User talk:Softlavender

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

Le Garçon au gilet rouge, par Paul Cézanne.jpg


The Signpost: 24 December 2018[edit]


DYK for Raymond Arritt[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! That's very beautiful. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

Topic ban listing[edit]

You may possibly find the topic ban listed at WP:Editing restrictions, but they don't always get listed. Unless the editor successfully appealed the TBan on AN (or ANI), it's still in effect.

Thanks. I checked, but I don't see it listed at all. Are rescinded topic bans usually deleted from the list? --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not if they were never listed there in the first place, which would not be entirely surprising for an admin-applied TBan. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Calton, maybe tell me by e-mail who it is? Bishonen | talk 06:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC).


I just saw your revert. There was a popular sentiment on the tp in favour of doing away with that section.[1] Perhaps I should have cited it in my edit summary. FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


Softlavender, please leave my edits in the JANE AUSTEN entry alone; they are correct as I wrote them as well as grammatically. Wikipedia's editors and checkers have accepted my edits as correct, and as you are not on their staff I must question your judgement in this. If you continue to revert my edits, I will be forced to report you to Wikipedia for vandalism.TonyPS214 13:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Goodness me Gareth. Are you sure that shouldn't be "horse (shit)" or "(horse) shit"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones[edit]

While you and I disagree about your reversions, I do not believe that you countenance the below message from user Gareth Griffith-Jones, supposedly on your behalf:

(talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already forwarded this posting to Wikipedia for possible disciplinary action.TonyPS214 16:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been immediately dismissed [2]. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I thought it "had legs", as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget the parentheses (brackets) (Rock 'n ' roll) [3]. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In the words of Theresa's biggest fan, I think there's "special place in hell" for that kind of thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it appalling! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Describe your revert. Why an editor should use "15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)" as the timestamp when the message was posted on 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Harmanprtjhj, per WP:TPO you can't edit or remove another editor's post. If you want the editor to change the time stamp, you may ask them on their talkpage or on that thread. If you want to alert others that the message was posted at a different time and date, you can mention that below the post on that ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and done. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

He never disappoints, does he?[edit]

EEng 16:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Causes of death and defining traits.[edit]

I noticed you revered my edit to Richard Wagner and cited WP:NONDEFINING as your justification. But I'm not sure cause of death falls under the "defining characteristic" requirement. This is partly because I don't think how somebody died can really be called a "characteristic". Or is there something I'm missing? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

All categories are characteristics. Death by myocardial infarction is not a defining characteristic of Richard Wagner. Read WP:NONDEFINING. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I am contacting you in regard to your recent close of a discussion at ANI. The editor the OP was writing about refused to engage in discussion. At quick look at their talk page and their editing history shows they have never once posted or replied on any talk page. Even though this is a content dispute, there is also this communication issue, so what other choice does the OP have but to seek redress at ANI? Please reopen the discussion that with the latest info included in my post can possibly be considered by an admin for action. Thank you - wolf 07:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, you clearly got this one wrong. Please show a little more patience if you're going to be closing discussions, especially at ANI, and a little more cooperation with your fellow editors in the future wouldn't hurt either. Have a nice day. - wolf 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Common name[edit]

