctuation always go outside the quotes, unless the punctuation is inside the quote in the actual original quote. I know that this is not what some other style guides say, but it is what our style guide says (I'm American, btw). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we should comply with the MOS, because if the article is promoted to GA or FA, the reviewers will likely insist on it. But it's not an emergency. I personally do not like the serial comma (MOS says it's optional), because it adds characters that you don't need, and because some sentences end up having a million commas. No big deal, though. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Let's see what Jean's feeling is about this tomorrow, or whenever she is able to reply. No rush here. I don't mind using the quote without his name, since we can cite BWW. On the other hand, as you demonstrated, there are lots of other sources to mine for a suitable quote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no rush, I just wanted to make sure it the case wasn't closed, and that you two saw my later post. Thanks. Softlavender (talk)

Re:OTRS problem[edit]

The worry is that the photo probably belongs to the photographer rather than the subject. Your best bet would be to talk to Adrignola (talk · contribs) (probably on Commons). J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain all this to Adrignola- I only suggested contacting him/her on Commons as their userpage implied that (s)he is more active there. Sorry, I don't really feel comfortable just taking over someone else's ticket like that. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyric (South Pacific)[edit]

I stand corrected. As a pianist and singer of 35 years, you have hit my only pet peeve: Misquoting lyrics and especially SONG TITLES. This is done constantly, even in reveiews (like this one), by a "journalist" who should know better.

Re:No colour on diffs[edit]

I agree and the lack of an edit toolbar is starting to get annoying. I concur with your idea that a bug report should be filed but to be honest I don't have a clue about how to report it as I've never had a problem before. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Liri Blues Festival[edit]

Hi Softlavender! Thanks a lot for your contribution at the Liri Blues page! I'm not an expert on wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardognunu (talkcontribs) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Swiss Family Robinson (1940 film)[edit]

Hey there, Softlavender, I am sorry to hear that TCM is no longer offering that DVD and no, I didn't get around to getting one (wish I had now)! I will correct the Wiki page to show that it was previously available. However, you can get one here [1] - (this guy has a lot of SFR stuff) or here [2], but of course it would have been better to get the TCM package - even though my understanding is that the TCM version was not remastered - it was the same quality as what you see on these DVDs and the Disney version's DVD bonus features. Dutchmonkey9000 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein[edit]

This might be right up your alley: Someone has apparently thrown in a plot synopsis that is a copyvio. Do you have time to rewrite it (and hopefully to shorten it) to avoid the copyright problem and make a notation on the talk page to indicate that you have done so? I thought this might interest you, since you have edited the page before. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed the Tonys, unfortunately, as I was at a Marathon G&S Sing-out this weekend near Boston hosted by NEGASS: all 13 G&S operas in a row over 2 days. Crazy fun! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Haha! No, I just stole your excellent idea and said it on the talk page. I could have said: "Softlavender suggested this on my talk page", but I figured it was better to just cut to the chase. Feel free to take credit for it!  :-) I'm going to do a real show with orchestra, sets, costumes, etc. (Pirates - I'm Major-General Stanley) on July 2 at the International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival at the Gettysburg week. Hope you're having a nice summer! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wicked Lady (1983 film)[edit]

I have looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) section and I cannot find where it says that only the first-billed should be listed, as you stated. I may have just missed it though, but in spite of that, given the extraordinary list of currently well-known actors who had small parts in this atrocious film, I would argue that it is worthy of the full list (from IMDb) being included. Manxwoman (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hans Brinker[edit]

Dear Softlavender,

You recently removed an item added to film adaptations of Hans Brinker by me. Could you please clarify why you labeled it as spam? Thank you,

Dustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely reply, I can understand why those restrictions are in place :] Once the film is listed on IMDB may I contact you regarding the proper way to list it on Wikipedia? As it stands the film will be scored then submitted to a few festivals from which it will probably be listed on IMDB.

Thank you,

Dustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Great work on the article. One small thing: I don't think that it's appropriate to state, in the plot summary, that Gerolstein is a fictional place. That is "meta" information that should be in a "background" section about the opera (which is now the article's biggest missing section). In the plot summary, we are always describing a fictional work, so we don't say that it is fictional. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm satisfied with the way it looks now. But in a musicals project article, the information would go elsewhere. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

References section of opera-related article[edit]

Would you please leave the "Ref" section as it is. Based on a consensus of editors from the WikiProject Opera, we have come up with two or three separate sections under the main heading.

The first is "Notes", the second is "Sources" (or, if there are "Cited Sources", especially books - see WPO on that - the full name of the book with ISBN, etc can appear under that heading of "Citated Sources" and a simple "Author's last name, p. X" appear in the "Notes".

Here's where you can look up the guidelines: Wikipedia: WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats.

And here is the discussion on it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats

Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with Reliable Sources[edit]

Could you help me with please? Trying to ascertain whether or not Brief Chronicles would be a RS. Thank you for your help! Knitwitted (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your kind note. I have seen many situations where a film or show was cast, but before it actually was released or opened, the situation totally changed, often without any reason being given. Sometimes the fact that a casting change was made remains of encyclopedic interest, but usually not, especially in the case of marginally notable actors. Believe me, I have had this conversation with many editors in the past - it's hard to resist the temptation to jump on new information. Wikipedia has some very wise policies that work well together, like WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE - so, if something hasn't been reported by a major news source, then reporting the information early is likely to result in its being given too much weight, and maybe even being just plain wrong. We have the luxury, if there is any doubt, of being able to wait and verify the facts. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Chariots of Fire[edit]

Hi. Regarding this edit, "excess detail" may be a fair criticism, as I'm not very familiar with the guidelines for movie plot summaries. However, I don't see how your edit "restores sermon quote" when in fact it only removes the extra line I had added. Nor do I see how the text I had added was "opinionizing", as it seems a very straightforward description of the quoted passage.

My thought was that the first part of the passage (about the "nations") is highly relevant to the sacrifice Liddell is making at that moment, and that the juxtaposition of what Abrahams and Montague are doing while Liddell is in church reading this passage is important to the effect of this scene, which is arguably the climax of the movie (I certainly wouldn't suggest every scene in the movie be described in this amount of detail). Again, I am willing to defer to a reasonable argument from an editor such as yourself who is more experienced in this area, but I would appreciate a bit of clarification on these points. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Good work on sourcing content for Father Damien. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg Hi! thanks very much for editing my article on AFC ...GOD bless you and your family... QuecyKeith (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


By the way, could you please also edit my article for submission USeP - College of Development Management to make it more encyclopedic? thanks and GOD bless you...--Michael Padada (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Silly me (?)[edit]

Hi there Miss Lavender, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding this situation here (please see here, i just saw today that person seems up to no good. Cannot believe i was gullible enough to have replied, especially after finding 99,99999999% of their edits was only that, giving barnstars away...

My technical question is: could my computer be in harms way for having sent that troll info when i replied their message? One can never know, and i'm an absolute duffer when it comes to computers :( Question 2: do those IPs and User:Commander v99 have any relation? It seems like it, i could be just "seeing things".

Attentively, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/I IP Editor[edit]

Hello, Softlavender! I just wanted to clue you in on this, as I (along with many, many others) have encountered this editor before. I used to give him a ration of shit, thinking he was an "IP-hopper", and he is: but he's a very skilled editor that enjoys being anonymous for whatever reason. Well, "semi-anonymous", as most people who've seen him know who it is when he opines on an issue. He has made many assurances that he's not a blocked or banned editor, and I have no reason to think he is, especially seeing how others recognize him when they encounter him. He's been around a long time and has used countless IPs, which is not against policy. Just thought I'd explain a little more here rather than AN/I. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Do you think I am making this up? I'm trying to clue you in. You do not recognize the editor, and I've already explained the situation. You can ignore it if you want to, but it's best that you listen to me. If they are in hiding, as you say, they do a really terrible job of it, because... we know who it is. Drop by WP:Reference desk/Computing sometime, and see how quickly the editor is chased away. And your statement, "Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry." is 100% wrong. You may need to seriously rethink your opinion of anonymous editors as a "group". I know I did. Food for thought! Cheers... Doc talk 10:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to second Doc9871's comment about IP editors. There's nothing wrong with editing from an IP, and you should not think any different of them. Snowolf How can I help? 16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Noted, but I disagree. He's edit-tracking and passing judgments on the editing patterns of an editor who has the courage to use an account and has edited widely and fruitfully for many years, while he himself is using an account he has never edited on. I'm not interested in discussing this further. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record, claiming a user with a dynamic ip address "has never edited" is not the safest bet. Also, using an account does not take "courage," and is arguably more anonymous than editing from an IP that can be looked up easily by anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I said he's never edited on that account, the account he's cowardly hiding on. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus AfD[edit]

I read your comments regarding the deletion of the Seamus article, and I fully agree. I believe that if people actually

Kay Burley[edit]

Regarding this article: please note Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, which says that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people must not be added to Wikipedia. All negative allegations about living people must have a reliable source; and YouTube is not a reliable source by our standards. Removing such BLP-violating material is not vandalism. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is something you should take up with User:Star-one, not me. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

David Gaines - radio person[edit]

Please see this change, as you originally added the category. If you wish to reinstate the radio presenters category or the new Category:Classical music radio people, please include an explanation in the article. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello! I noticed you editing a few articles on Nichiren Buddhism and I was wondering if I could ask you for some help. I was just cleaning up the references on Risshō Kōsei Kai and they are overwhelming the organization itself. Do you happen to have anything we could add to that article that might be more neutral? I know little to nothing about Nichiren and various associated movements and I thought that if that was more in your wheel house then this might be something you could assist with. If not no worries! Helpsome (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Black Count[edit]

Hey there. I don't think we've every crossed paths before. While I enjoy working collaboratively with other editors, I can't honestly say that I understand your rationale here. Going to someone's work in progress in their userspace and moving it to the mainspace is not only inappropriate, but disruptive. Honestly, I am stunned. From a personal perspective, I just had major surgery on April 15th, the same day the Pulitzers were announced. As part of my recovery process, I chose this article to focus on, only to discover that another editor usurped the work in progress. Stunned. In the future, if you have a question about another editor's draft work, please take the time to make a simple inquiry on their talk page. Please note that I have userfied the draft to my subpage for continued work. When I create an article, I don't move it prematurely. While I am certainly aware that the book was honored with the Pulitzer, keep in mind that there's no rush on Wikipedia. I will continue drafting the article and most likely move it back to the mainspace within a couple of days. If you have questions, feel free to contact me. With all due respect, best regards, Cindy(talk) 05:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates on editing bar not working[edit]

Hi, I can't get the "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. What to do? Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are too confused, you can always manually add the parameters and the template. See {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} to check for the parameters.
But I suggest using either ProveIt or cite tool on your edit window.
  • To use ProveIt, enable it first [Preferences-Gadgets-Editing-ProveIt]. Then click on the fourth (yellow and black P) button in your editing window, and select "Add a reference". The rest is easy.
  • If you don't want to use Prove-It, you can also use the editing window. Just click on that Template menu you are talking of, and click on any of them. A pop up window should appear (If it does not, you might want to check some settings. I'm not sure but javascript might be disabled for you.) Then you simply fill the fields, and insert it.
Hope this helped,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To reiterate, I can't get the Cite "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. Why is this happening? All of the other editing-bar buttons are working but the Cite Templates are not working at all. Please help. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It should work when you click it. Might be a problem with your browser. Mkdwtalk 04:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To reiterate, I can't get the Cite "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. Why is this happening? All of the other editing-bar buttons are working but the Cite Templates are not working at all. Please help. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Works when I do it. Click the cite button in the edit screen and it should expand the bar below with a bunch of fields. If it's not working for you, it's likely a problem on your end. You could try reinstalling your browser on your computer. Asking the same question repeatedly won't necessarily change the outcome of why your own browser is not working when others are. Would you like me to record a video of my desktop using the ref tool to show you it's properly working? Mkdwtalk 04:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Mkdw, please don't respond further. You are not even understanding the question, much less responding to it helpfully. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To reiterate, I can't get the Cite "Templates" drop-down menu of the Wikipedia editing bar at the top of the page to do anything. I keep clicking on any of them ("cite web", "cite newspaper", etc.), but nothing at all happens. Why is this happening? All of the other editing-bar buttons are working but the Cite Templates are not working at all. Please help. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Hawaiian Music Album[edit]

The see also section should be in alphabetical order, per Wikipedia:See also#See also section, so I ahead and made the edit to the article again. Thanks for adding the link to the section--I was not familiar with this award! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your edit at Eckhart Tolle anything else that you think needs to be tweaked? Also would you mind taking a look at The Power of Now and giving some feedback on the talk page. I think it needs a major reworking and would like to collaborate with other editors in the process. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 23:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thanks for taking the time to give your insights and feedback on PON and Tolle. This is very helpful. Good luck with your other projects! I look foward to working together in the future. Cheers! KeithbobTalk 15:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS I've done a rewrite of The Power of Now if you any further feedback or want to make changes or tweaks, all contributions are welcome! Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Epiphany Eyewear[edit]

Softlavender: Thank you for your help. Removed images and edited captions. 301man (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A New Earth[edit]

