![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Hi Softlavender - I just saw your ping in RFPP with your concerns regarding the duration of the semi-protection that I set on Kurt Eichenwald. I apologize for following-up so late; as you can imagine, I've been busy with my off-wiki life due to the holiday season and what-not. To be honest, I'm scratching my head here... I could have sworn that I set the semi-protection length to be one month... Obviously, the extent of the vandalism (as well as the page logs and additional comments provided by the other editors) were more than enough to show that a protection of a long duration was needed. I know that extended confirmed wasn't needed due to the vandalism being made only by IPs and maybe some new users, but one day? I'm pretty sure that I goofed and set the wrong duration, and for that I owe my apologies (as well as my appreciation for you taking the time to follow-up and ask why I set it so damn low). It looks like the protection has been set to well beyond next year by another admin (yay!), else I'd be fixing that as we speak. Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns for me, and I'll be happy to assist further. I hope you had a good holiday. Cheers :-) -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Just passing a line to wish you a Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 01:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I said in my edit summary the film starts production today. Why do you keep removing it from Jack Lowden's filmography? Rusted AutoParts 06:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked you a direct question which you refused to answer, instead opting to ignore it and delete it. I told you that production was starting today, it's perfectly fine to add this into his filmography. Rusted AutoParts 06:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Contractions, which is indeed what most articles do. Johnbod ( talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
circa}}
may be used.Someone sent me a wiki email that I got a notification for but the email never arrived in my Gmail inbox or spam folder. Can someone (ONE person only, please) send me an email via the Wikipedia "Email this user" link, so I can check it? Things have been wonky lately with my Google Chrome and it may be affecting my gmail. By the way, when the first person does this, can they please place {{ygm}} below so everyone else knows? I only need one test email. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 03:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
To repeat, can someone who has never emailed me please email me, if you wouldn't mind and if it wouldn't overly compromise your desired level of anonymity? Thanks.
Softlavender (
talk)
10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I sent you message as well. I received my own copy right away. I've had Wikipedia email problems similar to what you describe, but never took the time to diagnose what was going wrong. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm one of the people who was pinged to take part in the above discussion, but have not had my comment/vote thereon tagged. I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to tag myself, but thought I'd bring it to your attention, if you feel it's appropriate. -- Killer Moff ( talk) 10:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for interjecting at the ANI discussion. I was in the process of preparing an RfC (or ELN notice) to get the dispute clearly settled as suggested by Serialjoepsycho. Since you didn't endorse that approach and responded on the article talk as well, I've been waiting for the dust to settle a bit more at both the ANI and talk page. Any concerns with this approach, or comments on what I have prepared: User:Ronz/notes#RFC.2FELN? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Any interest in discussing anything about it now that the ANI has closed? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi S. As a theatre devotee I think you will appreciate the memories that O shared with me in this thread User talk:Onel5969#A thank you then.2C now and for the future. A real treat. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 20:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
The Sorcerer's Apprentice | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1091 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day! (Find a flower on my talk.) Just read your comment regarding the Rodigast hymn, - there's a discussion on classical music, Reger, related, sort of. - After two severe hymns 1 · 2 I will turn to love today ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Bolier (2nd nomination) you cautioned editors to "remember to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of only English-language subjects". As the nominator of this deletion discussion, what specific bias did you detect? Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Soft, I think your comments about my moves at AN/I are unfair. Essentially just "must be guilty or people wouldn't be complaining at AN/I". Are there any actual moves that you think were controversial, in some sense that can be discussed? And what are you trying to say about dashes? None of my dash-related moves have been questioned by anybody, so if you have an issue with them please do bring it up. It's also unclear what you meant to suggest by "unilateral"; most of the moves in question are backed up by clear consensus. The ones being complained about, downcasing of lines, were motivated by comments at an RM that fixing one big bunch would leave things in an inconsistent state; was moving toward fixing that really controversial? And note that Mjroots has now withdrawn his proposal to cap all lines, for lack of anyone supporting him. I've asked him to withdraw the AN/I complaint, too, but don't know if he will. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you get the more balanced opinions you were looking for? Or just more piling on with no indication of which of my edits or moves might be considered controversial? What is motivating your nastiness toward me? Having I forgotten some place where I may have crossed you, or are you just an AN/I ambulance chaser? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Come on! I get what you mean ("real" content creation is harder than lists), but you could have typed a few more words. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As suggested in Top Ten lists discussion, I reviewed WP:RFC. I think (but am not 100% sure) that the appropriate request for comment regarding the dispute about critical response section guidelines in MOS:FILM is the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Am I on the right track? Thank you in advance. Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A neutral summary like "Other users' disagreements with Snow Rise" would probably suffice. A slightly less "neutral" but certainly more accurate summary like "Other users' rebuttals of Snow Rise's claims" would probably pass if someone other than you or me did it.