Please help me understand. You cited WP:COMMONNAME for reverting on Gianni Schicchi. I understand that the guideline is for article titles. Not for using names in an article. I understand that we use common names for article titles. As long as the article title is Dante Alighieri, we can inform our readers about that once in a long article. You could also try to move to Dante, which I agree is the common name. What did I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dante is still the English-language common name, which is why Dante goes to that article. Just as Michelangelo is the English-language common name of Michelangelo Buonarroti. Adding the surname in other articles is confusing for English readers because it is rarely used in English and merely serves to complicate what was previously clear. The goal for article writing is to make the writing as clear and easily understandable as possible for the reader. If the article were about medieval Italian writers, the surname might be useful, but it is merely confusing in an article about a 20th-century comic opera. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand the explanation much better than the link to a guideline which doesn't even speak about that situation, - that our article name is not the common name. - Next question: while I add apostrophe and s for a possessive after the link, I would not change someone else who included those in a piped link, especially not in a FA. Why did you change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Because it was incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain why, or link to a guideline? - It's easily understandable to me, as a reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Possessive "apostrophe s"s do not belong inside a wikilink unless there is an article of that title and the construction links there. See WP:EGG. Please take this to the talkpage of the article if you want further discussion of it. Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience with my shortcomings in English. Just to make sure I understood: do you mean a reader would think the article name is Dante's? - For my articles, it's a theoretical question, because as long as the piece by a poet has an article, I wouldn't link the author. But I'm still ready to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's one of the two reasons. The other reason is, as I said, possessive "apostrophe s"s do not belong inside a wikilink of a person's name; the link should only encompass the name. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I read EGG now and found nothing about it, but fine. As said above, that's what I do anyway. I'd just not change others. Clickimg on Dante's was a nice eggy surprise ;) - Thank you. Watchlist done, article work waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi Softlavender, thank you for your advise on my ANI request. I have decided to withdraw as I have no time to deal with users such as Future.Perf. I hope that one day he will understand that this is not a way to treat contributors. - Stevepeterson (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

To save us both some time[edit]

...there's a list at User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms. —Cryptic 03:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I started commenting on these and then so how many of them there were. It looks to me like every single one of them is a speedy keep as of right now as you simply say they are "invalid" and violate "various policies and guidelines" without defining even one actual policy or guideline. No matter how obvious you belive this is you are still required to actually state what policy is being violated, otherwise you haven't actually made an argument. I can't believe this really needs to be explained to such an experienced and generally knowledgeable person such as yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
So why didn't you nominate Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration (which is one I could contemplate !voting "delete" on)? Is it because you like talking like a pirate? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

One little edit can lead to so much! Congrats S. MarnetteD|Talk 22:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

my edit summaries[edit]

Softlavender, you left a pretty strong statement on my talk page, please tone it down. I've added edit summaries to most pages, but do occasionally forget. As I get accustomed to doing them again, forgetting tbem will become rarer and rarer....nobody's perfect.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

reply on user[edit]

I noticed the Hogarth as I clicked through to your talk, then a Cezanne I hadn't seen in years. They were presented as a pre-impressionist and a social realist, a sort of preface to twentieth century art, but I see them as continuing a coherent … I should stop there :P I like their work a lot!

Anyway, thanks for the reply on my concern. I didn't notice the user blanked it, I was distracted by whatever content I was working, I think it was finding a favourite author had written a paper on some creatures habits. No, it was an Author who had had a species named after himself arguing that it should be called by the traditional name, I was beside myself with joy as you might imagine (if you imagine a user with peculiar interests :).

The user is relishing the idea of combat so I am inclined to frustrate that. I'm not going to switch from researching content to responding to the account, Pvmoutside (talk · contribs), I'm considering just moving away from writing about anything in their scope, which is Animalia. The articles I work on are short, tattered, or next to empty, and have been for a decade. Fixing that, as I am sure you, requires a bit of concentration, a table full of open books, a dozen open tabs, a revert from 'confused user' who has a thing for me …! To me it is clear cut, but I am of course bias; as I have before I eventually be exhausted by the vicious gnomery of game-playing boys and seek to make myself useful elsewhere. In the meantime, I will persist with what I have been doing, the facts are far too interesting to be absent here. Thank you for attending to my concern. cygnis insignis 06:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cygnis insignis, I've been off-wiki for a couple of weeks. My comment would be: It's up to you, but if the editor continues to edit problematically, it is to Wikipedia's advantage that it be reported. That way a number of other editors can review his edits and editing patterns. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, hope you had a nice break. I'll consider what say, but is it is clear that one or two users have been willing to ignore the activities of the user because it achieves the outcome they want without getting their hands dirty. My grievance is about actions undertaken during my long absence, and it has not played out well for those who have objected before. I'm going to play to my strengths, and that is not researching another user and providing evidence in a forum. These concerns will be sorted out eventually, but I have found it useful to use you as a sounding board and have been able to mostly refocus on what I love doing here. cygnis insignis 09:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