Hi Soft, if you have a few minutes sometime could you take a look at this other book article by Tolle and give any recommendations you might have on the talk page? Right now I'm the only one active on the talk page and I'd like some additional input before I revamp this article in a way similar to the other Tolle book. This one, does have some secondary sources but there are still whole sections which are unsourced and appear to have been made up by an editor based on personal opinion. Thanks so much, -- KeithbobTalk 15:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for I Surrender All[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi SoftLavender, You are a good writer and editor and if you have any time I would value your edits and comments on an essay I've just published called WP:POV RAILROAD. Thanks!-- KeithbobTalk 15:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the compliment. :) That's a good topic -- I've definitely been on the end of that. I'll take a look at it when I have time, OK? Thanks for thinking of me, and great job doing this to help Wikipedia! Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob, I took a look at that. Very nice of you to create that essay. I made some copyedits, for clarity of reading (you can revert or ignore any of them). Two things stood out for me to mention: (1) I think you need to wikilink the following (do not assume that anyone reading the essay will automatically know what you mean or the policy referred to): canvassing, game (gaming the system), COI, and possibly even POV. (2) The "Traits" (or perhaps it should be called "Characteristics") section is a little jumpy because the elements are not parallel. In a parallel list, all of the items are the same part of speech: verb clauses, or noun clauses, or adjective clauses, etc.; and even within those categories, the subcategories of clauses are the same: e.g. all gerunds (if that is the choice) for verbs. You may actually want to either change them all to the same kind of clause (if that's even possible), or subdivide that section, adding subheadings or intros to each subsection, so that you group all similar grammatic clauses together. Hope that makes sense. Keep up the good work! Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender! Thanks for helping with my little pet project. The original version of the essay was much longer and more complete.[3] then CorporateM, who I had invited to review it, really took a hatchet to it. I admit it was too verbose so his direction was good but he didn't have an accurate understanding of what the essay was about (the fault of the writer, no doubt) and he cut out things that were germane. So I went back and added some things, re-establishing the focus of the essay while maintaining his succint, point by point style. If you have any time, please have another look and make edits as needed and/or make comments on the talk page. I'm sorry to hear you have been the victim of this kind of bullying but the upside is that it makes your input on the essay even more valuable as you know what are the important points to get across. Thanks again for your help and WP camaraderie!-- KeithbobTalk 16:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC at The Departed[edit]

As a recent participation at Talk:The Departed#Whitey Bulger and The Departed this is just a note to let you know that there is now an RFC regarding the issues discussed at Talk:The Departed#RfC: Discussion of Lead Section comment on film sources neglectfully or inadequately discussed in main article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For helping me improve Diane Harper, I award you this barnstar. Jinkinson (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, J, glad to help! Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits, not editor[edit]

I would like to ask you to strike comments 2, 3, and 4 from your post to the Raging Bull RfC. To be honest, they're somewhere between completely inappropriate and a personal attack. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the question, which is whether or not those sentences belong in the article. Furthermore, by taking such a stance yet not actually looking at the sources involved, you've essentially made it impossible for Auto Marmet to ever contribute to Wikipedia. You've basically decided he is and always will be doing nothing more than OR, and thus you never need to read what he's written to see if the newest incarnation is OR. Note that the user is no longer edit warring to keep the material, and opening an RfC on it is the complete opposite of disruptive editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I hear and understand your request; however, I am going to leave them up because none of the other editors have given detailed substantive reasoning behind their opposition, and any newcomers to the page will not know the extensive and disruptive and confused and prevaricative patterns this editor has. I meant what I typed. You yourself have seen the numerous untruths he has posted on your own Talk page, and you have not objected to my calling him out on them. After carefully following this editor and his disruptive, self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, prevaricative editing/commenting over several articles and numerous Talk pages, I do not believe he has the competence to edit here. If you disagree, you are welcome to say so or to rebut my post. You've been mainly on the outside looking in on this matter; those of us who have had to clean up after him and read his interminable, repetitive, disruptive, unheeding and prevaricative replies have a bit more knowledge of his patterns I think. I do appreciate where you're coming from, though, and it was kind of you to make this request. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the talk page of an article is not the correct place to raise those concerns--you need to do that on a behavioral noticeboard, like WP:ANI. I wouldn't recommend doing so right now, though, because his behavior has fundamentally changed, in that he is no longer editing or disrupting the encyclopedia. So long as that continues, and he accepts the likely result of the RfCs, then we have no problem, and we have the potential to help educate and retain an editor with obvious passion for certain topics. If the problems restart, of course, action can be taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I personally disagree that posting and reposting and reposting and again reposting interminable requests and accusations on article Talk pages is not disrupting the encyclopedia. In fact, WP:disruptive editing appears to me to clearly state that it is. Also, his behavior has not fundamentally changed in my opinion, as evidenced by his continuing to do so and his continuing to misrepresent the truth. The only thing he is doing differently is that he has apparently not edit warred since September 10, because after a month of doing so he got two Talk page warnings on September 11 from both Betty Logan and you. He then figured out (possibly through the WP:DR link you provided then), or someone told him, that his only way forward would be RfCs. But all his other behaviors (including lack of competence) are exactly the same. Believe me, I probably would have filed an ANI by now, had I not had a disinclination, and lack of time, to gather and organize the hundreds of disruptive diffs from him and his various IP socks, and the comments/edits of his respondents. I understand your viewpoint about the RfC, but I'm letting it stand. Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A Rescue Barnstar for you![edit]

Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thank you for your great work on Luke Barnett. A fine example for us all on how to fix an article up for deletion! Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Shirt! Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits relating to Diane Harper[edit]

Softlavender, I would like to ask you to refrain from deleting edits by others to Diane Harper's page. Edits that improve the content are welcome but arbitrarily removing content that you don't like are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks. user: popcorn66 —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thank you for your part in our joint effort to re-kindle Yintan's motivation and to encourage him to continue his good work for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. @}-- Pdebee (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

List of film noir titles[edit]

Hello Softlavender, in your recent edit you rightfully mentioned that the standard TOC causes a ton of wasted space here. I've therefore tried to hide the unnecessary subsections with the {{TOC limit}} template but this doesn't seem to work or I'm doing something wrong. Could you help please? --Croscher (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Croscher, I wasn't that well-versed in TOCs myself, but reading through WP:TOC just now, it seemed that the key was (1) putting the {{TOC limit}} after the lead, and (2) adding a number to denote the subheading level cut-off desired. Seems to have worked OK now. Thanks for the prod! Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! My fault was that I thought I had to set a limit of "1" instead of "2". Because of this my trial edits always generated the default template. --Croscher (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello Softlavender! Since you posted on Yintan's talk page, I wanted to let you know it seems like he just left. He was probably fed up with the image copyright issues going around. ///EuroCarGT 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the update, Euro, although frankly I'm not surprised. Losing his temper and using profanity and failing to understand the basic premise of image copyright procedures on Wikipedia were bad signs, and signs he was teetering on the edge of something drastic. Although, it is sad that these notifications all seemed to bombard him all at once out of the blue. I'm sorry to see him go, but maybe down the line when he cools off and starts reconsidering how he could contribute here, or misses it, he might come back. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's hope so. I agree with you, Softlavender, that his recent behaviour was so out of character with his normally steady and humorous approach. The three of us managed to bring him back from semi-retirement not long ago, but I don't think he had flushed the previous frustrations from his system and it's now clear he wasn't ready to face the latest wave of frustrations. Ah well, we can all hope, like you do, that he'll re-join once again when he feels better and re-motivated to continue the good work he did here. Thank you, btw, for allowing me to barge in on your conversation with EuroCarGT...Face-wink.svg With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Softlavender, did you have any contact with User:Youreallycan? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Callanecc, no, but if you look at the history of this page you'll see I recently had a vandal post from someone with a similar screenname, which post I deleted. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That's why I asked, after I blocked the account I was trying to figure out why it targeted the pages it did. But not to worry, it's blocked now. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney[edit]

Hello, I've started a discussion on the article's talk page, and would appreciate a more detailed explanation there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


I saw your reason for undoing the edit, and wanted to ask: Why is it that on several disambiguation pages, no links are given? One example is I don't see why my edit can't be on there if other disambiguation pages include no links . (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Had had[edit]

I agree that the phrase "had had" can sometimes be appropriate and grammatically correct, but it produces an awkward sentence. In the context of the I Surrender All article, this awkward construction is unnecessary. If more recent events or research revealed that Deniece Williams did not have a number 1 hit in 1985, I might say that she had had a number 1 hit (from a 1986 perspective). Otherwise, it is enough to say that she had a number 1 hit. Does that make sense? Thanks! Jacknstock (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi J, it's not a matter of sometimes -- it either is correct or it isn't. "Had had" is the past perfect tense of "to have", which is what is needed here. I get that you were startled by the double/repeated wording, or perhaps you were searching Wikipedia for double wordings to correct; however this is the correct formation here. It's not awkward; it's standard English grammar. Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hands4 Overlaying.jpg Friendship
Thank you, Softlavender, for your continued friendship and support, past, present and future! KeithbobTalk 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Good Morning Britain (2014). If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tbhotch but I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years and am a Veteran editor and do not need a Welcome or information link. This is not an appropriate way to deal with an edit you do not like or one you disagree with. The appropriate venue for that is the article's Talk page. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Good for your time here, but have been here for 7 years and being a Veteran editor won't make you the owner of a page, or justify edit-warring, or put you above the P&G of Wikipedia. I welcomed you as you are acting as a newbie. But, OK, the next time, it'll be a 2 or 3 level warn. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverting an edit, with a clear explanation, is not warring and certainly not WP:OWN. Posting a warning on a user's Talk page for an explained and Wiki-cited revert is not an appropriate way to deal with a disagreement on Wikipedia. The way to deal with reverts of your edits (if you feel strongly about your original position) is to discuss the matter on the article's Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy[edit]

Please see [4]. --Demetrioscz (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for keeping The Power of Now on your watch list and up to WP standards :-) KeithbobTalk 21:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Diane Harper[edit]

I have left a comment at the talk page and please adhere to WP:BRD. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Diane Harper. Your edits have been 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. I see you have reverted the edits again and have failed to discuss the edits at the talk page,I won't be lured into WP:3RR, but if you fail to address your edits at the talk page as per WP:BRD I will take this issue to the notice boards for admin intervention. Daffydavid (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daffydavid, I reverted your mass reverts before I looked at the Talk page. This was not an attempt to edit war; simply the order in which I happened to proceed. As you rightly mention, you are the one at risk for 3RR there. I've responded to you on the talk page. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Harold Abrahams[edit]

There was no reason for you to delete the line about Abrahams converting to Christianity. It's a noteworthy part of his story, given that he was well-known for his Jewish origins. It would be misleading for readers to assume that he was of the Jewish faith until his death. (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment at Talk:The Sun Also Rises (1984 film). Could you comment at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Template_removal. I am wondering why {{The Sun Also Rises}} is being removed from The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Youngkitten.JPG This is how my eyes must have looked after shoveling snow and editing before having my morning coffee this morning. I have left several replies on my talk page. Thanks for all you efforts here at WikiP in this situation and so many others.

MarnetteD | Talk 15:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Done. I don't think the album's infobox is appropriate, but if it is, it should be moved down further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. No, I won't modify the infobox for the recording. I think it should be deleted. If the recording had been a big hit or had won the Grammy, it would have its own article, but there is enough detail about it in this article without the box, which is redundant and, I think, does not belong at all in this article about the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the album charted briefly on the pathetic show albums chart is meaningless. All of the major Broadway musicals' albums chart on that chart -- the chart is basically just a list of the new Broadway show albums. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Syngenta citation[edit]

Hello! I'm not going to do a revert or anything (the last thing I want to do is spark another edit war), but I thought I'd point out that the citation does in fact support the statements you removed. While it is true that the landing page does not include the language, the PDF copies of Syngenta's letters, which are linked to the citation and of which the citation is a summary, does include that language. Maybe the letters should be ref'd directly instead of the landing page. Thanks! Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jtrevor99. The letters do not support the language I removed, which is why I removed the language. That is also why I added the "(s)" to my edit summary. Feel free to move this discussion to the article's Talk page if you prefer. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that this probably should move to the talk page. I'll post here one more time and if we don't resolve it with that, I'll move this whole thing :) At any rate, I am NOT going to make any changes as again, I don't want to spark an edit war. Anyway, you removed two statements.
Statement 1: "Syngenta therefore demanded a retraction and public apology...from Hayes' university..." Upon a reread, I find that you're correct. They instead requested a meeting with Berkeley's reps to discuss the situation.
Statement 2: "...Hayes' employer had found the statements lacked credibility..." is supported on page 2 of the second letter, which reads as follows: "Either Hayes did not report the alleged threats of lynching and rape to the vice chancellor, dean, and legal counsel at Berkeley - in which case, he was lying during his Democracy Now interview - or Hayes did make the report and the vice chancellor, dean, and legal counsel at Berkeley found Hayes' story not to be credible." Keep in mind of course this needs prefaced by "according to Syngenta...", which I attempted to do in the original wording. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Jtrevor99. Nothing in any of the letters supports any of the text I removed. I'm not interested in discussing article content on my user Talk page. If you'd like me to copy/move the above conversation to the Syngenta Talk page, let me know; please do not further discuss article content on my Talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)



I notice you recently contributed to the talk page of this article. Could you please visit Talk:TV-am and see what you think of the issues raised there? Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ubcule. I just woke up so I'm a little fuzzy; also I'm not British so I'm much less familiar with the programme's history than Brits are. I think getting rid of the unsourced nonsense was a good idea on the other editor's part. I suggest that you correct any misspellings and put {{cn}} tags on the info that needs verification. I think the fact that the article has started to become more factual and more sourced is a good thing. To resolve any disputes, I suggest agreeing with the other editors involved in editing the article that a certain amount of time will be given and after that, any unsourced statements will be deleted within a certain amount of time after they have been tagged. I think that's the only real way to solve disputes over various unsourced material; otherwise, there's nothing verifiable to go on one way or another. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises[edit]

