Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

You may want to increment ((Archive basics)) to |counter= 9 as User talk:Softlavender/Archive 8 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Dear Softlavender,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Congratulations on reaching this milestone. Best regards,   Aloha27  talk  15:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Aloha27; I didn't realize that I had reached that milestone. Aloha, Softlavender (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of makes you wonder where the time went, no? Best,   Aloha27  talk  02:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender. Sorry for erroneously posting to the administer page. I thought it would be more productive and less harsh than threatening to block someone from editing. When I didn't remove the link, tried to engage Blackstache in conversation, giving her or him 10 days to respond, he or she ignored me.

Can you explain when to apply the Ignore rule? I do not remember it mentioned in the training modules, and it seems counter to all the attention paid to copyright. Also, how does it relate to the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. When I did the google book search, I found definitive evidence that the 1962 images provided as downloads by these linked sites infringe upon the Conway Library's copyright. Lichfield Cathdral only granted rights to the 2010 images. As an editor, what should I do? For a while, I managed a small technical writing department, and the company I worked for was exceptionally careful about copyright. Those standards and what I thought I knew about Wikipedia policy and guidelines directed my edits. In my small scope of editing, the links I removed are the most egregious that I have encountered. My sense is that Wikipedia is gaining in popularly because people are finding content and links reliable. I'm feeling confused. What type of balance should I strive for with the Ignore rule? Thanks Wilshire01 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Softlavender. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Akatombo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Akatombo, or "Red Dragonfly", written by poet Rofū Miki and composed by Kosaku Yamada, is one of the most-loved Japanese songs according to a 1989 survey? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rofū Miki, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Akatombo, or "Red Dragonfly", written by poet Rofū Miki and composed by Kosaku Yamada, is one of the most-loved Japanese songs according to a 1989 survey? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why attack me? I was only trying to contribute to Wikipedia by creating Akatombo. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undo my edits. I meant to fix incorrect info and actually introduced some myself. My apologies. Keep the goid work!Urbanoc (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem, Urbanoc. Happens to all of us. Hard to read the fine print on those articles. :) Softlavender (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Columbia University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home, our friend here turns out to be an editwarring sockpuppet. EEng 17:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I bet that told you. Huh. Sorry SL- thought this was EEng's page ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which of us is more insulted. EEng 17:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should've realised when I didn't feel my mouse finger seizing up! :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At ANI you wrote "...did open this ANI filing...". I believe you meant to write "...did not open this ANI filing...".

As always, I respect your opinions as being well-thought-out even when I do not agree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that -- I had even posted it twice like that. By the way, I am hatting that section as off-topic because it is misplaced and not relevant to the thread at hand. Feel free to open a separate ANI filing at the bottom of the board if you like. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree. I believe that Malerooster has contributed to the problem being discussed, even though he isn't by any means the major problem. You have expressed your opinion on ANI, and now it is up to the closing admin to evaluate it and make a decision. It is improper to shut down an ANI conversation about a particular editor after someone else posed an opinion that he is part of the problem. Insisting that I must file a new ANI report right after I quoted the section of WP:BOOMERANG that specifically says that your " Malerooster did not open this ANI filing" argument is wrong was also misguided. If you wish to argue against my assertion ("Nowhere does that page say that the boomerang only applies to the original reporter or that only action on ANI itself will be scrutinized. There are many examples of ANI discussions where someone participating in the discussion ends up being sanctioned without them being the person posting the original complaint or the person who was originally complained about.") feel free to do so, but you shouldn't try to shut me up. That isn't your decision to make. Revert me again and it is you who I will be filing an ANI case against. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to say about rather than against. Anyway, as I mention in my closing notes: it did seem like your boomerang was largely piggybacking on an ANI notice that was already focused on the one user (snugglepuss). But I also closed it because the closing itself was beginning to become a source of conflict. As also mentioned, if indeed there are outstanding issues related to Mrrooster, I do urge you to list a new ANI notice about him. El_C 13:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Softlavender. I recently reported an incident about edit war in admission discussion board, and you mentioned it is better to open RfC. After opening the RfC, I message some users (on their talk page) that I was aware that they were actively involved in making and editing election maps and graphs. After Dennis Bratland saw that result that doesn’t favor him, he starts to reject the RfC, and starts to give false accusations. In here you can see a simple fair message that I sent for all those users. Now, he accuses me for “votestacking” and claims that I “handpicked” those users, and now he threats to “close” the RfC! I tried every single right, true, and legal way I could to advance and end the discussion, and still, he doesn’t accept it, already started his edit war, violates, and starts to give irrelevant reasons to support his idea, without hearing any opinions that he simply doesn’t like.