The sheer size of the !voting portion of the thread (probably 90% of it Snow Rise and our responses to him) has apparently started to attract the "this is too long for me to read -- kick it to ArbCom" crowd. I dislike his false claims going unchallenged as much as, if not more than, you do, but I think we don't have a choice.
Also pinging User:Only in death who agrees with both of us on the substance and I think agrees with me on this particular problem.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
(Note that I took it here because (1) the whole point is that the thread is TLDR at the moment, (2) I'm not IBANned yet, so discussion here is still possible, and (3) if the IBAN is put in place such discussion would become redundant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC))
Re
this, I've been adding {{
DNAU}}
to RfCs at articles where I'm involved. I let the duration default to 10 years and anyone can remove the keep after the RfC closes. That's working well and is preferable to increasing the archive age for everything on the page. ―
Mandruss
☎
09:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sadly right now I am involved with another editor on the talk page of the Garage rock article who is trying to have the article's GA status re-reviewed. This is a backwards step in light of the fact that I was trying to get the article ready for FAC. I know that you had mentioned that you felt that the article was near to FA. I have had to make a lot of trims to satisfy the needs of other editors. I know that you would have preferred to keep it at (or near) its previous length, but I am trying to come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. I feel that during FAC we can fix any remaining problems (or if need be, bring back some of the previous content--I'll supply everyone with an archive of where he article was at the beginning of November). But, right now, as I try to reduce the article to bring peace, it is having the opposite effect. I feel that I am getting bullied. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 07:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If DK canvasses again in any form, he should be blocked (cc: Drmies)
Technically, Drmies
said DK would very likely be blocked if he denied that canvassing had already occurred. Mind you, it's a given that further canvassing would carry at least as heavy a penalty as further IDHT behaviour regarding previous canvassing, so you weren't wrong.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I want you to stay off my talk page until the current ANI discussion is closed. I'll be happy to discuss with you whether you were technically wrong to selectively collapse my comments and insist that they stay collapsed after the the discussion was closed, or I was technically wrong to uncollapse after the discussion was closed. But that needs to wait until the ANI discussion is closed because I've already got enough distractions. You should self-revert now if you intend to honour my request, but I will also request an uninvolved admin do it in case you refuse. I am already technically in violation of 1RR, if one takes it as applying to revertion of repeated unwanted comments on my own talk page, so I won't do it myself for at least 24 hours. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
three reverts of the same content on the same pagewas untrue. 106.133.133.47 ( talk) 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, you are not allowed collapse or hat off others' comments with non-neutral and/or inaccurate summaries. Doing so violates the spirit of TPO. Aggressively and repeatedly restoring such while citing TPO is wikilawyering. If I see you doing so again I will request that someone else help me clarify it for you.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not revert edits without any explaination. I think you're mistaken. 206.45.11.108 ( talk) 04:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what virtual-history.com is and noticed you have a link here. Do you know what this website is? I can't find any discussion about it beyond an old spam report where no one responded. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel insulted in your intelligence. Paradoxically, that is exactly how I feel in this ANI, I am so disappointed. I just came here for enforcement for a breach of sanction after weeks of ANI before, that was all, I do not know all the technicalities, but I have an experience and know what makes sense and what does not. I started to be required more evidence as if nothing had happened before.