I saw your comments at Template talk:The Sun Also Rises. Now they are trying to make the template irrelevant by imposing changes at The Sun Also Rises (opera), The Sun Also Rises (ballet) and The Select (The Sun Also Rises).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I already pointed out to you that that was what was happening. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of however[edit]

Thanks for the link to WP:editorial, which explains, "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." Yes, I see that using such words could subtly take weight away from the previous para, and give a little extra to a sentence or para that it starts. My concern, as a writer, is that such words also serve a useful function in that they signal to the reader that a shift in meaning has taken place, making it easier to take in the meaning. In the case of that para at Eckhart Tolle, would you also feel that beginning the paragraph with "On the other hand, . . . " would also be non-neutral wording? Thanks. EMP (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi EMP, it's usually better to have these discussions on the article's talk page -- that way other editors can participate as well. The paragraph doesn't need an editorializing word or phrase to begin it, as that is neither encyclopedic or necessary. If it were the same paragrpagh, then such a word or phrase might be useful. But not for a new paragraph, particularly not one which has already been alluded to in the first sentence of the section. Hope that helps. Any further discussion however should take place on the article Talk page rather than a user talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Wanted to make sure you saw the note--but now that I think of it, you likely have Tolle talk on your Watchlist. EMP (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Charleson Awards[edit]

Hi, usually I would offer help working on the article however at the moment I just have to many projects going on. However if there are any particular Times articles you want to know the contents of let me know and ill email you the full articles as I have a subscription at the moment, although will be giving I it up soon.Blethering Scot 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I added cats, talk page tags and avoided a redirect at Template:Ian Charleson Award. Looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


I won't revert you, but what's the logic behind keeping discussions that clearly won't result in action and are in violation of the instructions? WP:UAA/I just says they "should be left on the noticeboard for several hours", which has clearly happened. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

All actions on the board other than commentary are to be taken by admins, per the policy -- that's why it's an admin board. Even beyond that, there is a clear conflict-of-interest problem which the username (which includes her initials) reflects, so an admin removing the discussion would rightfully place it in the holding pen rather than deleting it. Softlavender (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Which policy? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Arms & Hearts, you linked to the policy above. If you have any questions about it, the best place to ask them is on that talk board. Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't linked to any policies. WP:UAA/I is a how-to guide. Do you mean WP:U? I don't have questions about the content of either, just your understanding of them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard Strauss[edit]

Hi. Good solution.


Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Maria Callas article deleted from her bibliography as self promotional[edit]

Dear Softlavender, It has recently come to my attention that you have deleted my addition, in the bibliography section of the "Maria Callas" entree, of a reference to an article written by me. The core of this article was the subject of a lecture I gave to the Foundation of the Hellenic Parliament, on the occasion of an exhibition about the great American-Greek soprano. I have been an editor, like you, as well as a publisher and author, and a collaborator of the Greek Wikipedia.

You mention that this addition is "self promotional", as the reason for the deletion. I don't know if you had the time to use the link I included, to facilitate readers to reach the article itself. And maybe this is too much to ask, knowing how rapidly reviewers and administrators have to skim over the material if they are to get the job done. Still, I would like to assure you that the farthest thing from my mind was to promote my self or my work. If you had read the article, and because you seem to be interested in music subjects, you would see that I uncover new material not mentioned in the usual biographies, many of which have turned opera to soap-opera. My interest is to disseminate such new ideas to the wikipedians.

The article was published in English in The Netherlands in a prestigious and specialized quarterly magazine on Maria Callas, that for the last 24 years its publisher, Karl van Zoggel, in collaboration with musicologists and music reviewers throughout the world, has been publishing material on the 'Divina', that keeps alive her memory and enriches our knowledge of her achievements.

I write all this to clarify the difference between self-promotion and dissemination of new material. Unless, I have been a victim of fate, since my father was the founder of the National Opera of Greece in 1939 and first discovered Maria Callas, assisting her financially to finish her studies and signing with her her first professional contract. But these are circumstances beyond my control and feel it is unfair that I should be penalized for my family relation or that I should hide such facts to avoid unwarranted misunderstandings.

I would be very happy to receive your views on the above. All my best --Bastias (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bastias; if the addition was not meant as self-promotion, then, although it's always a shock when one's edits are reverted, I don't think you should have too many qualms about its being deleted. It is less about about Callas, and more about someone with your last name, whom I presume was a relative of yours (your father I presume, since you mention him in your post above), and various historical and political events. It does not belong in the Bibliography of an encyclopedia article about Callas, especially since it was not used in creating the article. If you feel there is information in your article that can be used in the Maria Callas article, then the best option, since you wrote the article and it is a conflict of interest for you to add a reference to it or information from it into the article yourself, is to post the link to the article on the Talk page (Talk:Maria_Callas) for other editors to look at and see if they want to glean anything from it to add into the article. You need to disclose that you wrote the article (and that it's about your father), and that that's why you are using the Talk page to present it as a possible source rather than adding material from it directly to the Wikipedia article yourself. That way, disinterested and unbiased editors can make decisions about what, if anything, they want to add into the article from your treatise.
I hope that's helpful.
I notice that you have two accounts, Bastias and Johnbastias. This violates Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, and you'll need to get one account blocked in order to prevent sockpuppetry. You can do that voluntarily by contacting an admin (for instance, User:Bbb23 often handles superfluous account blocks), or eventually, someone will report you to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and one of your accounts will be involuntarily blocked, so it's better to take care of that yourself by self-reporting, so you don't get called before an administrator's investigation. Good luck with that! Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bastias or Johnbastias, Softlavender's mention of my name also pinged me, which is how I became aware of this dialog. It's true that it is not a good idea to have more than one account unless there's a legitimate reason for it. However, accounts aren't necessarily blocked for sock puppetry unless their editing is disruptive. Bastias was created on October 11, 2012. Johnbastias was created on March 7, 2013. Both accounts started editing when Johnbastias was created (March 7, 2013). The biggest problems I see are conflicts of interest and the intersection of edits between the two accounts at Fotos Politis. Is Costis Bastias a relation of yours? Is there a reason why you have two accounts? Would you object to my blocking one? If not, which one? In my capacity as an administrator, I expect a response to my comments and questions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: LGBT rights by country or territory[edit]

I would like to clarify that my edit was to qualify who thinks "LGBT rights" are "human rights and civil rights". The original sentence read: "LGBT rights are considered human rights and civil rights." What counts as "human rights," or what that concept even means is disputable. What counts as "LGBT rights" is disputable. In order to avoid a point of view that assumes certain values and beliefs, it is best to attribute that view as held by someone, rather than stating it like it is a scientific fact. The sentence should ideally say who thinks "LGBT rights are considered human rights and civil rights." In the absent of the specifics, I will revert your edit:

Lincean (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Harold Abrahams[edit]

Two credible sources mentioned the conversion. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither is either credible or reliable. See WP:RS. Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The source mentioned are most reliable and objective. Please, prove with reliable sources of your own that Harold Abrahams did not convert to Catholicism, in spite of the numerous sources which mention it as a fact. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read my two edit summaries: "Abrahams never ever converted to Catholicism. Those non-WP:RS sites (WP:MIRRORS) are quoting a false rumor erroneously promulgated on Wikipedia. Check out Harold's exhaustively researched biography book, Running with Fire, by Mark Ryan." Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, your argument is unacceptable. Can you argue something against the sources I mentioned the last time? Perhaps the solution is to mention that there are opinions holding that Abrahams converted, which will leave room for further additions, whenever and if something new will be discovered.--Alexander Tendler (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
My statements are not "arguments", they are Wikipedia policy. Please read the links I posted; they let you know all that you need to know, and why your sources are unacceptable. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no! Facts come before policy. The fact is that Abrahams' conversion is mentioned by several independent and credible sources. Wikipedia policy aims to include credible sources. Except the statement, you do no bring any proof that the sources I mentioned are not credible. You want to apply here a general policy which, in these circumstances, is unjustified and unjustifiable. Again, I suggest the compromise of mentioning both possibilities of conversion and non-conversion, including the sources for both. Fair enough? --Alexander Tendler (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Falsehoods (which your belief is) are not facts. And even facts require WP:VERIFIABILITY with reliable sources before they are admissable on Wikipedia. The fact that you do not understand Wikipedia policies and seem unwilling to even read or learn them is not my problem. Either learn Wikipedia policy, or move on. I'm not interested in discussing further, as you have not complied with my repeated requests to read and learn Wikipedia policy, or in fact read anything reliable about Harold Abrahams. Since this is the case, you seem to be merely pushing an agenda, and an erroneous one. I'm not interested. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your polite answer. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I Surrender All and Oslo Gospel Choir[edit]

I reverted your recent edit on the page for the song "I Surrender All". Oslo Gospel Choir is a charting choir in Norway and Europe and a Dove award recipient. They are considered to be one of the best, if not the best Gospel Choir in Europe. They have sold some 1.6 million albums and have a 25 year relationship with the great American gospel singer Andraé Crouch who the choir has sung and recorded with on many occations during the choirs over 25 years history. On these grounds I therefore think it is correct to add them to the list. Mortyman (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mortyman. The Oslo Gospel Choir article is completely uncited and also gives no mention, much less proof, of any Dove award. I recommend you update that article with citations and with proof and mention of what you just stated. Otherwise, I think the addition to the Notable Recordings of "I Surrender All" stands to be removed. Softlavender (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Citatations added Mortyman (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A strange edit[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? We are mystified. :) Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Daniella! I'm glad that bizarre nightmare is over. If you ever have a truly dishonest editor harassing you, repeatedly, in the future, be sure to report it -- and if you need help in the report, reach out for someone to help you file it. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavia C. Gernatt[edit]

Regarding this edit, when you rearranged the page for chronological order, you deleted two of my comments ([5]). Later you picked up one but you missed the other. It doesn't matter anyway, the discussion is closed, I just thought you might like to know. Ivanvector (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector; that was purely accidental. I realized by the byte count that something seemed to possibly be missing (the hatting hadn't seemed to take that many bytes), but all the !votes seemed to be there, and I didn't have the time or any more willpower to scour it for what might or might not be missing. (I had moved everything by hand, one section at a time, by date.) I figured someone else probably would. Thanks for figuring it out! Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


As a Dutchman I was very critical of what has been written about our history and folklore. With your contribution and the esteemed Meertens Institute as a source, I feel that the Hans Brinker story has been given it's approriate place on Wiki. It is very much an American children's story, not Dutch. By the way, the New York Post wrote this weekend that the Dutch were forced te trade with other nations because "our swamps were unfit to yield crops"... That is why we were dependent on Poetin's wits... Ridiculous! We are one of the foremost agricultural exporters in the world. Our tulips are traded all over the globe, and so are our cows, pigs, sheep, bulls and many of our crops. We are famous for puting our marshes into pastures and fields of wheat and corn. The New York Post should be ashamed of itself... Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha yeah, the Post is a rag. Thanks for adding the Meertens Institute as a source; I'm glad you feel the article is OK now. Thanks for writing, Robert, and happy editing. :) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited (TV serial)[edit]

You reverted a free screenshot as dubious. So I am proposing VHS covers: the PAL 6-VHS box set, the PAL 4-vhs box set, the 1998 PAL 3-VHS box set, the cover of NTSC "Book I" of six VHSs, or this or that. I tried to find 1980s promo ads of the serial, but I found almost none. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi George Ho. There is no need to change the image. It is fair use and complies with Template:Infobox film. If you have any further questions about that, the best place for your discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Talk:Brideshead Revisited (TV serial), rather than here on my Talk page. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Strauss sentence[edit]

Hello. About this revert: if you can find reliable sources to give citations for the sentence I had deleted (neither of the claims of which had any citation, pace your edit summary), I take my hat off to you. But in your hasty action you've actually removed a reference, and a corrected reference, I had made. I would be grateful if you could do the courtesy of reinstating these. Alfietucker (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to our discussion on the Richard Strauss talk page, out of curiosity I had a look to see where that sentence came from and found this and this from back in March 2011. Maybe you can remember why you removed the fact tag back then, and the sources for those sentences. Alfietucker (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I honestly can't recall why I removed the tag 3-1/2 years ago. I had recently been listening to the Exploring Music weeklong series on Strauss, and also had researched the two TIME magazine cover-page profiles on Strauss during his lifetime. Perhaps it therefore seemed obvious to me, from contemporary statements in both of those venues, that during his lifetime he was considered the greatest composer of the first half of the 20th century. Feel free to move or copy this discussion to the Strauss talk page. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
SL, I'm afraid by inferring what seemed "obvious" to you, you've committed a bit of WP:OR. I guess it's something we all unwittingly do from time to time. Given this, I do suggest it's probably best for you to simply delete that sentence and be done with it. And yes, I think I will copy and paste this little aside to the talk page just to make clear what has happened. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not undo my changes[edit]

Regarding the Strauss-operas there was a a discussion going on here [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Arabella_et_al:_which_comes_first]. The consensus is to use the opera-template instead of the composer-template. I am now staring to implement these templates. Please do not hinder my work.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor seems to be jumping the gun on removing all composer templates for Strauss. I support your action and emphasis to him that things still need to be worked through. I've no created a new section for this discussion to take place. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not jumping the gun, see my complaint on Ariadne auf Naxos-talk page from Dec 3rd, 2013. Eight months is more then enough.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


You could probably hat most of that thread.--v/r - TP 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, T, that was my plan after an OK from Amaryllis. S/he hasn't posted, but then again I didn't ping her or let her know I had later decided (after my post) to hat the convo. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[edit]

You received a Wikipedia email about access to about 2.5 weeks ago about access to access through the The Wikipedia Library. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google doc. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit undone on Ice Bucket Challenge[edit]

Is there a particular reason why you undid my edit without discussing the issue? What, exactly, is wrong with the statement you deleted? SchnitteUK (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi SchnitteUK, the reason for the revert is in the edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


I have seen your positive and constructive contributions at Hamdi Ulukaya. A similar WP:OPENPARA (Nationality - ethnicity) and NPOV issue has arisen at Arto Tunçboyacı. A nationalist POV editor has reverted my correct edits without participating at the discussion I opened, and with an edit summary that doesn't even reflect the truth. I would like to see you, I am not asking you to revert or anything like that, -I keep that option for myself but maybe after I receive some feedback to my arguments, which are similar to the other case, at the relevant discussion page. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. This singer's older brother has another nationality (I am not referring only to citizenship) according to his own article. Of course being born from the same parents, under similar conditions, they both have the same nationality: Turkish. (My source was removed, other sources show ethnicity.) The older brother died (PBUH) as a Turkish citizen. The younger may have added a US passport or Green Card to his Turkish passport, becoming a Turkish American.