I’ve already sent a same message to an admin to watch the RfC, and I request you to step in and help to end this situation. Thank you Ali 04:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ali, that's not an WP:RfC, you did not follow the very clearly detailed procedure instructions. All that is is an informal talk-page poll. And you should not post notices on individual editors' talk pages -- that is WP:CANVASSING. Read the RfC instructions. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would you please help this situation so it finally gets done? When nobody comes up to comment and nobody would give an opinion, what do you expect me to do? Dennis started edit war and I tried to resolve the dispute with RfC, and now you said it is not RfC. Would you please actually step in the process, instead of giving me advice about what should I do? Ali 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how to remedy the situation. By failing to follow the very clear numbered steps at WP:RFC, you've created a non-neutral, unsigned survey that is not an RfC but that has already been responded to by at least five editors. And you WP:CANVASSed individual users. If you want, you can take the problem to WP:AN and see if an administrator can straighten it out. In the future, I advise following instructions (and that includes the entire page of WP:RFC). -- Softlavender (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be correct in assuming that there is a link between User:Natalinasmpf and User:OccultZone (via user User:La goutte de pluie ? see diff, more specifically that these are all the same user who was Arbcom banned for an issue raised in Talk:Rape in India/Archive 2 ? That could explain a huge lot of things in the Vipul affair. Inlinetext (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inlinetext, I'm not the person to ask, nor the venue to bring this up. (Also, just FYI, when you indicate you are posting a WP:DIFF, it really needs to be a diff.) Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to change Chris Cuomo in order to align with your left wing political viewpoint. Please do not lie to the users of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the facts, rather than your leftist veiwpoint. The users of wikipedia are not just liberals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousedit19923034 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that went well for the editor, not. 2 week DS block. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, thanks. I had reported the situation at that article to NeilN. For the past 2 years the article has been an increasing BLP-vio magnet, and it was time for some extra eyes. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender,

Just wanted to belatedidly thank you for your comments at ANI regarding whether I should have been boomeranged. I really didn't think I was that uncivil there and agree that another ANI case should have been brought up if others thought it was needed. I really appreciate that since I try not to get involved in those discussions but let the community decide if I should be punished, ect. Snooganssnoogans and I are in another dispute and this time I will not comment about him and will stop editing that article. The consensus might be for inclusion of certain material in the lead, but right now I feel like it should be removed until consensus is reached. Not a huge deal. Thanks again! --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Malerooster. You need to handle any current content disputes via the normal methods: article-talk discussion without mentioning behavior only content, consensus, and if needed, WP:DR options (including neutrally inviting input from relevant Wikiprojects) or WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I will try to do that. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...that the section of the TRM appeal at AE where you replied to El C's comment about empathy is for "uninvolved admins" only. Rank-and-file editors such as you and I aren't allowed to post there. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BMK (fixed now). Beforehand I was actually aware that that section was for admins only, but somehow when afterwards I was remembering El C's comment I thought it was in the general discussion section and I simply searched for the word "compassion" and posted my reply under it. No wonder TRM thought I was an admin. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how many timea I've wanted to respond in the admin section - not to make an argument, but simply to point out a fact of some sort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE - and compassion? Really? For me, it's the most compassion-free one on Wikipedia. If I have compassion, I don't report a user, - I talk to them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of responding but it might be better coming from you. [1] Doug Weller talk 09:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I post a QAIbox, I don't "always" add the clear template, because I think it would look pompous to block so much space on the page. If a user wants it like that, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive not to use the ((clear)) template, because a thread consisting of only an image, with no text in the post, disrupts and blocks the thread below it. If you don't want to take up space on a user's talkpage, don't post, just ping them from somewhere else or email them. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard "disruptive" in a while, and didn't miss it. Usually, a thread develops after posting an image. If not, I avoid white space by no "clear" template, with the next message following immediately. I don't know what you mean by "block". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not include a clear template, the image blocks, disrupts, or intrudes upon the next thread. It's that simple. I don't know how else to put it. This is true even for very small images: See before [2] and after [3]; before [4] and after [5]. Softlavender (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "clear" does, but it's not "blocking", at least to my understanding of that word. I confess that I like "before" better in the second example, and think you could leave it to the recipient of a talk: to remove the whole thing, to respond, to add "clear". I occasionally add "clear" on my talk: when the next message comes as another image or block which is too far away from it's header, but only then. I don't see a general rule, and I fail to see how less white space is disruptive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is up to the talk page user to add the template "clear" if he/she prefers to change the page layout. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it's an obvious common courtesy not to disrupt someone's talkpage by adding images with no corresponding text (without the clear template), which therefore block, disrupt, and intrude upon the ensuing threads. Requiring someone to clean up after you is disruptive editing and really aggravating, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not bother you with pictures then, but others thank me for them, and seem to feel no need to clean-up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was bothered by pictures; I said I am bothered when people don't add a "clear" template if they are not including a sizable amount of text with the image. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please help me out and point me in the direction of something about not putting subscription costs into articles? I'm afraid I have been doing this! Not just the one that you corrected.-Thank you. There is another infobox template that asks about paid membership I think? TeeVeeed (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked through the 100 articles you have edited [6] and I don't see you have done this anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or a directory or a catalogue. We don't add costs to any article. See also WP:NOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did it recently here: [7] Not OR in my case because the info. was on their site which was already used as a source. Ahh-Okay, thanks I see it in "not a catalogue" and I'm going to make sure that I have a secondary source for that. I think the 10 grand or so sub price edit that I did is encyclopediac content because it was widely chatted about in other sources, and the subscription/report is a major product for them.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to Bridgewater may be relevant, but subscription information for any online publication which uses the very standard format of subscription only needed for more than X articles per month is neither noteworthy (or even newsworthy for that matter) nor relevant nor encyclopedic. This is in addition to the fact that we don't list prices on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