While I share your view that we don't need any of the automated new portals, I don't think we should throw out all. Portal Germany has viewers, and changes almost daily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The edit you reverted[edit]

FYI, the edit you reverted didn't need to be reverted. What my edit did was combine a duplicate reference into 1, thus it named the reference and reused it. If you look at the history of the page you'll see what my edit was. It was not a 'removal of a reference without consensus' as you wrote. --Level C (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Level C. The main problem is that you removed 531 bytes without the slightest explanation. Please explain all of your edits going forward. Mass unexplained edits such as you made are why people end up getting AWB rights removed. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Would 336 edits in 12 hours, where I've added a summary to most be considered "mass edits"? --Level C (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Mass edit means the edit where you changed hundreds of things, and removed 531 bytes, and left the edit summary "typo(s) fixed: Europe’s → Europe's": [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
.. I checked my stats and my edit summaries did go from 100% each month to 94.5%. I'll add them ... --Level C (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This unexplained edit took the closing tag off of a table and made the rest of the article into a table, might want to check which AWB setting caused that. Kees08 (Talk) 00:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't an AWB setting. I actually edited that myself 'cause I thought it was an extra } .. That was my error.- I should have previewed the edit. --Level C (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]


Ambox warning orange.svg
An article you created or have contributed to has been nominated for deletion
Click the image for an important message.
Like, it's April Fools' Day today, you know?







on!    North America1000 10:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Waaaaaah! Ya got me. :) Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess it worked... North America1000 00:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Please remember that in WP:BRD, you must Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary as "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant." Also, read up on the bad reasons to revert. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jack Lowden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Softlavender reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: ). Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman → Chair (officer)[edit]

Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:

Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

Made a note on admin noticeboard about you[edit]

It says to inform the user in question therefore I am leaving this note. No hostility is intended, merely the ingretity of the kitchen sink page. Cardbottleenvelope (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Na Hoku Hanohano Awards[edit]

Aloha, I'm working with the Hawaii Academy right now for the change in the verbiage of the Na Hoku Awards. They are moving away from using any definitions with "GRAMMY" or "GRAMMYS" in it. They have sent press releases already out to all news outlets. If you have any question you can contact Pali the HARA President directly through the Hara website. Mahalo for understanding. Allanbcool (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Please See Na Hoku Hanohano Awards

Hi Allanbcool, you need to declare your conflict of interest on the talkpage of the article and on your userpage. Additionally, on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable independent sources, say, not what the subject of the wiki article says. Please do not remove cited material from the article. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. Can you please help me to create the talk page so we can proceed to move in the right direction. I'm a more newer editor and want to make sure it is all set up correctly out the gate. Allanbcool (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies.[edit]

In rolling back an uncalled-for revert (IMO, of course) with its apparently obligatory personal attack in the edit summary, I also nuked a reply. Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

"Notice of Fair Warning" on Gab's "Talk" Page[edit]

I'm trying to get a feel for what protocol is, and why things are done certain ways. Why did you post X-Editor's "warning" on the Gab talk page, instead of his own Talk page? I assume it's either A) Because that's how it's done, or B) What you were saying to him applies to others, or C) Both. If it's B or C, I have questions, particularly with regard to "quoting Torba", because that's been a pending issue with me for several weeks now, i.e. is there some kind of ban on quoting Torba, or was it X-Editor's edits-specific, etc... I have other questions besides this re: Wikipedia policy and how it applies to the article on Gab.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I felt like it. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Maria Callas article[edit]