Hi, Why should I have a User Name?. I'm not sure I have time to devote myself to this, but in this case, if he also has U.S. citizenship, then the lede should read that he is a Turkish-American musician of Armenian descent, per WP:OPENPARA. The words "of Armenian descent" need to be in the lede because his Armenian heritage bears so greatly on his music, per WP:OPENPARA. Of course, all of this needs to have citations, and if someone is removing cited info, they need to be reverted, and if they persist they need to be warned on their user Talk page. The article Talk page should have a brand new discussion about nationality and ethnicity and how the lede should read. This discussion should not be in the Galata thread. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will revert, as you say, and add a note about the discussion title so that no one misses it. Secondly, his name in Armenian characters is in the lead and makes clear the ethnicity, which is also clearly stated in the next paragraph. We could think of adding something about Armenian music but he also makes Turkish music, so that should be at least "a Turkish musician who makes Turkish and Armenian folk". Note: I am not sure lf Tunçboyacı (the authentic surname) has a passport other than the Turkish one or not. I saw a reference to him in another article, Night Ark, where his name was together with Armenian American Ara Dinkjian as "Turkish-Armenian". I must have read that "Turkish American". A simple confusion. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Why should I have a User Name?, as I mentioned, the opening sentence needs to say "is a Turkish musician of Armenian descent", (emphasis mine) for the reasons I gave. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Be my guest. You do it please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your use of rollback to revert my edits[edit]

The use of rollback is limited to cases of unconstructive editing and vandalism. Your use of rollback to revert my edit and delete six reliable sources is misuse of the tool. Please do not use rollback this way again. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Translated article template[edit]

Hello, Softlavender. Well, to be honest, I originally saw the template used on Karl Jäger and decided to copy and paste it. However, a look at Template:iw-ref shows that this template is no longer being used across Wikipedia. So, this was a mistake on my part to copy the template in the first place. Sorry for the confusion. - Hoops gza (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Bejun Mehta page[edit]

Hi Softlavender. I really appreciate your keeping such a close eye on the page on Bejun Mehta. I am wondering, however, why you edited out all of the changes that I made the other day, updating the information, which was at least 18 months out of date. I cited the sources for the material and I made small grammatical edits, all of which you erased. Unfortunately, you did not explain on the page why you refused all of the edits that I had made. If I'm doing something wrong, I'd love to know. Thanks so much-- --Jls9097 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Henry Ian Cusick[edit]

Hi Softlavender. I appreciate your concerns regarding the Henry Ian Cusick page and see there was an issue where you instruct for DHUME to stop adding SPECIAL to SPECIAL COMMENDATION and sourced the Sunday Times announcement. I just edited that to put SPECIAL back sourcing the actual website for Ian Charleson which does say SPECIAL COMMENDATION. I know this was an issue so I just wanted to let you know so there is no further problems. Thank you! --Dani808 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You reverted it again even with 2 resources which included the official website of the person who actually received the award? I have contacted the actor directly who is providing an actual image of the award. I take it that will be sufficient? --Dani808 (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

the family[edit]

perhaps I should remind you of the problems one can produce by concentration on dealing with one particular problematic editor. It tends to produce unconstructive exchanges. I deal with hundreds of similar situations, and perhaps can do so fairly, because I cannot follow up everything. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

San Jose Mercury[edit]

Hi SL, none of the online databases carry the entire San Jose Mercury archives. It's either pre 1922 or post 1985. The library at UC Berkeley [6] mentions it being available on microfilm. I've emailed the Wikipedian in Residence there for help, haven't heard back. I wouldn't get my hopes up though. - NQ (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi NQ, yes, as I mentioned in my request, the more current archives only go back to 1985. The microfilm is also available in one of the basements of one of the buildings of the San Jose library (I forget which building and basement; I checked a good while ago, and tried to figure out who the reference librarian in charge of it was; I think I even emailed them for help but I think I got back a bureaucratic response). I left a message on Talk:San Jose, California, but I just left a link to the RX discussion rather than the full details, which I perhaps should add. I may have to eventually pay someone to get me this. Anyway, thanks so much for correcting the page number -- that's going to be invaluable whichever way I end up finding it. Thanks again, Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - ScotlandsPeople - 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. Philg88 talk 10:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ice Bucket Challenge[edit]

Your sweet nick has very little to do with your revert, which you have done without a word of explanation. Indeed, my edition was wrong, but I am here for pleasure of creating something useful to other people. Let me feel it - I am a human being like you. Your revert was necessary, but you could write at least something like "wrong word". (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

When a random anonymous IP makes an inappropriate edit – which happens hundreds of thousands of times a day on Wikipedia – it's easiest and fastest and most efficient to just roll the edit back with one click, without the need of an explanation. I do not use gadgets (which provide automated explanations); some editors do. If you are truly "here for [the] pleasure of creating something useful to other people"; then by all means I overwhelmingly suggest creating an account, which will provide you with all kinds of guidance, support, and mentorship, and an identity which will more than likely garner edit summaries if and when future edits you make are reverted. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Softlavender, My students have told me that you almost single-handedly saved my Wikipedia page from deletion. While I don't make a big thing about my past, it's nice to still think of what I did when I was younger as being pretty significant, so thank you for restoring my page. All the best, Paul Terry P.S. My birthday is wrong but you'll never find a source for my correct birthday as IMDB have it wrong so it will never change (a nice little quirk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Just because I admire your continuing excellent contribution. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much, Gareth! That was certainly unexpected. (But now that I peruse a bit, I take it you saw my addition to the Watford article!) LTNS! I hope you have a great holiday season, and if I don't cross paths with you before then, a propitious New Year! Face-smile.svg Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Your sleuthing is admirable. For my part I had to look up your internet abbreviation—I found this:
Some guy: Hey, I'm back from the crash!
Some other guy: Wow, ltns!
Some guy: LTNS?
Some other guy: It means long time no see.
All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The epicenter of homework[edit]

Here is the listing of the unsupervised generic homework assignments, some of which you have commented on recently: Education Program:Louisiana State University/CHEM 4150 Environmental Chemistry (Fall 2014). I contacted the instructor of the course - User talk:B.J.Carmichael but she told me that she was a coordinator and implied somehow that she is not responsible for this awfulness. Oh well. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Smokefoot, I am in agreement with you. I'm already aware of that group of homework articles, and actually linked it in one or two of my AfD comments. One of the assignments has already passed through AfD and been deleted (see the Talk page). I think others of them (some still at the sandbox phase) may be destined for that as well. I see the appeal to teachers in assigning students Wiki projects, but it severely compromises and in many cases outright damages Wikipedia. Essays and term papers are by definition WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, even beyond the amateurism and extreme fallibility of the possibly well-meaning students who write them. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I wish that you could somehow communicate your views/insights to Wikipedia-Central, because many editors see homework as a mechanism to recruit new editors and I have recently been semi-chastised for suggesting that most homework assignments are junky. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#New articles from a class project At least in the Chemistry project, the growth in these homework assignments coincides with the increased sophistication of the articles. So the gap between the students abilities and the quality existing content is widening. Also because the students's contributions must be a grade-able chunk, they write essays that are inserted into otherwise decent articles or the instructor invents contrived article topics such as what we are dealing with. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Noted, and when I have time to look into it and put my thoughts together, I will try to comment. I hear ya. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Smokefoot, I'm genuinely tired of Wikipedia being used as a homework venue. I have never been in favor of this (although I can see the appeal for teachers); it creates endless problems for actual editors, for Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability, and for Wikipedia's reputation. Wikipedia is not a learning tool -- it is a reference (teaching tool). This should all be obvious. Where do I express my views so that this can hopefully be stopped? Do you know? Perhaps DGG knows. (At one point he mentioned Wikipedia:Education noticeboard and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents; but I'm not sure those are the appropriate venues for a request that homework be kept off of Wikipedia.) Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
What follows is my own personal thoughts on the matter, and the most realistic advice I can give on what is likely to succeed. I may have my own views about what might be desirable if I ran WP. I may similarly have views about what might be desirable if I ran the Real World.
It depends on what you want to say. If you want to say that these particular assignments are not being done well, the Education noticeboard/incidents is the place to go. (I think there is already full realization about the unsatisfactory nature of some of the Fall14 courses, and that we will see better in the future. If you want to say that some type of assignments should be avoided, then the appropriate place is the education noticeboard. If you want to say that all education program courses should be stopped, you should first consider how you would keep course work off Wikipedia, since anyone can organize a class to write articles without the help of any formal program, and the absolute most that could be accomplished would be to remove the program for providing them assistance. (We have sometimes seen that trying to come down hard on a particular course has resulted in the instructor doing in the next term without telling us anything about it, and that work done is such a way has been particularly hard to identify and remove.) But if considering the alternatives you still think that would be desirable, then probably the Village Pump is the place to go to suggest the removal of all its related pages from enWP. I'm not sure you realize that some actions, such as actually ending the Education Program, are not within our power. See Wikipedia:Education program and its "about" page"; within the US/Canada the program is run by an independent organization not technically under the control of the Wikipedia foundation, let alone the English WP, and the formal affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation is still in the proposal stage--see Wikipedia:Affcom.
Incidentally, I would suggest not calling its assignment "homework", which is likely to alienate everyone who has ever participated, including myself -- tho I generally no longer do. We are talking about educational assignment in Graduate and Undergraduate university courses, and almost none of them consist of the sort of rote work usually referred to as school homework. I think it's been suggested that some of the course work is of that nature, but please be aware that for some of the courses, substantial work has been created as the equivalent of term papers (& that some of these have been excellent) , and in some others, small assignments, such as adding a reference, have been used for familiarization purposes (and many feel that this is a more feasible approach for most courses than term paper length assignments).
Personally, I think we at Wikipedia are doing what is necessary and appropriate to do about these course assignments, which is to remove the incompetent edits and the bad articles through our normal processes, and try to make contact with the individual submitting them--just as we do for everything here. I and many others do not think that we have been active enough about this in the past, but for a large number of independent reasons I do not intend to take part in any general campaign. Rather than a general campaign, I see it as the same as raising the standards at WP in general, one persona at a time, one article at a time. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
All right, DGG, thanks for at least opining and giving your best thoughts. It doesn't sound like anything can be done to stop the influx. Here's my two cents: I attended a Top 5 university, and wrote various assignments and term papers in factual non-creative subjects, at least one or two of which I am immensely proud of and retained to this day (or at least until my last move, wherein the movers lost them). But I have no illusions that either of those excellent term papers, or any created today, are Wikipedia material, because term papers by definition require original conclusions and original thought, not mere encyclopedic gathering of facts. This is even above and beyond the problem that undergraduates (and even graduates) are by definition not seasoned experts in any genre or in research and accurate presentation, but rather are learners. And I imagine I need not go into the woeful state of education (in this country at least). All of these add up to the fact that these assignments -- and yes university assignments are homework, not voluntary -- are not Wikipedia quality or Wikipedia material. Unless the assignment is to create an encyclopedia-quality article on a single subject that has already been requested by seasoned Wikipedia editors as needing an article. Even then, the novice attempt would be suspect in my eyes, but at least it would be something that Wikipedia needs. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I have long used Wikipedia for homework. I think for about seven years. But I am an active editor and restrict what students can add and clean up what does get through my filter. There have been no complaints. The students are senior-junior chem majors and the length of their contributions is short. That having been said, the latest incident from LSU was really pretty disappointing - not instructor involvement and the "coordinator/ambassador" was only briefly involved. I tried to delete some of the most egregious material but those actions were reverted by User talk:Pigsonthewing. PigsontheWing, seemed to be concerned that we (actually me) were discouraging or even insulting the students. Although User:Pigsonthewing has limited experience with these homeworky projects, his actions were understandable, if naive IMHO. His pleas for a second chance from the students-instructor-ambassador/coordinator went unanswered by any of these authors or supervisors. As I explained here, the students had dropped their "essay bomb" and had moved on. I would support removal of all content from the LSU course, so if you want to proceed with that action, let me know. About general policy on homework, I would also support a message to relevant parties that our standards are high, long essays are non-ideal, and faculty involvement is expected.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Just a technicality[edit]

You said on the talk page of Pa'u riders recently: "Just as a technicality, and I don't have time to find scholarly written proof (although it exists), pa'u as it is pronounced by all of the historians, documentarians, and newscasters in the 5 videos I posted in the discussion above, definitely pronounce pa'u without kahakōs".

I found it...and oddly enough it is the exact example you gave in the discussion so....uhm bingo? ;-) [7]. This explanation of the Hawaiian language (just learning it myself) discusses the use of the okina and how it makes the word sound by using "Paʻu rider" as an example. The kahako is explained directly below using Waikiki but...and this exactly what you were stating, it says, point blank: "The macron however, is used less frequently than the okina, in part because it isn't often needed to distinguish between words. This book, like most English publications from Hawaii excludes macrons".