However, the editor in question continually provides fresh evidence for irregular (formal) editing, like removal of content, breach of AGF (also added by WCM), that is the basics of WP, not the content. It is difficult to explain, but this content is a taboo, critical matter in Spanish politics where nuanced positions are very difficult, with loose legal charges by politicized tribunals if you know closely Sp politics check also Transparency International, so you can imagine what my leeway is w that editor there... Not extending, apologies for the escalation. Do the right thing, I am done. Regards (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I saw this diff and was curious, because I think we might have different ideas of what a nursery rhyme is. All the nursery rhymes I can remember have a (basic) tune attached, so "nursery rhyme song" is redundant. Do other nursery rhymes not have tunes attached or is this a different distinction between simple melodies (Humpty Dumpty etc) and full-fledged songs? Mortee ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, those edits you reverted as POV were not mine. Take care with edit summary otherwise it seems like I made them. Asilah1981 ( talk) 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi- I would have posted this response under the appropriate section on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents page, but the section has already been closed (see here). The only thing I wish to address is your mention of my previous complaint against GregJackP. Please note that the recent report in question on the incident board was not commenced by me; rather, it was commenced by the other user, and I felt it was necessary to make sure the record was complete. I say this to make clear that there was no "regurgitation" on my part of a previous complaint: the similarity was incidental to me supplementing the record in efforts to counter GregJackP's accusations of harassment and "historical revisionism."
Anyways, thank you for your assistance in the matter. I will not be interacting with that user on Wikipedia anymore unless he contacts me first.
P.S. If possible, can this addendum be added to the appropriate section on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents? The section was closed very quickly, before I had a chance to respond to your message regarding my apology request, or the subsequent "regurgitation" note. I didn't expect my request for apology to be honored, but I nevertheless felt it was apposite to request one, given the other user's continued implied support for the inflammatory statements in issue. Thank you. JordanGero ( talk) 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender. I am not quite sure what to do about this page. The link that Blackstache keeps adding is to materials that clearly infringe upon copyright of other institutions. I've documented it well on the Lichfield Gospels talk page. The editor Blackstache seems to have one intent and that is to included this link. He or she does no other editing. Also, all the reasons Blackstache gives are far from reliable, from seconding that Wikipedia is not a court of law to saying that links have a lower bar. Every edit page states: "Content that violated any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Is this not really policy? Wilshire01 ( talk) 00:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
One more time. I just left this message answering Tiptoethrutheminefield's questions about copyright. For copyright information, I referred to these links: D-Lib Magazine, an academic journal for librarians : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may14/05inbrief.html and Manuscripts of Lichfield Cathedral : https://lichfield.ou.edu/st-chad-gospels/historical-image-overlays . Both show other copyright holders than Lichfield Cathedral. Furthermore, I just had an idea and did a google book search for Lichfield Gospels and Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art (1962 images) The results show a published academic book that attributes permissions to the Conway Library: [4] . I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshire01 ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Listen, I'm trying to make a very concise point.
El_C
11:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Kind of makes you wonder where the time went, no? Best, Aloha27 talk 02:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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, Akatombo), 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)
![]() | 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, daily totals), 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)
Why attack me? I was only trying to contribute to Wikipedia by creating Akatombo. Ethanbas ( talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
I thought of responding but it might be better coming from you. [5] Doug Weller talk 09:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
My best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
![]() | THE LAYOUT OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS ERRONEOUS. |
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
[13],
[14] ) -- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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:
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)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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 |
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)
I got this. El_C 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. That template should not be removed before there is consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved.