I fear we are having some difficulty in this article. It appears you have an attachment to the article that precludes other editors from improving it. If this continues we should call upon the services of Wikipedia to intervene so the article can be brought into proper encyclopedia standards. I mean no disrespect to you, but some of the changes you are making show a lacking in proper training and experience in writing. For example, one never writes "in order to" when referencing something that was done for a purpose. That is taught in the first year of a writer's education. The words "in order" are unnecessary and meaningless, which is why they are considered improper style. I realize not every Wikipedia editor can be a professional editor, but we must always try to adhere to the rules of English grammar and style. I assure you, that is my only interest in this or any other Wikipedia article. Just because something has been incorrect for more than a decade is no reason to allow it to continue. I would like to encourage you to work with me in removing writing that has improper grammar and style instead of claiming some type of ownership over the article. Please remember that we are colleagues in our efforts here, not adversaries. All the best to you. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion of article content on the talkpage of the article, rather than on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's completely off-topic for ANI...[edit] bringing it here.

As for your bringing up my previous IBANs -- I have to say, I'm disappointed. You know quite well that all but the two most recent (which were imposed under very questionable circumstances) were put in place at my request to protect me from one-way hounding (they were two-way basically because I chose to minimize drama by taking advantage of the fact that the other party in each case also claimed they wanted a two-way IBAN, and not having to convince the peanut gallery at ANI that a one-way sanction is required is always the best way to prevent drama): and the other parties to virtually all of them have long since left the project because they kept violating the bans! If you don't agree with me, User:Curly Turkey and everyone else (pinging CT since you, he and I have a positive and collaborative history and I'd really like to hear his take on what you wrote) regarding the Pearl Harbour stuff, the copyvio, and all the rest, that's fine -- you're entitled to your opinion -- but bringing up other unrelated sanctions as though they had been placed on me for disruption on my part is something only the very worst type of Wikipedia editors do, and I seriously expected better from you.

In fact I still do. I consider you a friend a great Wikipedian, and I'm perfectly willing to talk this out with you to figure out what I might have done to provoke that remark.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

WIR twitter[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that the tweet you refer to in your ARC statement has been deleted. Risker (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it was deleted two hours after it was reported at WP:FRAM. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a statement on the same topic as you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Starship.paint. starship.paint (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, Starship.paint, thanks for letting me know. Also, in two of those tweets (including the one recently deleted), the WiR account said "[I'm] ashamed of them" (the community questioning the unilateral ban/desysop). Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Updated. starship.paint (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. In response to this incident, WP:WPWIR are working on new social media principles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Social media. They are looking for constructive criticism and constructive discussion - if you can provide that. starship.paint (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe Arbitration Case Request[edit]

Hi Softlavender, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. At the direction of the committee I've removed part of your statement that referencing WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the case request is focused on the reversal of office actions. Please note this has been done as a clerk action and these statements should not be re-added nor my action reversed without prior approval of an Arbitration Committee Clerk or an Arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Gab: Extension vs. Website[edit]

I agree with your focus on "readability", however there is meaning that I also think needs to be included. In case you don't know, Dissenter is both website and "extension", and they are two very different things. Both exist, and both should be mentioned as if they exist separately. The extension is an add-on that drops a dialogue box on top of whatever web page you happen to be looking at. This is where the term "overlay" comes from (although it is technically inaccurate; it's the word we have from RS). In contrast, the website is simply that. A standalone website with a URL that you can browse to and post comments there. I assume the website and the extension share a common database, as comments made via website appear to those using the extension, and vice versa. I'm not as concerned with HOW it's said, and will trust your wordsmithing skills and judgement, however I would like the article to make reference to both as if they are two different things. Failing to do this might create the impression that (for example) when "bad things" happen to the extension (being booted out of Google Play Store, or whatever), something "bad" happens to the website also. Both exist, more or less, independent of each other.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I take all this back. I was reading the history of the edits and not the actual article. The article says what I want to say perfect. You can delete this. I would, but don't know if that's allowed.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem; I'll just leave it so my deletion doesn't look odd, and probably move it to archive soon. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open![edit]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