These means we might need to re-discuss their use on Wikipedia at the MOS Hawaii again. I am going to look further for more sources on this but a big thank you for pointing this out. It seems the article (like the phrase itself) is something of a hinge point to how we understand writing and pronouncing Hawaiian words and phrases on Wikipedia........and no the irony is not lost on me that we do not write Wīkīpedia and pronounce it Weekeepedia. As for this being a 'quick" encyclopedia....have you notice how things can drag on for some time ;-) (I kid..sort of. Mele Kalikimaka) --Mark Miller (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thank you for the note; however I think you missed my point, at least on this particular word. It's clear that this word with this particular meaning does not have kahakos, written or not, because of the pronunciation of the experts. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that is the point, but in discussion you also said that few people use the macrons. The source is showing no kahakos for the word and has the basic reasoning that the letters have a specific pronunciation.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I said that in another discussion, concerning their popular (not scholarly) disuse; that discussion was before I had gone back to listen to the scholarly videos. We are discussing here, and I was discussing in the thread you are referring to, whether there ever legitimately ever were or are any kahakōs in the word pa'u which means skirt. There are other iterations and pronunciations of those letters which mean various things in Hawaiian (and I'm not just referring to pau without the okina), which makes the subject and the sources and even the dictionaries very confusing and inaccurate. What we best have to go on is the pronunciation of the historians, scholars, and experts, and they are all distinctly pronouncing pa'u without any kahakōs. It's very clear to me, perhaps less clear to those outside of Hawaii. Anyway, hope that helps; unfortunately I don't have time to dig further for the article, or edit the article, at present. Thanks very much for your help in the article thus far! Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's wish for a great 2015[edit]

Happy Christmas and New Year.jpg

Thanks very much, Gareth, and a very happy Calennig to you! I have no idea how to say Happy New Year in Hawaiian (I don't think it's done), so I won't attempt that. Face-smile.svg But I learned a new thing from your message -- although I already knew about Hogmanay, I didn't know about Calennig, so Cheers, too. I guess it's nearly 2015 there, but it's only 11:30 am here. It does not yet sound like the Battle of Trafalgar. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


I am surprised to learn that "epiwafer" was a popular term right around 2000-2002, the exact time that my company started to use epi wafers. I should pay more attention to ads, I guess. Anyway, it quickly settled back to more normal terminology, like "epitaxial wafer", looks like. I guess another move is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, I think it best to look at all those Google searches on the Talk page, and see which spelling/nomenclature -- adding the web + book, singular + plural spellings (that's four searches for each spelling) -- has the most hits, for the title of the article. If you want, I can do that and add them up. Of course, the company name will skew "epiwafer" so we can exclude that if you like. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We don't use plurals, and book searches are generally more authoritative than web searches, but feel free to provide more data. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Plurals are for the Google searches, because obviously many of the mentions (even in books) are only in plural, not singular, so an exact-phrase Google search (i.e., in quotation marks) will omit those mentions unless a plural form is searched. I'm fine with the fully spelled-out version as long as all of the other spellings redirect to it; therefore should probably also create a redirect for Epi-wafer, since that hyphenated form is sometimes used as well. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good point(s). Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Parent categories[edit]

The "American Farmers" category needs to be non-diffusing. There is a "women farmers" category but no "male farmers" category - all the women were removed from the main one, but none of the men. That was an issue settled with the women writers' category flap from a few months back. I tagged the categories for non-diffusion. Montanabw(talk) 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, didn't know that. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Thank you, soft professional editor with a user page full of help, for quality articles on music and theatre, such as The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Jack Lowden and the list of compositions by Bill McGlaughlin, for redirects and a firm focus on improving, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much, Gerda, that is so kind and beautiful. You are a lovely angel on this encyclopedia. All very best wishes, and heartfelt thanks, Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You make me blush, - don't you know that I am the notorious infoboxes criminal, and leading member of a cabal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Pamje nga Desivojca.jpg
Thank you for expanding my edit notice ("Every editor is a human being." - not be me) by this sermon wisdom not only for Sundays! May I use it on arbitration enforcement? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Haha how charming Gerda, yes of course; use however you like, it's under CC license :-) Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Carl Potts photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I checked the photo just now, and I believe it to be a copyvio. It appears to be a professional photo taken by a professional photographer for professional purposes, but the uploader, who calls himself "CarlPotts1", indicates he took it himself, which seems unlikely. Softlavender (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think Potts hired the photographer himself, and therefore owns the copyright? Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If that were case, the file should not read "Own work", and the photographer's name should be listed as the Author, and a scanned copy of the copyright-release agreement or the work-for-hire agreement should have been sent to OTRS. Otherwise, the photographer should have uploaded the photo themselves and released it with an acceptible CC license or public domain license. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
He says his daughter took it. She obviously took it for him, so presumably, he owns the copyright. Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's still incorrectly filed then. There needs to be proof of who took it, and that needs to be indicated on the file, and there needs to be proof of who owns and releases the copyright. If a work is uploaded under "Own work", then whoever uploaded it clicked "I created this", which is clearly not the case. I'm personally not convinced his daughter took it, unless his daughter is a professional photographer (i.e., has a professional website of her photography business, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys and Dolls[edit]

Certainly a real US national tour would be important to be added to the article, but I did a google search, and found this and this, ah! and this is the full itinerary of the tour. -- This is only a Non-Equity tour; the leading players are not notable, and the director is not notable. Even though it is a 6-month tour, I would not say that it is essential to add it. But if you do, I would not name the designers, unless they are blue-linked people. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


Can you please revisit the merge of infobox hymn, found on any hymn, such as I Surrender All? I changed the docu of {{infobox musical composition}}, adding a special section dedicated to hymns, meant to avoid "wading though parameters", - please check if it makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I don't feel calm about this yet and I don't think I can be neutral. I may get back to it at another time. :) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you are not calm. Are you ready to answer questions? Just say no if not.
  • If I read "music by", I don't know what part of music. I know hymns where the melody is composed by one person, settings by many others, how would that show? I find "music by" ambiguous. (Example: our featured article Messiah proclaimed (until I changed it) that Wachet auf is by Bach. I would say the melody is by Nicolai, famous settings - Bach, Reger etc, - might appear in comments, if needed.)
Obviously it refers to the original composer, as with any song -- never later settings or adaptations. Also, there is no need to add the unattractive and out-of-place explanatory word "by" in the hymn infobox, for either the Music or the Words. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, some thought it was Bach for Wachet auf ;) - I didn't use "by" until a GA reviewer told me that I can't equal a chorale to a person. I also don't see much difference between that "by" in the parameter or in the value.
  • The image could be down in the article, no problem, but can we ask readers where they would like a relevant image? My personal answer would be "first glance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I personally see no reason to have an image in the infobox unless the rest of the article is cluttered with images. Normally articles on something as inanimate and old as a hymn need the image in the body text to relieve the large walls of text. Unlike a person, album, film, book, TV show, or business, a hymn is not an item that comes with a specific face, image, logo, or album/book/video cover or poster. Plus an infobox shrinks an image, whereas an image in the body text can be large and the text visible. Images in infoboxes are mainly specifically to ensure the reader that they have come to the right article. A hymn article has no real need for that, plus images that are used don't necessarily help the reader identify that they have come to the correct article, and do not definitively identify the hymn, since a hymn is an inanimate religious musical work, not a commercial sales product. If the only reason this template was put into discussion was to achieve an image option, an image parameter could possibly be added as an option to the existing hymn infobox template. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Many questions, - my personal view:
  • I like to see a face, of a hymn writer or poet, or a manuscript, or a print, - something that gives me a feeling for the period right away.
That is to the detriment of the images in the body text, which is what these articles need, as I mentioned above. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The size of the image is variable.
Only if the infobox is greatly enlarged, which is not generally advisable. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "to the right article", - I disagree, this is only true for readers who searched for something specific, - I want to address those readers also who come by chance, by a click on something they don't know yet.
Very seldom do any readers come to any article by chance. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, the missing image option was not the only reason, - it was the first lacking parameter of several. The main reason for a merge is to avoid redundancy. Imagine we wanted a new parameter, such as translator, we would have to insert it in two templates instead of one. We used to have an infobox for Bruckner's symphonies. Imagine the multitude of templates if we had composers multiplied by genres.
There is no redundancy. A hymn is a hymn. A musical composition is a musical composition and rarely ever even is vocal or has words. The two are so divergent I can't possibly imagine why anyone would conflate them. That's why all these problems are occurring now in this bastardized new template -- Words and Music, which were perfectly clear in the hymn template, are not even in the new template, and therefore the awkward word "by" has to be added to even make the template work for hymns. If there is any template or article type a hymn actually has something in common with it would be "song". But none of this was or has been discussed on any of the WikiProjects that handle these subjects -- WikiProject Christian Music, etc. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I hear a distinction between religious and commercial, but don't believe it plays a role in the presentation of facts about times and location. There is no way to capture the spirit of a hymn in box or even article, you have to sing it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless someone reads music, and even then unless you blow up the size of the infobox to very large and overwhelming proportions all out of scale with its textual contents and with the article itself, it's impossible to be able to "sing" from an image in an infobox. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think of infobox song because I don't know it, I used what I know and found suitable. I probably would not have started a merge discussion, but kept simply equipping my articles as I saw fit. - Your idea that I suggested to sing from the infobox image makes me smile. No, I only tried to counter the (often heard) argument that the infobox doesn't summarize a person. I meant that all we do here, box and article, are unable to capture spirituality. We can still hint at it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name and GTCs[edit]

I would just like to let you know that I've been a delegate for Featured Topics for well over three years. I know what I'm doing when I say that the tour page used to be part of a Good Topic. If you still disagree with me on that, please let me know. GamerPro64 22:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi GamerPro64, I guess I never knew there was such a thing as a GT or FT (as opposed to FA or GA). Now that I read further, I understand. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

They're back[edit]

Another group of homework writers are about to do their thing. Being graded on length vs quality. See Education Program:Boston College/Environmental Disruptors of Development (Spring 2015)--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Facepalm3.svg Facepalm. I don't know what to say, but anything you would like to request of me I will consider. I imagine most of them will be AfD fodder, and cause untold amounts of extra work on the part of wiki editors who could more productively be doing other things besides babysitting bad homework assignments that have no place being on Wikipedia. You can keep me posted -- I don't know how to Watch this. Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan[edit]

You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Ugh, the bot archived it already. I was going to comment again (linking all of his many now-deleted articles and templates) so that wouldn't happen before some admin had time to take action, but I didn't realize the cut-off time for the bot is two days of inactivity (which seems too short for ANI). Well, four experienced users, including one major admin (Malik Shabazz) were unanimously in favor of a topic ban, but since there wasn't an actual poll with bolded !votes maybe it went unnoticed. I don't know what to do or say, but I guess if he starts up again, let me know if there's trouble and we can try again. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Softlavender, two things, if I may. If material on someone's talk page is unacceptable, per our guidelines, policies, and/or user consensus, then an admin can remove it (actually, anyone can). That such takes place without the user's permission, that is probably a given. BTW, EEng is an adult and can handle it, I'm sure.

As for the ANI discussion: ANI is a place to bring things to attention. There is no set clock. As an admin, I agree with the preponderance of opinions there that the material was disruptive--that a discussion has been open for three minutes, three hours, or three days really isn't material. Informed opinions are welcome, of course, esp. from involved, knowledgeable, experienced, etc. editors--but when a decision is reached there is little point in continuing to discuss it. Remember that ANI is for incidents that need attention--not so much for long discussions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your requesting aborting my move of Nike, Inc.[edit]

What you stated in your request is in error in two ways. You stated: "Reverting a move made without discussion. "Nike, Inc." complies more closely with WP:NCCORP (using the legal status is the first preference listed to disambiguate) and is actually used as an example in paragraph three." First, there needed to be no discussion prior to moving. Period. Second, the WP:NCCOMP guideline states at the beginning "The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title," which indicates that the preferred state is to avoid using things like "Inc." in the title. It goes on to say that, yes, it is allowed, and I am not going to bother with pursuing this further; however, I will put a note on the talk page indicating that the preference based on a move and revert is to leave the article title as Nike, Inc. I did look for any prior actions or discussions related to the title of this article before I contemplated changing it; in other words, I did check to see a controversy had arisen in the past, and seeing none, took action. The example of Nike, Inc. in WP:NCCOMP does not endorse or lock in the article at that title; it is simply an example. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ceyockey, if you read WP:NCCORP, you will see that the reason legal status is not normally included in an article title is because it is usually not needed. However, when disambiguation is needed, the legal status is the first form of disambiguation listed. In fact Nike, Inc. is used as an example in paragraph three, which discusses the use or not of a comma in an article title which includes legal status. Furthermore, adding a parenthetical to an article title causes editors to have to use a piped link every time the company is mentioned and hyperlinked, whereas using the legal status is immediately comprehensible as the specific company, unpiped, and differentiated from both all other uses of "Nike" and also from Nike's various sub-brands, labels, subsidiaries, projects, etc. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are reading too much into the order of items. Legal status, "(company)" and "other suffix" are only prioritized by order in the text; as far as I am concerned, they are on equal footing ... which is why I did not escalate the issue over the current article. As I stated above, just because the article in question is used as an example means nothing ... it was a convenience and not meant to establish a precedent (or so I infer based on how text like this is usually composed). We agree to disagree. I am not on a spree. I do feel that removal of the 'legal status' element is preferable as a company's life cycle is not defined by its legal status. As noted above, I've put a hopefully neutral passage on the Nike, Inc. talk page ... which is something I would do if I found prior conflict related to other companies. I am not a big fan of precedence-first, but the building of Wikipedia is all about compromise, not rules enforcement. Be well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I've found the template {{response}} to be useful recently. See if you find it useful as well.