Erlbaeko (
talk)
07:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
That article is subject to one revision in 24 hours. You made this and this which is two. I'm not sure about this as it was removing something added without consensus so I have brought it up at WP:AN in the section titled "Khan Shaykhun chemical attack". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you see at the Village Pump Tech that here's an __INDEX__ template at the bottom of the page which overrides anything at the top? He's pretty stubborn. MfD? It's got about 60 userboxes linking to it. Maybe it should be somewhere else, but it shouldn't be indexed. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to do this at ANI as it's a bit public. You need to calm down and check things. To pick up on a few things from your comment at ANI:
GS notifications are required and necessary before reporting someone at AEand so there is nothing wrong with you having done so, what is the big problem with Erlbaeko having notified you - especially when it is now well-established that you had just violated the GS in place? He has a fair history of issuing such alerts and you can hardly claim that he's singled you out. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have not conflated anything; you appear not to have actually read the policy related to general sanctions, discretionary sanctions and alerts. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year"that you still don't seem to have grasped WP:AC/DS#aware.aware so let me spell it out: point 3 says
In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Erlbaeko has given three such notifications in the past twelve months, according to the log. There is some ambiguity here, as WP:AC/DS#alert.dup only talks about duplicate notifications, not unnecessary notifications, which is why I described it as "exploring the edges of disruptive editing", not actual disruption. GoldenRing ( talk) 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I am moving this to the thread because there is no reason toi have a conversation in two places. Softlavender ( talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Why do you object to both the AfD as-written, AND to any possible changes? Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender, Hope all is well, Would you say
DreamLinker was in any way related to
118 alex - They'd created their account on the 4th of July and have been editing Delhi related things however they've now taken an interest in the Singapore bus terminals that I've AFD'd so wasn't sure if this was another
Timothy S1 or whether I'm simply over thinking things ?,
Seems stupid to send everyone to SPI who edits a Singapore bus-related article so figured I'd ask you instead seeing as you're not easily fooled like some of us :),
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
13:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed this warning [16] you gave an editor. Not many people would realise this. See also this. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little worried about the slanderous comments you've just made about me with regards to some "threats" I've supposed to have made on an unspecified date to an unspecified person. Could you please see your way clear to go back to ANI to provide a diff for these threats. This is a serious allegation and I'm keen to understand this further. If you've got this wrong, I'd be expecting to see a strike and an apology. If you don't, I'll bee seeking advice a couple of threads below my one. Thanks. Cassianto Talk 22:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Hi Softlavender - I just saw your ping in RFPP with your concerns regarding the duration of the semi-protection that I set on Kurt Eichenwald. I apologize for following-up so late; as you can imagine, I've been busy with my off-wiki life due to the holiday season and what-not. To be honest, I'm scratching my head here... I could have sworn that I set the semi-protection length to be one month... Obviously, the extent of the vandalism (as well as the page logs and additional comments provided by the other editors) were more than enough to show that a protection of a long duration was needed. I know that extended confirmed wasn't needed due to the vandalism being made only by IPs and maybe some new users, but one day? I'm pretty sure that I goofed and set the wrong duration, and for that I owe my apologies (as well as my appreciation for you taking the time to follow-up and ask why I set it so damn low). It looks like the protection has been set to well beyond next year by another admin (yay!), else I'd be fixing that as we speak. Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns for me, and I'll be happy to assist further. I hope you had a good holiday. Cheers :-) -- ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Just passing a line to wish you a Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 01:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I said in my edit summary the film starts production today. Why do you keep removing it from Jack Lowden's filmography? Rusted AutoParts 06:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked you a direct question which you refused to answer, instead opting to ignore it and delete it. I told you that production was starting today, it's perfectly fine to add this into his filmography. Rusted AutoParts 06:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Contractions, which is indeed what most articles do. Johnbod ( talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
circa}}
may be used.Someone sent me a wiki email that I got a notification for but the email never arrived in my Gmail inbox or spam folder. Can someone (ONE person only, please) send me an email via the Wikipedia "Email this user" link, so I can check it? Things have been wonky lately with my Google Chrome and it may be affecting my gmail. By the way, when the first person does this, can they please place {{ygm}} below so everyone else knows? I only need one test email. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 03:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
To repeat, can someone who has never emailed me please email me, if you wouldn't mind and if it wouldn't overly compromise your desired level of anonymity? Thanks.