got it-thanks again. The subscriber fee on the 1st one was also for access to the databases so even though I am not putting the price in the article again, the fact should be included so I added. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to respond to you and correct my mistake on the ANI but I got edit conflicted 4 times then the ANI was closed. But to answer your comments you tagged me in, Yes I did notice the date and I was trying to correct it and strike it out but there was an edit conflict which I think was your edit letting me know about my error then 3 more conflicts after when I tried to answer you lol. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, WarMachineWildThing, I've done that mistaking-the-past-year-for-the-current-year thing (through basically not even reading the year date) so often (at least four times in the past 12 months) that now I check myself several times before calculating a timeframe. :) Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I'd like to thank you for your laudable efforts at being a consensus-builder and problem-solver at Winklevi's ANI. Your helping hand was very badly needed, and I'm hopeful we've finally got a way forward. --Drmargi (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Drmargi and David in DC for your notes. I was trying to come up with something that would satisfy all of the very diverse range of opinions. Softlavender (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can keep the discussion on topic. What appears to be a buddy of his is mucking about with the discussion over something to do with Commons. I hatted it pronto, but we shall see how that lasts. --Drmargi (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently uncovered Swami Nithyananda. It's consistently disrupted by "COI Expert" User:Lemongirl942 and recently User:Ravichandar84 who both appear to reside in close approximation to the BLP and his centres. User:Inlinetext has continuously disrupted with page, recently and turning it into a hit-page. I've tried discussing and reverting edits - but these users seems to be adamant about incorporating entirely outdated sexual allegations into the article. I honestly think Lemongirl has the COI and this page is anti-Nithyananda. For example... it now says that he founded an "e-commerce" site. I'm relatively new to WP and I don't know where to post this... So I thought I would share. Thanks. DocTox (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DocTox. I am not involved in that article that I can tell. Any concerns should be worked out on the article's talk page, and if that gets stuck you can use any of the various forms of Dispute Resolution. If you are new to Wikipedia, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to get assistance and answers. Lastly, you could bring up your concerns at WP:BLPN and/or WP:NPOVN regarding what you consider undue-weight issues on a biography of a living person. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you for your help. You had commented on the issue when it was brought to admin thread a while back. Anyway, I will do what you mentioned because they keep reverting edits. I feel like they are policing the page! DocTox (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender. You were a lot of help sorting out Bill Hillmann, so I'm wondering it you wouldn't also mind taking a look at Myke Hurley and commenting at Talk:Myke Hurley#Notability and primary sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, I think I came to Bill Hillmann via a thread on ANI, and got into it because I felt sorry for the newbie who created it and got slammed by SwisterTwister's lack of WP:BEFORE. And then I became very interested the the article subject -- I found it intriguing that someone could be a former boxer, bull-runner, and very colorful writer. Whereas that article you mention seems very boring to me. I wouldn't even want to determine notability on that one, but the article does look promotional. I just don't have the interest to fix it, though. I think I'll tag the talkpage with search suggestions and see if that helps. If not, you can always nominate it at AfD .... Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. If you have any comments on the sources, either way, than that might be helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I just don't know much about podcasts or podcasters or what makes them notable or not. It's really a matter of doing the research (with the help of the tag I added, for instance) and getting better sources if available, but I don't have any interest. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for you taking the time to take a closer look and provide input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for your diligent efforts to find resolution in the Winkelvi ANI, a thankless task performed well and in the face of much heat and antagonism. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Thanks very much, Figureofnine. Much appreciated! Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender. Sorry again for the mistake on ANI. I was gonna ping you again, but then decided it would be better to post this time around. You might want to take a look at WP:ANI#Retaliatory Editing since it may have an impact on the AfD discussion. I just saw that another possible SPA/COI account (with only a handful of edits) added a comment to the dicussion, so there may a bit of strangeness happening on both sides of the fence on this matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing vital films from the list, I created the list initially and these films shouldnt be removed. 81.174.255.78 (talk) AmyNelson. —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell yourself to stop edit warring! Do some research instead of removing vital films from the list, this is beyond a joke. 81.174.255.