Hugh Jackman[edit]

Hi Softlavender, My username often gives the impression of a nationalists, unfortunately for me, I chose this name years ago. Anyway, did you actually look at the source I provided? see here I don't want to get into edit wars. Jackman's "Turkish roots" has been big news since yesterday when he had an interview with Hürriyet Daily News (type Hugh Jackman Turk/Osmanli into a search engine for yourself). Greece truly was a part of the Ottoman Empire and most the Turks in Greece did emigrate during the First World War (and before).Turco85 (Talk) 11:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Inner Relationship Focusing[edit]

Regarding your latest revision to Inner Relationship Focusing, it's correct that Focusing should not be linked in See also per WP:MOS. However, it's not correct that there is, as you said, "no obvious specific connection to Emotionally focused therapy"; emotionally focused therapy incorporates Focusing in its core set of techniques, and one of the major books on emotionally focused therapy recommends Ann Weiser Cornell's work (if I remember correctly, the recommendation is in Elliott, Watson, Goldman & Greenberg's 2004 book Learning Emotion-Focused Therapy and/or Greenberg's 2011 book Emotion-Focused Therapy, both published by the American Psychological Association). Both are forms of experiential psychotherapy, and Cornell's work has influenced emotionally focused therapy, if not vice versa. Biogeographist (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for the "education" on possessives on the JC Superstar page! As I am NOT a professional, it was good to learn something new. Is there a resource you could recommend on these kind of issues? Thanks again! THX1136 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, THX1136, thank you so much for the barnstar! In terms of resources, I actually can't think of any specific all-encompassing one offhand, in the digital age. Plus, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style, which is more international than a style guide like the Chicago Manual of Style (which even though U.S.-centric you might also want to check out). In general, I'd say that when in doubt, it's best never to alter the prevailing style of any Wikipedia article (unless it's an obvious horrific uncurated mess), without posing a question about it on its Talk page and hopefully getting consensus. It's also best to get to know the WP:MOS for Wikipedia style guidelines (however even then some decent articles don't follow WP:MOS precisely, for whatever reason, so even if you are conforming something to MOS, if it is counter to the prevailing style on a decent wiki article, it's best to discuss first on its Talk page). Hope that helps. :-) Happy editing! -- Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Colored sheep.jpg The Sheep Star
Sheep for YouSheep in gray.svg Hafspajen (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hafspajen: OMG, speechless! And what are those, those things?? LOL. Thanks so much! Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Crab-coloured chopped sheep? Hafspajen (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Sorry if I caused you any edit conflicts. I'm done there now. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  13:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, I'm scratching my head over this a bit, because I don't recall anything close to any edit conflicts on any space we have mutually edited recently, not even the hymn, so thanks but not necessary ... (I just want to make sure you posted that message to the correct editor in case you were thinking of someone else. ....  :) ) Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll check, ... hang on. — Ched :  ?  00:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
OK ... the talk page, .. 13:07ish .. about 3 or 4 overlapping edits - I didn't realize until I was done that you were editing at the same time. Glad I didn't mess ya up then. Carry on. :-) — Ched :  ?  01:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, kind sir <doffs hat>. When ever I write a long post in a busy space, I copy to clipboard before hitting "Save", and even if I don't it's easy enough to scroll down on the edit-conflict page and copy my post again. Honestly, I think you are taking WP:CIVIL to insurmountable heights. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

hymn and settings[edit]

A good idea, to compare to other articles, if only to achieve a certain similarity for the readers! - However: "Amazing Grace" is a great article, but that English hymn compares in almost no way to an early Reformation hymn and its use. "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is a mighty misunderstanding, dealing rather little with the German text. (We had a similar discussion on Der fliegende Holländer and FA Richard Wagner: you can't say Wagner wrote The Flying Dutchman, nor that Luther wrote "A mighty fortress".) - Perhaps I misunderstand "arrangement", - I understand that it means something like Busoni's arrangements of Bach organ works for piano. What Bach did, creating Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott from the hymn, is something much more substantial and creative. How can that be described? Please look at his chorale cantatas and compare cantata to hymn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, even though the discussion is getting long and even a bit unwieldy, I think it's best to have all of these discussions on that Talk page, because that keeps them all organized rather than scattered, plus it keeps the record intact, and also other people can view and opine. Hope that makes sense .... Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I see but thought this was for your personal understanding, not the others'. I don't like to get personal on an article talk, and I don't like to say there (in some public) that I think a certain other article is not a good example. Some day I will write "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott", as I wrote Mass in B minor structure ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, I just used those two hymns as random examples (any good hymn articles none of the participants has written would be useful to check out) -- they are probably the most well-known hymns in the world, and I didn't want to spend time thinking of other titles and checking articles; I assume there are many more suitable articles to look at as well. I do think it's best for everyone to refer to articles none of the participants have substantially contributed to, to maintain objectivity. I hope you did not think the wording of the post was directed at you (it wasn't!); if anything, I was trying to neutralize the tension which seems to sometimes crop up there, and get the focus onto a larger field. I hope that makes sense. :-) Last night I took the two articles I had been endlessly discussing (one of which was that one) off my watch list, just to clear my mind and re-focus. I may check back in. Cheers and best wishes! Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


What you did on the plate lunch wiki page was wrongfully edit those things which I scoped through, detailing the wiki page what was in the article while putting stuff that wasn't a direct quote into a good set of words. Quintessential is not commonly known and I changed it to a better word flow for that reason. I had to look up its definition and so did likely others. Meat and threes are not an every day word and you must put restaurants or food establishments as I did after it or people won't know wtf a meat and three is. I will be repairing it Again and I don't think you looked it through well. ---Ferretsrock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferretsrock (talkcontribs) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ferretstock -- discussions of this sort belong on the article's Talk page, not on a user talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we are being trolled. "Quintessential" has been a common SAT word for many decades and is still in usage.[8] I have a very difficult time believing that this person is an honors student. Also, the term "meat-and-threes" is regional, and is rarely used outside a certain part of the country. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello there again, Softlavender (and Viriditas, as I can see here). Just wanted to say that I obviously stopped editing the plate lunch page as I felt if you really wanted to keep it that way that badly, I didn't want to argue anymore as well as possibly get blocked for "edit-warring". But I can assure you I was not trolling, and to be honest that was offensive as well to be said that I am (was, since I am no longer in school) an honors student. I feel that just because I was trying to use a word that I believe is more understandable for the average every-day person and saying that I am/was an honors student without knowledge of the word "quintessential" does not mean that I am lying, and I feel that accusing me of lying and being a troll is very offensive. I did not take the SATs due to having to leave school to become homeschooled and did not require to take the SATs in my position. I left school without planning due to becoming very, very sick with a progressive, life-threatening illness that I have obviously still to this day being 20 years old and graduating H.S. in 2012 (a year early due to being homeschooled, graduated with honors and such). The point that I brought this up was that just because someone doesn't know a word and suggests choosing a more understandable word (you don't have to be dumb to not know what quintessential meant; in fact, a survey I took out of 100 random every-day people showed that only 24% knew what quintessential meant) doesn't mean they are lying about being in honors classes. I apologize for taking so much time trying to change it and obviously I won't do it anymore as I lost interest and it doesn't really matter much anymore to me, but I did just want to clarify that I did not troll nor did I lie about honors classes. I still have a higher IQ than the majority of those that I know who took IQ tests, I aced every spelling test 100% that I took throughout school, I graduated with honors and even got 1st place for a difficult multi-county regional competition in a website development competition with FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) when I was sick but still in my private school), with a website I created all solely while extremely sick in the hospital. I just wanted to say that we are of all kinds here and it's not nice to make judgments on someone based on what you read about them online. Thanks a bunch, have a nice day. Ferretsrock (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Following you from here to here, I am WP:Pinging Viriditas so that he sees your above reply (that is, if this talk page is not on his WP:Watchlist). Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

-That was really awesome of you to do that Flyer22! <3 Thanks a bunch. Viriditas did see my reply thanks to you pinging him. Now I'm WP:Pinging Flyer22 (you) so that you see this reply <3 Xoxoxo Ferretsrock (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, ‎Ferretsrock. Keep in mind that WP:Pinging doesn't always work, though (and that it only works with a new signature); you can see its talk page for problems it has had. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
And, yes, I was aware that Viriditas got the message and responded on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Oooh, thanks for the info again. =) Still fairly new to the intricacies that come along with being a Wikipedian (like pinging and such) and appreciate the tips people like you can give. =) You've been super gracious and helpful, Flyer22. =) xo <3 Ferretsrock (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Ferretsrock, that ping you just attempted above did not work (notice the redlink) because you linked to Flyer's talk page rather than to his username. Correcting it manually will not make it work either: You would need to create a brand new post with a correct ping and manually sign again with four tildes. The manually typed four tildes is what activates the ping. One more tip: typing {{u|Flyer22}} creates a ping, and is a bit shorter to type if you don't want to copy-paste. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Glengarry Glen Ross RfC[edit]

Hello Softlavender,

How are you? I happened to notice your recent comment on the RfC of Glengarry Glen Ross (film), and wondered if I might solicit further input.

You state that the RfC was not a "proper" RfC. I was wondering which steps in particular you believe were not correctly followed. I am a relatively inexperienced editor, and this was my very first RfC, so this is a learning experience for me.

As you will see on the talk page history, this RfC was reviewed by administrator RegentsPark on March 11, who commented that the RfC appeared to be well formed. That administrator review was apparently precipitated by the fact that a user had prematurely closed the RfC while edit warring, claiming that it was poorly formed. That user was subsequently blocked by a second administrator for -- among other reasons -- misrepresenting WP policy on RfC's. The second administrator also commented ([9]) that the RfC was valid.

Nevertheless, I would like to learn more. (Note that the RfC template was automatically removed by the BOT after 30 days. Is this what you were referring to?)

I also notice that your post appears to include an oblique accusation of canvassing. While publicizing this RfC, I took extensive measures to avoid any appearance of CANVASSING. As a first precaution, I sent a neutrally-worded standard notice to almost every user on the Media & Arts Feedback Request Service, to avoid any possible accusation that my "random" selection was not actually random. Second, I sent the same standard notice to any user who had participated in the conversation prior to the opening of the RfC. Finally, I did not send any other notice to any user who wasn't on the Feedback Request Service List, to avoid any conceivable accusation that I was either spamming or vote-stacking.

As an inexperienced editor, I would not know whom to canvass anyway. Nevertheless, since you have made a public accusation, I take this seriously. Please respond at your very earliest convenience, so that I can better understand your reasons.

Best, -Xanthis (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xanthis, yes, the lack of a template was the worrying thing, and indicated to me that this was just a makeshift non-public RfC. I somehow arrived on the page immediately after the bot had removed the template. I had come to the page because I saw your notice about the RfC on someone's Talk page, so I did not realize it was 31 days old. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I see! I am glad we could clear that up. Do you have any remaining concerns that I was canvassing?
I feel that accusations of canvassing are particularly serious, because they ascribe a dishonest intention on the part of another user to game the system, rather than engage in the editing process in good faith.
If you have no remaining concerns, I wonder if you will consider removing your comment. According to WP:CIVIL, ill-considered accusations of impropriety should be removed on request of the affected user. -Xanthis (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Softlavender. Take care!
Best, -Xanthis (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing title of bundled footnote[edit]

Hi Softlavender, I was puzzled by one of your edits described here.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

. . . and further perplexed by a reversion here without previously participating in the talk page discussion of the topic. Your views would be appreciated, here.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

Easter game toys.JPG Happy Easter
Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
How very adorable, Hafs. Thanks so much! Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Google doodle[edit]

I once did what you did, remove the google doodle as trivia ;) - That was on Kafka's 130th birthday, and it made the article the so far most successful TFA ever, - look for Kafka on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done, Gerda! That looks like an awesome article! (Maria Callas, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. But it's such an immense topic, I can't even fathom attempting to give it such an overhaul. I guess at best I'm just trying to hold back the tide of nonsense. ;-) ) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail x2. - NQ (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NQ. Very curious. :-) Thanks for letting me know there were two -- the second went into my spam folder for some reason, even though the first didn't. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi - it's nice to meet you. We seem to have much in common, and I'm always glad to meet someone of similar demographic here. I saw your comment at Village Pump about Hillary Rodham Clinton and responded there, but wanted to reiterate here. Most major publications continue to use Hillary's full name on their first mention: the one she uses, the one on her book covers, the one in her signature, the one she prefers. See The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many many others. Tvoz/talk 05:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; it's as simple as that. Please don't post here further on the subject; this is not the appropriate venue. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on having a protracted debate with you here or anywhere - just wanted to make contact directly, rather than leaving it in the sea of comments that any discussion of that article's title engenders. No need to overreact, or to lecture. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

about this, it would be wise to soften the claim you make there, as the SPI case is still open. also Peterkingiron has been editing here for a long time - i don't think that user is part of the mess. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Missed Peterkingiron, thanks, I will exempt him. Not going to change the rest; I'm far more familiar with this farm than you are. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift[edit]

Just so you know: In response to your edit summary from the reversion of content back into the article, it's not that I "don't like it", it's that I thought there should be a little more time given before to wait for other article contributors to weigh in. The article is pretty well trafficked by other editors, and I just wanted to see what others thought. I'm not completely convinced the content should stay out, so from my end, it's not about seeing my preferred version stand, rather, it's about hearing from everyone/anyone who would want to comment. -- WV 15:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC) check-in[edit]