Softlavender (
talk)
10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I sent you message as well. I received my own copy right away. I've had Wikipedia email problems similar to what you describe, but never took the time to diagnose what was going wrong. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm one of the people who was pinged to take part in the above discussion, but have not had my comment/vote thereon tagged. I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to tag myself, but thought I'd bring it to your attention, if you feel it's appropriate. -- Killer Moff ( talk) 10:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for interjecting at the ANI discussion. I was in the process of preparing an RfC (or ELN notice) to get the dispute clearly settled as suggested by Serialjoepsycho. Since you didn't endorse that approach and responded on the article talk as well, I've been waiting for the dust to settle a bit more at both the ANI and talk page. Any concerns with this approach, or comments on what I have prepared: User:Ronz/notes#RFC.2FELN? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Any interest in discussing anything about it now that the ANI has closed? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi S. As a theatre devotee I think you will appreciate the memories that O shared with me in this thread User talk:Onel5969#A thank you then.2C now and for the future. A real treat. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 20:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
The Sorcerer's Apprentice | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1091 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day! (Find a flower on my talk.) Just read your comment regarding the Rodigast hymn, - there's a discussion on classical music, Reger, related, sort of. - After two severe hymns 1 · 2 I will turn to love today ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Bolier (2nd nomination) you cautioned editors to "remember to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of only English-language subjects". As the nominator of this deletion discussion, what specific bias did you detect? Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Soft, I think your comments about my moves at AN/I are unfair. Essentially just "must be guilty or people wouldn't be complaining at AN/I". Are there any actual moves that you think were controversial, in some sense that can be discussed? And what are you trying to say about dashes? None of my dash-related moves have been questioned by anybody, so if you have an issue with them please do bring it up. It's also unclear what you meant to suggest by "unilateral"; most of the moves in question are backed up by clear consensus. The ones being complained about, downcasing of lines, were motivated by comments at an RM that fixing one big bunch would leave things in an inconsistent state; was moving toward fixing that really controversial? And note that Mjroots has now withdrawn his proposal to cap all lines, for lack of anyone supporting him. I've asked him to withdraw the AN/I complaint, too, but don't know if he will. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you get the more balanced opinions you were looking for? Or just more piling on with no indication of which of my edits or moves might be considered controversial? What is motivating your nastiness toward me? Having I forgotten some place where I may have crossed you, or are you just an AN/I ambulance chaser? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Come on! I get what you mean ("real" content creation is harder than lists), but you could have typed a few more words. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As suggested in Top Ten lists discussion, I reviewed WP:RFC. I think (but am not 100% sure) that the appropriate request for comment regarding the dispute about critical response section guidelines in MOS:FILM is the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Am I on the right track? Thank you in advance. Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A neutral summary like "Other users' disagreements with Snow Rise" would probably suffice. A slightly less "neutral" but certainly more accurate summary like "Other users' rebuttals of Snow Rise's claims" would probably pass if someone other than you or me did it.
The sheer size of the !voting portion of the thread (probably 90% of it Snow Rise and our responses to him) has apparently started to attract the "this is too long for me to read -- kick it to ArbCom" crowd. I dislike his false claims going unchallenged as much as, if not more than, you do, but I think we don't have a choice.