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Can you check out the edit history for Salute Your Shorts? Judging by the IP address, I assume it's another sock for the prior malicious editors, but my main question is about leaving Christine on due to her being a "Guest Star" vs an extra. Only reason I'm asking you directly is because this person apparently thinks you and I are the same person and since we both know we aren't, I thought maybe you could help in this case. Thanks! Erinhayden (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erinhayden, I don't have any knowledge of that matter (whether someone who was on two episodes should be in the cast list on Wikipedia). If the IPs are being disruptive or are socking, request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP, which will prevent IPs form editing the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you! Sorry to bother you. Erinhayden (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance would you mind looking over (or mind directing some apt minds) over to Meta Glass (a new Sweet Briar related article that someone has made)? I've made some small edits where I can but it seems that some things could still be fixed. Thanks! Ladysif (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ladysif, I don't know how much time I have to spend on it; I made a few edits. If you like you could add a ((refimprove)) tag to the top (although it is possible that most of the info comes from the frequently cited Stohlman book, and it simply needs to be noted in a separate section called "Sources", which would cover a lot of the material which does not have inline citations). If you need extra eyes/help, I advise posting a neutral request on the talk pages of the WikiProjects which are linked on the article's talk page. Hope that helps! (PS: I invite any of my talkpage watchers to also help out. PPS: The article creator is not a total newbie, and could be reminded that the article could use some help to get it up to snuff.) Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ladysif, I've pecked away at it and made it about as good as it's going to get with the current information. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! A few things seemed off with it and I'm a bit far removed from editing these days as I am extremely busy, so I appreciate it. I would have stuck it in the articles for improvement but since it was brand new it didn't seem right. Ladysif (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits to the above-noted article, could you please start a discussion on the talk page describing your concerns, particularly as they relate to the notability guideline for standalone lists and to the previous two discussions of the article's notability in the AfDs? Simply slapping a template on a page that has already survived two notability-based deletion discussions, without providing something new to the discussion, is not particularly helpful. If you believe that it is necessary and possible to better establish notability, then some ideas would be helpful. If you don't believe it's possible to establish notability, then as I mentioned in my previous edit summary, a better course of action would be to start a new deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See Help:Maintenance template removal. Do not remove maintenance templates until the problem indicated in the template is solved. The article does not establish any notability whatsoever, much less from any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. WP:LISTN states "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...." The article does not provide that. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Could you please start a discussion on the talk page where others can easily find it? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 142.160.173.180 (talk · contribs) for evasion. Let me know if you see any new IPs working in the same style. Consider filing an WP:SPI, just for record-keeping, though I'm unsure if the clerks like that. If SPI isn't the best, I wonder if WP:LTA would work. So far I notice some 142.* addresses and some 216.* addresses, though no blockable ranges have been used so far. Some of these IPs have been blocked by User:Coffee. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See a response from an SPI clerk on this idea. Their only caution was against IP tagging for the suspected sockuppet category. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Softlavender! I've reverted your revert, as I feel you've misunderstood the edit. (I was merely undoing a recent automated bot-archive that I felt was premature.) If you have concerns about this, I'd like the opportunity to discuss them with you. Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the section on ANI alone, note the move to VP, or just nuke it in place? Anmccaff (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anmccaff, I've noted the move in the close now, and in my edit summary; I've also removed your unnecessary formatting on the VPT thread, making it easier to participate in. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd still be more comfortable if it was obvious at VPT that Thos. W's contribution was originally elsewhere, but if this is how it should be done, I'll live with it. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want people at VPT to answer the question, the thread shouldn't be in green. I noted that the conversation was moved from ANI. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh for a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. I know it can be frustrating at times, but that level 4 on Quantum seemed a little harsh to me, for what looked like good faith edits (that just failed to meet P&G in a newbie way). Murph9000 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murph9000, I gave him a level 4 because I had already given him a level 3 (because of this ANI report [8]) and he responded by edit-warring with me. Also, you might want to read Don't template the regulars. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I was unaware of the improperly filed ANI (no notice of it on the user talk page). I meant no offence by using a template here, it was just an expedient way to express the base of my concern about what I saw, supplemented with a personal comment attached to it. I saw you going directly from level 2 to level 4 in a case which seemed to have misguided good faith from the newbie. Anyway, you won't hear any more from me on this particular issue, as I just wanted to quietly add my opinion. Please do feel free to remove this talk section, if you want to. Thanks, and best wishes. Murph9000 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you're taking the moral fucking high ground with me on your Laser brain thread at AN? Do you know how patronising your coming across by advising someone to email the retired editor rather than participate on a thread which you've aptly named "Laser brain"? I had no idea the thread was exclusive to you and your thoughts. Cassianto^Talk 10:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender. I must say that I found this to be really harsh and bitey. Was that to put others off taking the poll, to put White Arabian Filly off running for adminship, or to blast me for "spamming"?