Hello Softlavender,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, 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. Also, keep in mind that part of is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to For more information about how to use clippings, see .
  • Do you 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 me 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 it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text in Alexei Navalny[edit]

Hi, Softlavender. Would you mind explaining me why it was deleted? I checked the policy, and while it does not say this is good content to have in such notes, it doesn't say the opposite, either. I do not happen to realize why this is not okay, but I am open-minded on this, so would you explain that to me? Thanks--R8R (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi R8R, hidden comments are not the place for notes to yourself. Please do not place notes to yourself inside the article. Place notes to yourself on your own user page, your own Talk page, or on your own user subpages. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see that written in WP:HIDDEN, but, after having given it some thought, I can understand why someone would want notes like "I stopped here" not to appear within the article. However, I believe that if some text is missing from the article, one should be allowed to state that. Such a note would not be just a note to self: I believe it would be an improvement for the article regardless who added the content. The rules do not prohibit that. Am I right in assuming such notes are okay?--R8R (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No. If you want to address something that you feel may be missing from an article or that you feel needs to be added to an article, start a thread on the issue on the Talk page of the article. That is the correct place to discuss such matters and to alert other editors, who may be able to address your concerns. Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll try to get used to that.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I added a section on the talk page for Ibsen's play Ghosts (play) that mentions you. StBlark (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the heads-up; that's a good solution. I've copyedited to remove the unnecessary scientific WP:OR, and to quote all of Eyre's explanation, which seems relevant and important. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


RfA is a gauntlet. It's unpleasant, stressful, and it's not something most people want to put themselves through. RfA candidates are already subjected to a large volume of "optional" questioning as it is. In my opinion, it's disingenuous, unhelpful and inconsiderate to ask not just one but four additional questions after already clearly making up your mind and casting a !vote. It's as if you're adding more hoops for the candidate to jump through just for sake of doing it, rather than actually trying to form an educated opinion about the candidate. Things like this are exactly why more people don't even want to give RfA a shot. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, per se. You have the right to ask questions of course. I'm just offering my personal opinion that given your stringent fixation on your already-cast opposition, your additional questioning was excessive, not remotely necessary, and not cool. We're all living, breathing people with real lives and real emotions here. Let's try to not make things difficult for each other. Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Great Stink[edit]

You appear to be warring. I reverted you per WP:BRD so it is for you now to discuss on the talk page. The primary author SchroCat is an approachable fellow and he would be only to willing to root out a reference for you, but he won't take too kindly to Banksy style tags being plastered over an article which he has spent a great load of time and bother on. Yes, tags serve a purpose and I'm fully aware of the rules on using them; however, there is more than one way to skin a cat and this issue can easily be resolved on the talk page rather than ruining the appearance of an FA in order to get your point answered. CassiantoTalk 10:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

One revert, with a very detailed and policy-quoting edit summary, is not warring. I did not place a tag requesting a reference, nor did I place more than one tag, so I'm wondering whether you actually looked at the edit before you reverted. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Please read BRD. You were Bold, I Reverted, you should Discuss. It's very simple and quite easy to grasp really. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I know BRD, and a tag for missing information is not vandalizing, which you accused me of, so I replaced the tag with a detailed explanation. You have also accused me of warring, which it wasn't, and of wanting references (twice), which I didn't, and of having "plastered over" an article with "Banksy style tags", which I didn't. So please stop the false accusations. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Your knowledge of BRD clearly has a different understanding to mine. You might think it's ok to drive-by a featured article and plaster stupid tags on it, but I happen to think that this is vandalism as it offers no benefit to anyone and looks ghastly in the process. This is my analogy and I'm sticking with it. A simple request on the talk page does everything a tag does, but in a more mature manner. This, in my opinion, is half the battle on this project. If more people were to communicate with each other rather than rely on pinning unsightly tags all over the place in the hope that someone will come along one day and fix it, then we might be able to resolve things a lot more quickly and strike up good working relationships with one another as a result. You, I fear, may beg to differ. CassiantoTalk 12:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You are still making false accusations after I asked you to stop. I did not "drive-by", nor "plaster stupid tags", nor vandalize, nor make anything look "ghastly", nor "pin unsightly tags all over the place". I don't waste my time in repetitive discussions with those who make false accusations, so this is my last comment. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) May I ask you - for my education - to explain. Am I right that we talk about the little question "by whom" in the lede and no more. (Did we get very general over this?) - To my understanding, the lede is a (normally unreferenced) summary, so if the body explains sourced by whom, it does not have to be repeated in the lede by whom, and if it's missing in the body, the request should be made there. - I would also think that this little "by whom" is not an "unsightly tag" (such as saying that inline citations are missing, or POV, etc), and one is not "all over", - nothing worth arguing about. - I would further think that WP:BRD is for content, not such a question. - Learning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your inability to hold a constructive discussion in this matter is illustrative as to why I think you should carry on adding tags in the future. CassiantoTalk 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


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

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • 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.
  • 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, email us 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.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


In this year, sock puppetry took place only when from 5 March on the article in question.[10] But I was clearly unhappy with the results, because these accounts were used for years on Ban discussions, AfD, deletion review, page move war, etc. Since there was more sock puppetry on this article, I accused Zhanzhao for it,[11] because he was the last person to abuse multiple accounts policy on this article, and they all were clearly supporting each other. My later findings would prove that these 3(from 23 March) accounts/IPs were also sock puppets, they just belonged to a different master.[12] There are no issues with Zhanzhao, there was proper resolution to that issue, he is now restricted to one account. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


I just want to apologize for being abrasive and rude to you when I first started here and in general - I know you mean well and were trying to help. As you have guessed by now, this whole situation has a personal stake for me and I have been on edge for the past couple of months. Sometimes tone is difficult to process through the internet, and certainly more-so in a semi-anonymous forum such as this. But thank you, I do appreciate all of your help and insight.Ladysif (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Ladysif, and thank you for your kind words. It is always a temptation, especially when we are busy and trying to be efficient, to be abrupt to new or newish users and forget how it was when we ourselves started up on Wikipedia. :-) I find the whole Sweet Briar thing outrageous and frankly upsetting, which is one reason I stopped Googling it to find new info, and stopped adding to the article.... I am also baffled by the fact that the national media has ignored the issue for so long. I feel the activities of the president and the board to be criminal. I hope things work out well. Who knows. It is all beginning to seem like a film script ... Anyway, all the best and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty unbelievable situation to be sure and I hope that some investigation happens... The VA Supreme Court is meeting by the end of this week to presumably discuss the injunction appeal so hopefully (crossing fingers here) some good or much better news will come of it. Same to you!Ladysif (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


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

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • 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.
  • 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, email us 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.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Softlavender,

Your application for a account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't claimed your account, I'm removing your name from the list of Wikipedia Library account holders. You are welcome to reapply if you want access in the future. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

New topic[edit]

Hi there,

there seems to be some misunderstanding, first I'm not editwarring, a bot mistakenly reverted me once. As for the universities, Fordham has an 8 acre campus in Manhattan that includes general undergraduate college, both graduate and undergarduate business schools, School of law, School of social work, and School of Education. Its a full campus with many buildings. As for Hofstra, they have an executive MBA program inside an eye hospital in Manhattan. That might not be classified as a campus. I'm reverting you, feel free to fix. Best regards--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hofstra owns that hospital you idiotic pissant cretin shit. Hofstra also owns many other classroom buildings in Manhattan

Hofstra University doesn't own Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, and also doesn't own any other building in Manhattan. Your double citations, that are already present in Hofstra article, are giving undue weight to Hofstra University that doesn't own any building in Manhattan, in the Manhattan article. And also watch your language--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I will put as many citations I want, anywhere I want. And no, I don't need to watch my tongue with a loser like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by HofstraStud (talkcontribs) 06:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What you just did is vandalism. And also sign your comments. I will report you btw for both language and vandalism.--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


Saw the spat at the Randy Newman navbox. You may want to check to see if that same editor has edited the policy/guideline cited and then gone in and changed a bunch of articles. I ran into this individual doing this before, see [13]. Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the editor in question in a nutshell... Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for helping with my edits to the SunEdison page. I wanted to update the page to include Claire Broido Johnson as a founder. I want to make sure she receives proper credit. Here is a link supporting that history - Let me know how to fix it to make sure she gets proper credit. Best dmhirsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhirsch (talkcontribs) 14:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it has been a week since I sent the message and haven't heard anything. I am going to update the page unless I hear otherwise. (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)dmhirsch

Please don't re-add that inaccurate, self-cited, and promotional text to Wikipedia. The article is correct as is. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion or self-promotion. Thank you for your cooperation. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Category: Love stories[edit]

Hi! I am researching this topic and adding famous couples to Category "Love stories". How would you suggest to do or to name that? Married couples, Duos already exist but do not fit. Maybe to rename category it "Heroes of famous love stories" ?

Hi Fivetrees, you can't force things into Categories when they don't fit. What you are trying to achieve is not wholly workable, at least not in that category format, except for the stories that already exist as love stories and have articles, like Romeo and Juliet. You could make a List of famous couples article {not Category), if that's what you are trying to put together. But you can't add individuals to a category about couples or stories. Hope that makes sense! Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you Softlavender for reply! What if rename to "Famous lovers"? I'm writing a book and resaerching material like this top 20 most famous love stories in history and literature fivetrees (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No, can't do Category: Famous lovers because since you can only list single articles (not couples) in a Category, that could mean people who were good in bed. The best format for this compilation is a list article, because a Category can only include single individuals or single publications, whereas a list can join the two members of a couple. The trick is how to title the list article: List of famous couples, or List of famous lovers, or List of famous love stories, or whatever. By the way, speaking of John and Abigail Adams, if you haven't already I strongly suggest reading Irving Stone's Those Who Love, one of the finest biographies ever written (and sadly out of print but available in used book venues online). Good luck with your own book! Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Now I see! Thank you very much! Your reply led me to few new discoveries in the lists and the book you recommended! fivetrees (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Um... you don't own the Taylor Swift page....[edit] what gives you the authority to judge what pic should or should not be in the infobox? Eric Cable  |  Talk  03:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric, this discussion belongs on the article's Talk page, not here; and per BRD, you need to gain consensus on the article's Talk page if your change to the status quo is challenged. Please read and follow WP:BRD, and post your comments/discussion on the article Talk page, not here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So how do I delete the image? If it's not going to be used, then there's no point in it being on Wikipedia. Thanks Eric Cable  |  Talk  03:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You already know, and you already requested speedy deletion of the file six minutes before you posted the question above. Again. please don't post here on my talk page; this is not the correct venue. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't sure I was doing it correctly. Jesus. Eric Cable  |  Talk  04:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Please note that I did not add that text yesterday. I restored it as it had been removed without prior discussion about 6 weeks ago. It had previously been there for approximately 5 years. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: L. Wang[edit]

Hello Softlavender,

I've asked Drmies more than 1 time in a conversation with him to help me with the changes, or to view them before I post them. But he suggested I post them and if it was not ok he would correct it. But you're immediately change things, so there's no time for him to make a better suggestion if I place content that is not completely in line with the rules. About the youtube channel: it's not with illegal content and the link is also accepted on the Dutch wiki so I don't understand all the fuss. If youtube discovers illegal content it will be removed by youtube. I cannot provide a source for that, youtube is the source. I have placed all of the videos on L. Wang's youtube (or most of them) and she has written permission to use them. Most of the bookfilms are mine actually, so for that part I am the source.

Marion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleyntje (talkcontribs) 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you really need to be having this conversations on the article's Talk page, and you must learn to use, and must be willing to abide by, English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and best practices. Please read the information I provided to you on your Talk page. Please sign your Talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Your say-so does not make it OK to add a promotional YouTube channel with copyrighted videos. You need to gain consensus on Talk:Lulu Wang to re-create any edit or addition that has been challenged or removed. Please read WP:BRD, which explains this. If instead you edit war on Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hymn 2[edit]