Also pinging User:Only in death who agrees with both of us on the substance and I think agrees with me on this particular problem.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
(Note that I took it here because (1) the whole point is that the thread is TLDR at the moment, (2) I'm not IBANned yet, so discussion here is still possible, and (3) if the IBAN is put in place such discussion would become redundant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC))
Re
this, I've been adding {{
DNAU}}
to RfCs at articles where I'm involved. I let the duration default to 10 years and anyone can remove the keep after the RfC closes. That's working well and is preferable to increasing the archive age for everything on the page. ―
Mandruss
☎
09:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sadly right now I am involved with another editor on the talk page of the Garage rock article who is trying to have the article's GA status re-reviewed. This is a backwards step in light of the fact that I was trying to get the article ready for FAC. I know that you had mentioned that you felt that the article was near to FA. I have had to make a lot of trims to satisfy the needs of other editors. I know that you would have preferred to keep it at (or near) its previous length, but I am trying to come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. I feel that during FAC we can fix any remaining problems (or if need be, bring back some of the previous content--I'll supply everyone with an archive of where he article was at the beginning of November). But, right now, as I try to reduce the article to bring peace, it is having the opposite effect. I feel that I am getting bullied. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 07:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
If DK canvasses again in any form, he should be blocked (cc: Drmies)
Technically, Drmies
said DK would very likely be blocked if he denied that canvassing had already occurred. Mind you, it's a given that further canvassing would carry at least as heavy a penalty as further IDHT behaviour regarding previous canvassing, so you weren't wrong.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I want you to stay off my talk page until the current ANI discussion is closed. I'll be happy to discuss with you whether you were technically wrong to selectively collapse my comments and insist that they stay collapsed after the the discussion was closed, or I was technically wrong to uncollapse after the discussion was closed. But that needs to wait until the ANI discussion is closed because I've already got enough distractions. You should self-revert now if you intend to honour my request, but I will also request an uninvolved admin do it in case you refuse. I am already technically in violation of 1RR, if one takes it as applying to revertion of repeated unwanted comments on my own talk page, so I won't do it myself for at least 24 hours. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
three reverts of the same content on the same pagewas untrue. 106.133.133.47 ( talk) 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, you are not allowed collapse or hat off others' comments with non-neutral and/or inaccurate summaries. Doing so violates the spirit of TPO. Aggressively and repeatedly restoring such while citing TPO is wikilawyering. If I see you doing so again I will request that someone else help me clarify it for you.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not revert edits without any explaination. I think you're mistaken. 206.45.11.108 ( talk) 04:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what virtual-history.com is and noticed you have a link here. Do you know what this website is? I can't find any discussion about it beyond an old spam report where no one responded. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel insulted in your intelligence. Paradoxically, that is exactly how I feel in this ANI, I am so disappointed. I just came here for enforcement for a breach of sanction after weeks of ANI before, that was all, I do not know all the technicalities, but I have an experience and know what makes sense and what does not. I started to be required more evidence as if nothing had happened before.
However, the editor in question continually provides fresh evidence for irregular (formal) editing, like removal of content, breach of AGF (also added by WCM), that is the basics of WP, not the content. It is difficult to explain, but this content is a taboo, critical matter in Spanish politics where nuanced positions are very difficult, with loose legal charges by politicized tribunals if you know closely Sp politics check also Transparency International, so you can imagine what my leeway is w that editor there... Not extending, apologies for the escalation. Do the right thing, I am done. Regards (Thanks for not pinging me) Iñaki LL ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I saw this diff and was curious, because I think we might have different ideas of what a nursery rhyme is. All the nursery rhymes I can remember have a (basic) tune attached, so "nursery rhyme song" is redundant. Do other nursery rhymes not have tunes attached or is this a different distinction between simple melodies (Humpty Dumpty etc) and full-fledged songs? Mortee ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, those edits you reverted as POV were not mine. Take care with edit summary otherwise it seems like I made them. Asilah1981 ( talk) 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi- I would have posted this response under the appropriate section on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents page, but the section has already been closed (see here). The only thing I wish to address is your mention of my previous complaint against GregJackP. Please note that the recent report in question on the incident board was not commenced by me; rather, it was commenced by the other user, and I felt it was necessary to make sure the record was complete. I say this to make clear that there was no "regurgitation" on my part of a previous complaint: the similarity was incidental to me supplementing the record in efforts to counter GregJackP's accusations of harassment and "historical revisionism."
Anyways, thank you for your assistance in the matter. I will not be interacting with that user on Wikipedia anymore unless he contacts me first.