Consultation on "Good Writing"[edit]

[[5]] "Some authors think that World War II could have ended earlier if Marshall had had his way; others think that such an invasion would have meant utter failure." This kind of thing drives me crazy. Assuming this isn't considered "good writing", is there some formula or method to fix it so that no intended meaning is lost? My first thought was "...if Marshall had been allowed to have...", but that introduces the idea that someone or something was stopping him. I could research the whole thing, but I'd rather just plug & play alternate language that doesn't require the Editor to learn the full context before tweaking things, if possible.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That wording is correct; "had had" is the past perfect tense of "have". Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Tsu*miki* 🌉 08:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My blunder[edit]

Sorry, I was tired. But I can't fix it from my iPad, or at least I know from bitter experience that I'm likely to make more of s mess, and won't be home for several hours. Any chance you can fix it for me with an edit summary saying I asked you to fix it? If you could, that would be great. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Roger that, D. Will do now. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

Daily Mail[edit]

I'd noticed the IP's many edits on Recent Changes, but he/she cited this RFC which says in the closing There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. so I didn't challenge the removals. Was I wrong to not revert? Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd. Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant fact(s) should not be removed simply because they are cited to the DM. This however has been what this IP is deliberately doing, and he has been warned about it eight times so far: [6]. Clear-cut gossip and irrelevant trivia is fine to remove, but the user is mostly removing neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts, quite deliberately. If they continue they will be reported to administrators and blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Softlavender, thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me, I appreciate it. Face-smile.svg Schazjmd (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, Softlavender is wrong. "Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts" that are cited to the Daily Mail should have the citation replaced if possible, and if not the citation to the Daily Mail should be replaced with a Citation Needed tag. "The use of the Daily Mail as a reference is generally prohibited." Generally prohibited means generally prohibited. Here is the result of the RfC:
"Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.
The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims. The oppose !votes made three main arguments:
The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.
The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases.
Singling out one source does not deal with the other poor sources that are currently permitted. This point is outside the scope of this RFC, which concerns only the Daily Mail. However, the discussion is closed without prejudice towards future discussions on such sources.
There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." --WP:DAILYMAIL
Pleased note the last sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, thanks, and sorry if I'm being dense but it sounds like you and Softlavender are saying the same thing. Softlavender says leave the content (not addressing the citation), and you're saying replace the citation with a better one or CN (not addressing the content). So the IP who was removing (not replacing) every DM citation and all of the content around it was applying that RFC incorrectly. No? Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We are saying the same thing about content. The IP was blocked for personal attacks and general asshattery, but he would have most likely been blocked for removing content that was neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts. That sort of content should stay, with the DM citation removed. Dubious content should be removed along with the DM citation. But either way the DM citation should be removed. In edits such as this one[7] Softlavender restored the content and the DM citation. The RfC is clear; the citation should not have been restored. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon and Softlavender, thank you both for your patience. Now I'll know how to deal with any similar edits in the future. I appreciate it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing your sandbox[edit]

Greetings, Softlavender. I edited your sandbox as part of a campaign to remove lint errors from Wikipedia. For more on why this important, see Wikipedia:Linter. I believe my changes preserved the appearance exactly and removed all lint errors. Is there a problem? —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit my sandbox without my permission. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I won't edit your sandbox without permission. Please be aware that Self-closed tags is a high priority lint error, and right now, in all of English Wikipedia, there is only one item with this error: User:Softlavender/sandbox. The self-closed <p/> is not correct markup and does nothing. If you want a line break at that point in the wikitext, use </p><p>. If you want the text to continue on the same line, remove the self-closed tag. User:Softlavender/sandbox also has Obsolete HTML tags and Missing end tag lint errors, but these are considered low priority lint errors. It would be great if you fix the self-closed tag; the other lint errors don't matter much. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've restored your changes. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Is there a good reason why this is a redlink? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Softlavender --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Very kind of you, Dweller! I don't like responsibility, and I like my function on Wikipedia as a content creator and a commentator, and I don't like tools and such. I'm happier being a civilian, really. I can be more myself that way. Thanks for the vote of confidence, however! Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. I've seen you around and whilst I'm really quite terrible at remember 'who done what' over a longer period, I have seen you been kind and clueful and your username is distinctive enough that I have an overwhelmingly positive reaction when I see it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