In response to your post:

• Many editors approach many others about adminship at their talk pages, face to face at Wiki-events, via email, etc. In fact, that is one of the main ways new admins come into being. Why do you feel that my post were inappropriate?

• You wrote "... no interest, no indication, no need, and little or no qualifications for becoming admins..." but White Arabian Filly is interested, has shown indication, and is qualified.

• As for "need", plenty of editors see AIV and other areas requiring more admin help, and run for RfA for that purpose. "Need", as you put it, implies need to serve one's own purposes. Adminship is about serving Wikipedia.

My best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst!! I'd avoid Craggy Island, if I were you. At least until AAA-Uncle-Jimbo-Cars steps into the fray again? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corkythehornetfan is at it again.

He's changing CORRECT info with incorrect info. Also, he's going back and undoing CORRECT changes to the logos that he himself introduced. This guy has a history of doing this. It becomes about "winning the argument" and not doing what is right and starts these mass edit wars. Please help me with this. I tried to move past this the last time, when you stepped in and ruled that I was right and he was not. But now he's doing it again. It's clear his latest edits are a mere extension of this past attack.

Please help and stop him.

Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk)

No idea what you are talking about. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

diff - Your continued harping, on the other hand, accorss multiple talk pages and in multiple venues, is disruptive editing, and sooner or later is going to get you blocked -- at this rate I'm predicting sooner.

It is a wp:npa personal attack to accuse without providing links to support - Please offer links or retract your accusations - thanks - Govindaharihari (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to me, for someone experienced here, and professionally. I say this especially with regard — not to the issue of tags, which I can understand that there are strongly differing perspectives — but to the motives behind what I do. I will acknowledge there is a little of the counter-cultural "I don't care a whit for running up edit numbers, by being religious about logging", but there is not a whit of what is attributed to me, in terms of attempts to deceive. If I perceive there is any possibility of concern as to indentity, or any chance of misunderstanding, I add Le Prof to IP edits. I think the policies and guidelines are clear, that IP is allowed, logging preferred, but the red line is use of IP by registered editors with an attempt to deceive. This simply does not apply—and as I replied at Ivanvector's talk page, even the appearance that recent edits were an attempt to get around the ban is just that, appearance. (I did not know about the ban until late today, shortly before the time-stamp of my long reply at User:Jytdog's Talk page.) I simply spend no time at my own Talk page. (I find it largely a waste of what little life I have left to live.) Cheers, bonne nuit. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, can you remind me again why we put up with the verbosely deaf and clueless? EEng 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, EEng, you have been warned about this, by an Admin, please comply. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being scolded by you for not listening is like being told you're ugly by a toad. EEng 02:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...charity...?! :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I renew the invitation to explain your ire. Not your studied concern, or your principled objections to the mistakes I have made—some of which I admit to—but your anger/ire. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. I was looking at Mark Anderson (writer) and noticed that you made a number of contributions to the article. There is only one source cited and that appears to be to a primary source, so I was going to tag the page with "Notability" and "BLP primary sources" templates. I know you do help out improving BLPs and also remember saying that you mainly work on those you find interesting, so I was wondering if you feel Anderson meets WP:NAUTHOR or if this should maybe be AfD'd. I did Google "Mark Anderson writer" and there were some hits, but most of what I saw appear to be trivial mentions or stuff which might be for another Mark Anderson. Any ideas on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article should be AfDed; it has withstood the test of time and intense scrutiny because he is or was in the middle of the Shakespeare authorship controversy. I just now added the "friendly search suggestions" template to the talk page, but checking that now it's kind of hard to use that because there are a number of Mark Andersons who apparently have the word "writer" come up in random links mentioning them, and because he doesn't use a middle initial that I can tell. Anyway, I'll look at it down the line to see if I can figure out more targeted ways to find sources on him. I'm kind of distracted right now so I don't know when I will get to that. :-) Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and your feedback. Do you think tagging with a ((BLP Sources)) would be appropriate just to let others know to be on the look out for better sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather wait on that step, if you are asking me my opinion. I would like to do some targeted Googling with added keywords to find appropriate sources. If I haven't done that within a week, get back to me here to remind me, if that plan is OK with you. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Although I do add tags to articles, I don't see myself as a tag bomber. I'll keep looking for stuff as well. I was able to find his Linked In page (I think) and seemed to weed out a lot of the other Mark Andersons by searching "Mark Anderson Shakespeare". -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't spend too much time on it but I've added four references, all of which establish that he is a recognized expert in the fields of the two books he wrote. The three references for the transit of Venus book are all interviews, but they are all from major international venues with high quality standards. I'm sure there would be much more that can be added if a painstaking search were done, but I didn't spend all that much time. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I didn't realize Marchjuly has already contacted you regarding Mark Anderson (writer). I some time ago prodded this article mentioning there were no secondary sources discussing the author. I have further noted that one primary source failed verification and another statement had no citations. You removed the prod mentioning that the author is "clearly notable and an internationally recognized expert in his fields". I'll go by your direction here. May I request you to add the secondary sources to get the article up to our notability guidelines? If I'm missing something here, please don't hesitate to pull me up. Thanks. Lourdes 03:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the significant improvement. Much appreciated. Lourdes 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Lourdes. Thanks for the nudge; it was nice to get the article up to snuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thank you as well for really taking the time to improve the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To date, there are 5,387,571 articles on the English Wikipedia so there is no need for you to be at the above trying to breath life into an old, and very much established discussion on a contentious subject. I'm sure there are many other articles out there that could benefit from your invested time? I have some suggestions: Why don't you go and make the 5,387,571 articles 5,387,572, or go and review a GAN, or take part in a peer review somewhere? I fail to see the benefit in you playing your pipe towards the Grant article in an attempt to attract a bunch of faceless nobodies to pitch up at an article that they will more than likely never visit again, just so they can enforce their unwanted and very much unneeded POV at? I consider your attempts at doing this to be thoroughly disruptive. Cassianto^Talk 13:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request that you stop messing with LeProf. It's clear that they have a particular view of how they want things done, and you're really not making things better by insisting that the exact threading of the original conversation be kept. All you're doing is antagonizing them. Is that really worth it for a few seconds of self-congratulations that you're "right"? Primefac (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with that page, but I genuinely think this is a case for implementing WP:IAR (especially since TPG is more of a guideline). LeProf clearly doesn't want people messing with his talk page, and (as mentioned on a few parallel discussions) it's probably easier to just let him have his way in this case. Pointless quibbling helps no one. I guess the question is this: in the grand scheme of things, is the threading of that conversation going to seriously change the message and overall outcome of the page? No. So again, I ask, please just drop it. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page rodent) 1.6.1 Others' comments - Fixing layout errors - He likes fixing errors... at least it's not big tags before each message:

THE LAYOUT OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS ERRONEOUS.

(sorry, I couldn't resist). — PaleoNeonate — 14:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to see you pop by the Akhal-Teke article. That one is a mess, we had it halfway cleaned up for a while, then the political stuff got added in and I haven't had the time to clean it all up since ... there's quite a political kerfuffle over there, and I would be really interested in collaborating with someone who can delve into that mess and clean up the article accordingly. There are a lot of unsourced claims in there -- the horse genetics and bloodline stuff I can probably delve into ( I've done so before) but it would be great if someone could also look into the political side and the Amnesty International involvement (I think that one of the major breeders and gov't agency heads is now was imprisoned [9], [10] ) -- the horse obsession of the dictator is neither helping the horse breed nor the people... these horses are of some moderate interest in the USA (see Nez Perce horse), and the question of whether they are descendants from the same sources as the Byerly Turk is of some historic interest to Thoroughbred breeders. Anyway, you also have a lot of talk page watchers too, I'm sure, so just extending an invite to anyone interested. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit - I agree that 30 days is too short. But just to point out a slight logical error (imo): if anything more important projects can be archived sooner. The fact that a project is obscure suggests that people may visit it far less frequently, and so arguing for a longer archive delay on grounds of obscurity would be more persuasive. Did you know, btw, that imo is the generic Japanese for edible tubers, including potatoes? (And btw is prolly German for something else) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender. I noticed you reverted my close of the James Lambden section without leaving anything other than an edit summary. JJL understands not to alter talk page comments anymore and no one has commented in the past few days. What else is there to do? Please consider closing it back. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a massive amount of discussion in that thread, on a wide variety of topics, not just about JJL's altering talk-page discussions. The thread should continue open until all matters reach some form of resolution. If it simply dies out, a bot will archive the thread after three days of inactivity. Threads should not be purple-box closed unless they are completely resolved. Rather than shutting down discussion, just let them expire naturally if there is no obvious resolution. Softlavender (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point of that thread was altering talk page comments. Everything else was unrelated and belonged somewhere else and no admins had commented which led me to think there would be no administrative actions necessary. Now since you've reverted my close it will sit there for 3 more days. But thanks for your comments here and attempting to keep some order and structure on ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated things very often come up on ANI threads, and they don't belong somewhere else unless there is a specific administrative noticeboard for them (and if they do belong on a different noticeboard, that should be pointed out so that discussion can be moved there). It's important not to shut down conversations simply because one issue seems to have been resolved. Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been active on ANI a bit more lately. I've been posting there on and off for years, though, and only recently noticed an upsurge in attacks on me for making (admittedly an unusually large number of) non-admin comments in threads I'm not involved in, coming from something like four different users in the last three weeks, only one of whom I was proposing a BOOMERANG against. I don't know -- have you experienced this?