P.S. If possible, can this addendum be added to the appropriate section on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents? The section was closed very quickly, before I had a chance to respond to your message regarding my apology request, or the subsequent "regurgitation" note. I didn't expect my request for apology to be honored, but I nevertheless felt it was apposite to request one, given the other user's continued implied support for the inflammatory statements in issue. Thank you. JordanGero ( talk) 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender. I am not quite sure what to do about this page. The link that Blackstache keeps adding is to materials that clearly infringe upon copyright of other institutions. I've documented it well on the Lichfield Gospels talk page. The editor Blackstache seems to have one intent and that is to included this link. He or she does no other editing. Also, all the reasons Blackstache gives are far from reliable, from seconding that Wikipedia is not a court of law to saying that links have a lower bar. Every edit page states: "Content that violated any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Is this not really policy? Wilshire01 ( talk) 00:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
One more time. I just left this message answering Tiptoethrutheminefield's questions about copyright. For copyright information, I referred to these links: D-Lib Magazine, an academic journal for librarians : http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may14/05inbrief.html and Manuscripts of Lichfield Cathedral : https://lichfield.ou.edu/st-chad-gospels/historical-image-overlays . Both show other copyright holders than Lichfield Cathedral. Furthermore, I just had an idea and did a google book search for Lichfield Gospels and Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art (1962 images) The results show a published academic book that attributes permissions to the Conway Library: [4] . I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshire01 ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Listen, I'm trying to make a very concise point.
El_C
11:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Kind of makes you wonder where the time went, no? Best, Aloha27 talk 02:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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, Akatombo), 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)
![]() | 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, daily totals), 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)
Why attack me? I was only trying to contribute to Wikipedia by creating Akatombo. Ethanbas ( talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
I thought of responding but it might be better coming from you. [5] Doug Weller talk 09:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
My best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
![]() | THE LAYOUT OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE IS ERRONEOUS. |
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
[13],
[14] ) -- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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:
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)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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 |
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)
I got this. El_C 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. That template should not be removed before there is consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved.
Erlbaeko (
talk)
07:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
That article is subject to one revision in 24 hours. You made this and this which is two. I'm not sure about this as it was removing something added without consensus so I have brought it up at WP:AN in the section titled "Khan Shaykhun chemical attack". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you see at the Village Pump Tech that here's an __INDEX__ template at the bottom of the page which overrides anything at the top? He's pretty stubborn. MfD? It's got about 60 userboxes linking to it. Maybe it should be somewhere else, but it shouldn't be indexed. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to do this at ANI as it's a bit public. You need to calm down and check things. To pick up on a few things from your comment at ANI:
GS notifications are required and necessary before reporting someone at AEand so there is nothing wrong with you having done so, what is the big problem with Erlbaeko having notified you - especially when it is now well-established that you had just violated the GS in place? He has a fair history of issuing such alerts and you can hardly claim that he's singled you out. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have not conflated anything; you appear not to have actually read the policy related to general sanctions, discretionary sanctions and alerts. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, Erlbaeko had not received "more than one alert per area of conflict per year"that you still don't seem to have grasped WP:AC/DS#aware.aware so let me spell it out: point 3 says
In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Erlbaeko has given three such notifications in the past twelve months, according to the log. There is some ambiguity here, as WP:AC/DS#alert.dup only talks about duplicate notifications, not unnecessary notifications, which is why I described it as "exploring the edges of disruptive editing", not actual disruption. GoldenRing ( talk) 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I am moving this to the thread because there is no reason toi have a conversation in two places. Softlavender ( talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Why do you object to both the AfD as-written, AND to any possible changes? Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Softlavender, Hope all is well, Would you say
DreamLinker was in any way related to
118 alex - They'd created their account on the 4th of July and have been editing Delhi related things however they've now taken an interest in the Singapore bus terminals that I've AFD'd so wasn't sure if this was another
Timothy S1 or whether I'm simply over thinking things ?,
Seems stupid to send everyone to SPI who edits a Singapore bus-related article so figured I'd ask you instead seeing as you're not easily fooled like some of us :),
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
13:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed this warning [16] you gave an editor. Not many people would realise this. See also this. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little worried about the slanderous comments you've just made about me with regards to some "threats" I've supposed to have made on an unspecified date to an unspecified person. Could you please see your way clear to go back to ANI to provide a diff for these threats. This is a serious allegation and I'm keen to understand this further. If you've got this wrong, I'd be expecting to see a strike and an apology. If you don't, I'll bee seeking advice a couple of threads below my one. Thanks. Cassianto Talk 22:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)