Hope you are doing well, I recently noticed you posted a warning on my talk page regarding vandalism. In a desire to learn from this experience, what did I do wrong that was presumed as vandalism, and does this have anything to do with using Wikipedia editing as a classroom tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talkcontribs) 22:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My error; I thought this edit was vandalism but it was only the odd and bizarrely wordy name of the image file. You may remove my warning. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for my ban[edit]

Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions about Expanding Dance in India articles[edit]

Hi again, I noticed that you made three comments on my talk page today. I am trying to expand Dance in India articles, where the article boxes do not reflect current articles. Also, some of these articles have more relevant information in foreign language articles (i.e. Hindi, Tamil, Tulu, Kannada, Bengali, Assamese, etc.) that should be translated by editors that are more fluent in the articles' respective languages. Many of the pages also are lacking in descriptive information that should be expanded by those familiar with it, warranting expand language tags, stub tags, and the like. Many of the articles also lack images or descriptive boxes that many similar Dance in India articles have. I will make sure to fill out the description of edits field in the future. What is the best method expand the Dance in India articles properly, without causing unintended disruption? Thank you for all your help, and sorry for any inconveniences I may have caused! Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Another question- This is my first month editing, and I am a bit unfamiliar with the technical terms you left on my talk page. What are those in layman's terms? Thank you so much! Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Being a Language Arts teacher, the last thing I want to cause is disruption, do most of my edits have to be on an informational basis, and are expanding dance in India hyperlinks, photos, and requesting to expand such articles, whether it be there is no longer article or there is a larger article in a different language considered contributions or disruptions?

For example, this article, has information in its respective article on Tulu Wikipedia, and its article on Kannada Wikipedia, that cannot be found on its English counterpart. What would you suggest my best course of action be to have those more familiar with the languages expand the English article? Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about Adding and Updating Images and Infoboxes[edit]

Hey, am I permitted to add or update images? I know that you mentioned when you requested me to stop tagging articles for expansion and to change my editing habits, and what about adding Infoboxes to pages that don't have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talkcontribs) 17:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FantasiaCDcover.jpg[edit]


The file File:FantasiaCDcover.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free cover art being used in a decorative manner in The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Dukas)#Fantasia. If this was being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album itself, it would almost certainly be fine per item 2 of WP:NFCI. Non-free use of album cover art in other articles or in other ways, however, tends to require a much stronger justification per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and there is no real sourced critical commentary discussing the cover itself in the "Fantasia" section to provide the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8. The non-free use of soundtrack album cover art is almost always not considered acceptable in subsections about the corresponding films themselves per WP:FILMSCORE, and the same rationale can be applied to this type of non-free use at all. Mentioning the album by name and even discussing the music contained therein is not in and of itself a sufficient justification for the non-free use of the album's cover art.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC[edit]

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OWN editing.[edit]

Try being a more constructive editor in future and stop your WP:OWN issues. Many of my edits were improvements and your mass reverting of all of them is very disruptive and disturbing. Your "warning" is also highly hypocritical. Afterwriting (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Afterwriting, as my second edit summary indicated [8], I did not mass revert all of your edits. It is possible to click "undo" and at the same time, before clicking "Publish", to edit the wikitext to retain some changes, which is what I did. See the net difference, which retained some of your edits [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Here I was correcting my own technical error in accidentally sending the same message twice. I sent the message that I removed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why edit summaries are important, Kevin. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 4meter4 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

On a different, but related, note could I ask that you mark pages that you nominate for deletion as reviewed? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)