I remember that you said "Hymn is not a genre", and agree. For hymns with titles that don't show that they are hymns, you can now use para=type, and for the person mostly associated with a hymn para=composer. (Someone writing a text is also a "composer".) Both (or one or none) show above the image, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I haven't looked too closely at this, but the problem is a hymn is a song, not a musical composition. Musical compositions do not have texts or lyrics -- if they do, they are instead songs or operas/oratorios (or masses, which have set texts). Any infobox for a hymn should have its two main (top) parameters as "Text" and "Music" (and in my opinion those should be bolded as in the old version), and the word "by" should never have to be inserted for clarity (that in itself is the mark of a very poor infobox template in my opinion), nor should the word "by" appear in the infobox itself. I realize you pinged me a few days ago regarding the infobox, but I didn't pursue it because at that time I was busy, and in addition because in my opinion the deletion of the infobox hymn and "merging" it with infobox musical composition was a gigantic mistake which caused irredeemable problems. I can state all of the above on whatever discussion thread is at hand, if you like. In any case, love to you; I hope you are doing well. :-) xx Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If you prefer to use infobox song, why not. - I believe nothing should be bolded in an infobox but the title, therefore disliked the infobox hymn design. - Do you say that infobox opera is a "very poor template" (where the "by" comes from, compare Don Giovanni)? - The "by " was also supported by Smerus who argued - convincing me - that we can't say "Chorale" and then have the name of a person, - the same goes for "Text" and "music". - I had an idea about Luther's songs which I like even better: linking right on top to the list of his hymns (would you prefer to call it List of Martin Luther's hymns, to avoid "by"?) - I am fine and out of prison under parole, - more precisely: I was fine until this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Too much noise on your talk. Do I have to explain that I was fine until I saw your edit. I have spent too much time of my life on AE, "gebranntes Kind" as we say in German (literally: burnt child.) Andy was cited there for improving an infobox, I was cited for a third comment (which had not even to do with the topic tried to be restricted), Eric made a comment on his talk, - in the first case, three noticeboards were busy for weeks. WHY all this waste of time? In all cases, it could have ben just ignored. - Jimbo Wales never answered my summary. (Excuse us, Softlavender, please) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, I simply disagree with you. The old hymn infobox worked perfectly, and perfectly clearly. There is no need for "by", on a song template, hymn template, opera template, or chorale template -- all of those have text and music (or music and libretto in an opera, as the importance of the two is reversed there), and with those at the top and the names bolded (and colored, as in the old hymn infobox), it was and is perfectly clear what they represent. I don't like the new opera template either because the old one was so much better, had much better features (like preceded/succeeded, or a list of operas), and preempted edit wars about what random and confusing image would be at the top of it. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am probably too new here to know "the old opera template", but we can also simply disagree ;) - From the Bach cantatas I know that "preceded" etc would be difficult to determine because some dates are uncertain. For Luther's hymn: you have a sortable list, now linked from the top, where you can sort by date and know (with the second click) the sequence of his writing of all of them (as far as know and added, it's a work in progress), not just a next before and after. - I like {{Mozart operas (horizontal)}}, showing the sequence at a glance), only it should get a better name --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The old opera template was as recent as August 2014. It listed the composer's other operas as well, and had the composer's image at the top. (Non-opera infoboxes are not relevant to this.) For operas, having the full linked list of operas (unless over-prolific) in the infobox was very instructive, and having the composer's image preempted confusing and highly random images.
I hope very much that you don't mind my saying so, however I personally think you may be overly focused on the articles you create/edit and specialize in, and are influencing infoboxes according to your personal or idiosyncratic desires or tastes on the specialized areas you are editing rather than the project as a whole, when it comes to music-related infoboxes. I may be wrong about this, but I think even you will admit that your personal specialty is, well, very specialized, and that you perhaps like to oversee that field and to "play with" infoboxes to bend them to your needs. Perhaps there should be a separate "Gerda infobox" that had many many and varied parameters that you could play with at your pleasure and whim. I think that might work better than conforming site-wide infoboxes to your desires when a given template may work best across the board differently than you like for your specifics. I hope that does not offend .... I'm happy to opine at the infobox discussion(s) if people want me to ... I was bothered by how my initial foray (which was one post only) into opining about them went down late last year (or early this year? in the merger discussion), and subsequently have been disappointed by the changes that have been made (even though I hadn't gone back to make my case). In any case, we do often agree on some aspects of infoboxes, but I don't think we currently agree on some of the ones related to music. ... C'est la vie ... la vie Wikipédienne .... Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would learn something if you could make me understand why you would prefer the side navbox (which you called the old opera template) to the one on the bottom. I confess that at I looked at operas for years without even understanding that if you click on "show" you see something, - you see how to navigate away from the article which you just entered). - Hymn: You could still put everything you want to see bold in the name parameter, as was explained in the merge discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The old opera infobox gave the operas upfront, where the reader wants them and can see them. It also gave a relevant and coherent and immediately comprehensible image, not subject to whim, edit-warring, or image-availability. No one sees or looks at the opera navboxes at the bottom (unless they are experienced users, and have also somehow managed to read to the end of a 40,000-byte opera article and found it buried under three or more other navboxes), and they are hard to read and cluttered with all kinds of irrelevancies. In terms of hymn infobox, I have bolded the relevant information (see I Surrender All), but they are not highlighted in color like the old infobox (in fact there is no color at all in or on the infobox now!), and also I had to remove all of the other information to keep those parameters together as they should be. Hymns cannot exist without a text, therefore the author of the text should be first and top, as it was in the old infobox. It should be immediately followed by the composer, since text and melody are the two paramount factors to a hymn, as with any song. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I - as a reader - at first did not even see that it offers anything (and I was not the only one). I - as a reader - do do not want to see the same face of a composer (always same age) on all his works, while there are good illustrations of works. I - as a reader - do not want to get away from an article as soon as I enter it. - I - as a reader - want to see first glance when and where to place a subject in history - opera or whatever. I suggested at some point to link from the infobox to the footer navbox but found not enough support, - "no navigation" was the argument. - In the infobox for hymns, you can assign colors for script and background to your liking, - we just got away with the automatic blue behind the title (termed "like it was written by teenagers"), happily so. De gustibus - enough for today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Like you I have no desire to discuss this endlessly here. I need to point out that having the operas conveniently listed in the infobox is not "getting away" -- the list was right there in the infobox. What is getting away, or navigating away, is having to search and somehow find an article on the composer's works or operas, or alternatively scrolling to the bottom in hope of finding a navbox -- which only experienced readers would even know might be there. Having the date of the opera was part of that navbox -- that gives its place in history. There is no way that I see to add color to the infobox hymn as it currently exists. It's just white. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I need to clarify that the side navbox is NOT an infobox, - it has no argument-value pairs, thus a date there is fine for our eyes, but nothing for other languages, nor for search functions comparing. - I will always find works by a composer looking up his or her article, - no need to waste space for such a thing in a prime position where people expect to receive key facts about the article. - The template is neutral without colors on purpose, which is best for people who can't see, following WP:ACCESSIBILITY. - YOU are, however, free to color and embellish to your liking ;)
To repeat, I see no way to add color to the hymn infobox, nor does anyone else trying to use the template -- there is no indication whatsoever about that on Template:Infobox musical composition. And I consider the old template at the top of opera articles an infobox, as it held that position and function (and in my opinion better than the current one) and in effect was nothing like a navbox in my personal opinion. Technically, the term for it is sidebar: see WP:SIDEBAR and Template:Sidebar/doc; to me it was much more an infobox than a navbox. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You could add values with colored script, as I colored "color" above, you could define background color, - only blind people don't see any of those which I respect by not using it. - A box with no paired attribute-value items is not an infobox in the sense I - and most I know but I may be mistaken - use it, - from the lead of our article: "It is a structured document containing a set of attribute–value pairs". Happy reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to make the font colored -- that would just add a new level of reading difficulty. I want colored bars/fields, as the infobox used to have. There is no indication of how to do that on Template:Infobox musical composition. Can you clarify what you mean by "only blind people don't see any of those which I respect by not using it"? Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Color, any color, is a feature that doesn't serve the blind, which is why my table St Matthew Passion structure looks boring to some, compared to the German model, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see -- by "only" you meant "however", not "solely". I thought you were maybe calling me an idiot and blind because I didn't notice something. Glad we cleared that up. :-) Lastly, before we close this long discussion (I believe this is the longest discussion ever on my Talk page, probably because we ended up talking about two kinds of infoboxes -- hymn and opera -- rather than just one) -- Is there any way for me to add a colored bar at the top, or on the Text/Music items? If not, that's OK -- I'm just asking. Thanks Gerda, Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about my language, glad we cleared that! - "Idiot": I hope that I never said anything negative to any person here, - if you catch me doing that let me know. - We talked about infoboxes in general - vs. side navboxes which are no infoboxes ;) - For technical additions, perhaps ask at the village pump, or on a template talk, for example {{infobox musical composition}}, or look up how templates do it which have colors, for example {{infobox church}}, seen here, thank goodness the image matches ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
ps: I think I got rid of all genre=hymn yesterday, - I was in no mood for creative writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Why would you quote me to support your argument, knowing that's not what I meant? I hope, if the opportunity ever arises, I won't show you similar disrespect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I actually thought that was what you meant. I wasn't sure though (hence my wording) -- I haven't minutely followed the case from beginning to end and have no way of knowing on what side you fall, and since that was the entirety of your post on that AE, there was no way for an outside observer to know exactly what you meant by it. No disrespect was intended, and if I had thought you intended it to mean something else (the opposite), I would have said it differently -- I would have specifically worded it to indicate that you did not mean it in the the way that I did, but that conversely it fit my point as well in my view. I hope that clears it up. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GEMS Education[edit]

Hi Softlavender. You have removed a large amount of material from this page in a significant re-write that goes beyond simply re-organisation. If you are making corrections, or adding balancing material, or identifying policy breaches then you of course have every right to do that, but you need to justify individual edits, not just replace the whole article in bulk. Your re-write reads like a professional puff-piece rather than a neutral wikipedia article. (Wikipedia:PROMOTION) Wiltingdaffodils 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wiltingdaffodils, the appropriate place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page. I will start a discussion there. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


If you would like to change your comment after a reply has been given, could you please clearly indicate your changes as part of your revision? Not doing so has made it appear that part of your comment was ignored or glossed over, when in fact that part did not exist at the time of the reply. Alternatively, perhaps it would be best to simply make a new comment to raise your new point, even if you had intended to include it originally. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

You write, I dislike parentheticals and think them non-encyclopedic ... You are a lady after my heart! I always try to remove any I come across too. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Me too. There are few things I dislike more, at least on Wikipedia (I once cleared Mendelssohn of thousands of such things, back in 2010). In my own interpersonal writing (emails, forum postings, and such), I am however apt to use so many parentheticals that I double and triple up on them and it is impossible to see where one clause ends and another begins LOL -- that is, assuming I've actually remembered to close each parenthetical, which is not necessarily likely. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha,ha! BTW, on M's Talk you wrote, "I've been AFK for two days ..." I have no idea what that means. Is it similar to AWOL? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeez Louise G, why do I always have to explain internet slang to you? It means Away From Keyboard. I took two completely tech-free days. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Very good to take a break. I love it when you scold me. Face-wink.svg — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
While I have finally learned most of the internet slang I too was at a loss when it came to AFK. the best I could come up with was "Away from komputer" (groan) Well at least I was in the ballpark. As to parentheticals I agree that they are unnecessary in articles. OTOH, like you S, I wind up using them on talk pages and emails (they are like asides to the audience in a play for me - heehee) Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hopefully helpful: Urban Dictionary definition of AFK and other Internet slang. Prhartcom (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I noticed a comment just now that you made regarding Kavebear as a resident of Hawaii and that I am not. Excuse me, but no. Kavebear does not reside in the islands but I am from Oahu and have Native Hawaiian ancestry. You can certainly ask this but the last time I looked he had identified as living in the mainland US. I believe he is not of Native Hawaiian decent.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Specifically I do take issue with the following: "My experience with Mark is that as someone who does not live in Hawaii, he relies on certain specific available published sources when in fact the reality is often very different. The fact of the matter is that Hawaii is an extremely non-literate place, and its culture, traditions, history, and current reality are largely oral and visual. In addition, Hawaii is the remotest archipelago in the world. For those reasons, one cannot get a true and accurate understanding of Hawaiian history, culture, or current reality without actually living here, and living here for a large number of years." My first memory is of Hawaii. I will not give you a blood quantum but I am Hawaiian, or more precisely Kanaka Moali (no orthography there). Living in Hawaii gives absolutely NO perspective of Hawaiian culture of history unless you know Hawaiians. Most academics do seem to agree that if you wish to better understand the Hawaiian culture you have to ask one of the families. They will know the sources for their recorded history as well as the recorded chants (almost all chants have been recorded although many have been lost) I believe you live in the islands> If this is correct than you may even understand some of what I am saying.

I have two siblings born in Hawaii, as was my dad, his parents and a line going back to the Hawaiian Royal Family. I have no bias as I only learned about this in the last two years and precisely because I am Hawaiian and someone began research before me and another had just completed their full genealogy with all the primary source documentation. But I discovered more than genealogy but a very rich history not yet covered on Wikipedia. Most of the history is linked to the aliʻi families. I am not trying to compare myself and KAVEBEAR here but that made my just a little uncomfortable.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "specific available published sources" I am not sure what you mean here, that as someone not in Hawaii I can't possibly have the information available? Well, that is somewhat true, accept that there are other editors available to do the Library checks, Viriditas was very helpful for one document only available on Maui that helped greatly with Brick Palace. Also, I have access to out of print publications shared with my by ohana in the islands. There is also a vast database of Hawaiian history and listing in the Native Hawaiian newspapers online. Some require translating, but they can be used as sourcing. I do not limit what I use for my research by what is available in the mainland and I can demonstrate that. It was a very positive experience.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (added) I forgot to mention my confusion on this: "My experience with Mark is that as someone who does not live in Hawaii..." What experience do you have with me specifically "as someone who does not live in Hawaii"?
  • "Your understanding might be inaccurate and incomplete, through no probable fault of your own. I have a suggestion or two: If you reach an impasse, either post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii, or call in a Hawaiian resident like Viriditas". This completely baffles me. Are you suggesting that to better understand my own culture and the land I myself lived....I have call on someone else to ....what? Get the accurate truth? I mean, I go to Viriditas often and yes he is very helpful, but is the suggestion that just because an editor lives there, they will know more about the culture?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Softlavender as far as I can remember we have gotten along and I have no recollection of any interaction between us in regards to my not living in Hawaii as a resident today. I think you may not have known that I am Hawaiian and from Hawaii (although originally born in Japan), but I was a little offended by your comments. You see...this is exactly what I have been trying to get across to KAVEBEAR, that he is using "specific available published sources" and that he does not understand the culture, the caste system or even how to be sensitive about the culture around Native Hawaiian editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I am seriously trying to engage you here. I hope you will take a minute to address my concerns, some that I feel are BLP issues since you made direct comment about me that I feel you could address. Not trying to be a problem so if you wish to e-mail me, that would be cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Mark, thank you for the clarification that KAVEBEAR is from Oregon. My understanding from your talk page is that you have never been to Hawaii (someone made the comment on your talk page [or somewhere] that they hoped you would get here one day). Certainly no offense at all was intended. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.