(Also pinging User:Mr rnddude, who is third after me and Softlavender in terms of good-faith non-admins who I know make a lot of comments in ANI discussions that I happen to have noticed; there's one other who I don't have any problem with, but who I suspect wouldn't like me pinging them.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hijiri88; I figure that this is because of this thread and subsequent discussion on Bishonen's talk page (courtesy ping). Well, I don't recall ever being accused of being a "fake admin", though I have, along with other non-admins, been accused of abusing my admin privileges. The ones I don't have. In terms of having been "attacked" on AN/I it has happened about three or four times total. The end result of these has always been more heat than light. The thing I would recommend, if you come under fire and you're not doing anything inappropriate, just ignore it and don't respond – hard as it is to do. There's no use in defending yourself; the person attacking isn't generally going to be willing to listen or reason with you and you just have to trust that the other editors involved (especially those of us who are regulars) are paying attention and can see bs when it's there. Maybe respond if it's an editor who is usually willing to reason and might have had a heat of the moment response, but, mostly just ignore. I spent time to go through a bit of the AN/I thread I linked above. There are moments where the long posts (looking to be pushing 5k on a couple occassions) don't do anything to bring clarity and just further an already pointless discussion. Consider the section entitled "Another arbitrary break" (started by you), it headed in the wrong direction almost immediately. Your first post was fine, but, it was met with hostility from AlexTW. You tried to engage with them to no avail and no productive outcome (repeatedly). From what I read in that section AlexTW was looking to carry-on the fight with you. By responding, you were just feeding their aggression. After that the two IPs show up and join in. No idea who they are or what they want, but, I agree with Bishonen that they aren't just randoms. The only thing you could have done is recuse yourself from the discussion. Might have saved you some grief. You've self-imposed a ban from AN/I for the duration of one new archive. I'd say that's about a month PBAN. Might do you some good to get away from the drama for a bit. Beyond that, there's not much you can do if somebody decides to attack you beside either cop it on the chin and move on or request action. Personally, I usually just cop it on the chin and move on. They'll get themselves blocked sooner or later. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have an answer because I haven't really had any problem. Everyone's interpersonal experiences are their own and should be dealt with as their own. Softlavender (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've lately been getting used to nodding silent agreement with a lot of what you say around the site, but your vote on the current RfA left me a bit baffled. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your outstanding negotiating and mediation skills. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Figureofnine submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Softlavender to be Editor of the Week for her outstanding negotiating and mediation skills, which recently resulted in her reaching a compromise that resulted in resolution of a particularly thorny user conduct issue at AN/I. Softlavender's proposal received near-unanimous acceptance among the warring factions, thereby resolving for the time-being a longstanding issue. There was considerable antagonism expressed, but she maintained her equanimity. Softlavender has honed her diplomatic skills through ten years on the project, 54,000 edits and creation of 82 articles. Thus it is my great pleasure to nominate Softlavender as editor of the week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This award is very much deserved! Congrats Softlavender. I know you will keep up the good work in the years ahead. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I'm away for a few days and I come back to this? This is quite a surprise and unexpected delight. Thanks very much Figureofnine, Lepricavark, Coretheapple, MarnetteD, and anyone else involved! :-) Softlavender (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats! Very deserving. Buster Seven Talk 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Buster! Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations, Softlavender. The award is well deserved.  – Corinne (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Corinne! Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So glad to nominate you for this. Long overdue! Just the kind of editor it was designed to honor. Thank you Buster for creating and administering this award. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Softlavender! Thoroughly well-deserved :) And thanks to Buster and the nominees for keeping this great booster on the road! Irondome (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, very well deserved! Huldra (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep up the good work WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 22:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Irondome, Huldra, EEng! I am preparing a speech, which will include a sit-down chicken dinner for all invitees and gatecrashers (until we run out). Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Softlavender. Hope you do Southern style for us gatecrashers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rented out the Elks Lodge Banquet Hall! It's not gonna be fried chicken, but the dessert is gonna have whipped cream! This is gonna be legit professional. I guarantee it! Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I third the nomination. She gives great advice too. Too bad some of it in ANi is ignored so quickly. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Softlavender, you and Buster both should be administrators. I nominate both by acclamation. Do I hear a second? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you inflict this on Softlavender (or Buster, for matter, whoever that is)? What have they ever done to you? EEng 23:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much Thanks to MarnetteD for re-awakening the distribution of a plaque to go along with the award. See Editor of the Week Hall of Fame Buster Seven Talk 14:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cheer for that! It was an honor for me to receive an EOTW, and to get a mention in the Hall of Fame, am glad to see it go to Softlavender. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender

Scenic Lavender Field

Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 27, 2017

A hard-at-work 10+ year veteran with over 60,000 edits. 82 articles created. Her excellent diplomatic skills are a true example of the type of editor that is the backbone of this encyclopedia.

Recognized for

Outstanding negotiating and mediation skills

Notable work(s)

Creating and maintaining articles over a wide range of topics.

Nomination page

Oh myyyyy (as George Takei might say). Well, I'm speechless. My, my, my. I may have to wear my Sunday best while giving my speech at the Elks Banquet Hall. Thanks very much to all concerned. I really love that plaque! That is a very cool thing. :-) Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well deserved! Bishonen | talk 17:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bish. You're invited to the chicken dinner too. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! —PaleoNeonate - 03:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In stark contrast to the above section, I have removed the personal attack / stupid bad taste joke you made at WP:AN. Please think twice before posting such things in such discussions, and please at least react when someone indicates that they have a problem with your post. Such comments do nothing to help the discussion and only confuse the situation, as they lack all context and are misplaced there. Fram (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got this. El_C 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was, thanks very much, El_C. I was going to give you "thanks" a ping but sometimes that's hard to do with protections. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting the semiprotection template, twice? El_C 10:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that you had reverted the sock, which was what I was trying to do. I restored the semi icon as soon as I realized that was the diff, just now. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. El_C 10:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, forgive my oversight; I'm in the middle of a Twitter DM (direct message) conversation with a historian which is indirectly related to some Wikipedia articles, so I've been toggling between a dozen windows and missed that little detail. :) Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for your work on the fox family

i got into a bit of a problem some months ago where I was trying to be more even handed about the naming convention of james fox (actor) and got interrupted mid way - and havent re-visited the scene of the crime - any suggestion e resolving the untouched remains - gratefully appreciated - if any of this makes no sense at all - can be more specifici with diffs (if I can find them ) JarrahTree 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JarrahTree, If you could be more clear (and also use correct capitalization and punctuation), and also link whatever articles you are referring to or wanting help with, and also be more precise as to what you are actually requesting, I might be able to reply cogently. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been recently editing articles relative to the Fox family. There is a problem there. In the last half hour you have edited Laurence Fox, James Fox, Edward Fox (actor) and Freddie Fox (actor). However lets leave it at that. Thanks for your reply. JarrahTree 03:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree, no one can read your mind and see a "problem there" if you do not describe what the problem is and what kind of assistance you would like. In addition, you have been here for more than 12 years and made more than 142,000 edits; please learn to nest your replies correctly under the post you are replying to using the appropriate number of colons. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into the content there, can I ask why you deleted the content I added to your first message? Thanks. Be good!238-Gdn (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see now that you just moved it. Thanks. 238-Gdn (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am inexperienced, but I am willing to learn from my mistakes. What steps do you suggest I take at this stage?238-Gdn (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@238-Gdn: I suggest focusing solely on content. I've given most of my advice in my posts at the ArbCom case request. You could start by choosing one issue which you feel is insufficiently resolved or insufficiently discussed, and starting a completely neutral and completely civil thread about it on the article talkpage, in an attempt to determine community consensus. If there is a deadlock or insufficient response, then neutrally request additional input from one of the WikiProjects listed on the article-talk banner, or ask for help from admin Zero0000. If that doesn't resolve the issue and establish a consensus, then choose a form of WP:DR to use. Since you are very new, you may also want to seek advice at the WP:TEAHOUSE. IMPORTANT: Never discuss article content on user talkpages -- only on article talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the best edits I've seen at ANI for a while (I don't frequent it, but still). I've not always been that impressed with your contributions, so take this as very high praise. You've gone up in my estimation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although it's the same thing I post on ANI or ARC constantly. Maybe you need to get out more? ;-) Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is for sure. See my talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to remove that "poll" once anyone presented any argument at all on the talk page, but got distracted away before doing so. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, not even ANI or AN leave discussions without any new comments open for three months, maybe at BN but I suspect too long there also, 3 months is rediculous, but have it your way. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you archive discussions at AN and ANI? You do realise there's a bot configured to do this automatically at the appropriate time? GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many threads go unattended to or under-attended to, especially by admins, if there are too many threads on a noticeboard, especially if many of them are quite long. Without closes and one-click archiving, ANI grows to 70–100 threads. With closes and then one-click archiving 24 or so hours after that, we are able to keep it down to, on average, less than 30 threads. Without closes and one-click archiving, many items do not get addressed or responded to at all, because they are lost in a sea of nearly a million bytes of black and white. (The purple-box closes also allow admins and other editors to easily see what does or does not need attending to.) All of this holds true at AN as well; although there is less of a need to one-click so quickly (because AN is less busy; however, bot-archiving is six days rather than three days there so it can get crowded), it's still important to clear the decks substantially when there is too much going on there and many huge threads are obscuring a few short ones. This system of purple-box closing and one-click archiving has worked very well, especially on ANI, for the past few years; we have increased the level of actual engagement with threads by a factor of 10 or more, rather than letting people's concerns get bot-archived without being addressed. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:BP (Band). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the mainspace version, did a merge and redirect. Your edits were quite helpful.

I appreciate your calm and insightful contributions and I'd like to run a little friendly experiment with you. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I do not accept your running "a little friendly experiment" with me. Please do not do so; this is your only warning. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry I was hoping to get some constructive feedback or thoughts on how to handle that. Experiment is long since over. Sorry it was not helpful for you. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Erlbaeko (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]