Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:38, 26 March 2017

Archives

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

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

SvG clean-up

In the recent discussion at Misplaced Pages: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)

Circa dates

Please note Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Contractions, which is indeed what most articles do. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod I disagree and have re-instated Softlavender's edit.

| c. || circa ("around") || In dates, to indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx. It should not be italicised in normal usage. The template {{circa}} may be used.
— Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

?? You do realize she was changing "c." to "ca."?? Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod—I do. That is why I struck my opening sentence. Initially I misunderstood and reacted too quickly. Apologies offered ... — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure my Wiki email or gmail is working properly ....

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 Misplaced Pages "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)

I just sent a brief one S. I remember seeing a thread about someone else having email troubles on one noticeboard but I can't find it at the moment. I'll keep looking and leave a link if I find it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks M. I got it fine this time. I do not know why the email I referred to above did not appear in my gmail box. It reminds me of the time four years ago when I emailed an acquaintance asking them if they could come help me with something at some point during the week. I never heard back from them. Then all of a sudden three days later they showed up at my door. I was like what the fucking hell ... but fortunately I was at least dressed and my teeth were brushed. They had apparently sent me a confirming email with a date and time but it never showed up either in my inbox or spam folder, and it wasn't in my deleted emails either. It just never got to me, period .... Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender and MarnetteD: This discussion? Mind you, it's a few years old. O Fortuna! 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I emailed you last night, FIM, so if you've not recieved it, it's not. Cassianto 04:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Well you see, it might be- I won't be able to check emails till later today- sorry, forgot to let you know- had jyst got to work. O Fortuna! 04:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi but it was something more recent. Now that I think about it I think the problem was with those that use Yahoo for emails. They couldn't get any emails through the WikiP system or some such. Thus it probably wouldn't be of any use to you Softlavender. MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm. On that note, can someone who has never emailed me before (MarnetteD and I have emailed each other via wiki previously) email me to check? Just let us know here afterward so I won't get emails from 500 new people LOL. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 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)

O Fortuna! 13:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As the guy that kicked all of this off (I am the someone in "Someone sent me a wiki email") I am wondering whether or not you received my reply to your email which I sent on Yahoo/BT Internet as opposed to my initial Wiki email. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Gareth -- see below. I got your second email into my "Primary" inbox (since it was not sent via wiki), and your first was in a folder called "Social". Softlavender (talk)

I sent you message as well. I received my own copy right away. I've had Misplaced Pages 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)

• UPDATE: It turns out Gmail is putting all of my Misplaced Pages email into a folder called "Social", where it puts those often annoying notifications from Facebook and YouTube. It has apparently been doing this since at least late November 2016. I want to know how to get it to accept Misplaced Pages emails as normal emails to my "Primary" account. Does anyone know how to make it do that? (I will also ask on WP:VPT.) Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• SECOND UPDATE: Got an answer here: WP:VPT#Gmail_is_putting_all_of_my_Wikipedia_email_into_a_folder_called_.22Social.22_--_how_to_fix.3F, so perhaps we can put this whole tiresome question behind us. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD Joker tagging

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)

Check again, O Guilty One. I tagged your !vote five hours ago: . -- Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I get for thinking I was going to get a ping on it!--Killer Moff (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Grace VanderWaal external links

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)

Hello? --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Any interest in discussing anything about it now that the ANI has closed? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful memories shared

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)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

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)

Hi Gerda, thanks and Happy Valentine's Day to you to. I confess I don't know what you are talking about regarding "the Rodigast hymn" or anything else you mentioned. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice this only now, sorry. The Rodigast hymn is Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, I thought you knew. The Reger discussion originated here, in case of interest. I confess I did worry after one of four things I am proud of having done on Misplaced Pages (see the infobox on my user page) has been annihilated by making it a redirect. (I reverted ... and started the discussion, and it was a redirect again. In the meantime, it has been restored, and I worry a bit less.) I explained last year already how to make articles from the works list, - care to do a few? I will do next 52 chorale preludes, Op. 67, - 52 titles off the general list then. - I removed the Valentine's flower on my talk, instead it's a (unrelated) sad and beautiful note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What I was worried about happened: we have now an article with this alleged history, which has me still as the main contributor but for edits done long ago, not for what I did about the table. I wouldn't mind - see above - if it wasn't what I am most proud of in 2016. The merge could have been performed the other way round, and than renamed, no? (I know you didn't do it, but need to sob somewhere ... - ignore). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leon Bolier (2nd nomination)

At Misplaced Pages: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)

Unfair comments?

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)

Lists are content too

Come on! I get what you mean ("real" content creation is harder than lists), but you could have typed a few more words. Tigraan 14:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Misplaced Pages when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Misplaced Pages's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Misplaced Pages

Discussion re critical response section of MOS:FILM

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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Am I on the right track? Thank you in advance. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking me, Pyxis Solitary. There may be a word missing in your question. An WP:RFC is not the same as WP:DRN. DRN is a monitored and adjudicated (generally monitored and adjudicated by one person per dispute) venue for resolving content disputes between two or more people. WP:RFC is a specific formal discussion format for engaging the wider community in resolving content disputes (and the results of an RFC are generally perceived as more binding than an informal talk-page discussion); it has very strict language, format, layout, and tagging/template requirements. (Also, you cannot make a discussion into an RFC after it has begun, nor generally speaking can you request or start dispute resolution at more than one place at the same time; let discussions proceed until they resolve or become untenable.) Also, just so we are clear, an RFC never happens at DRN (the two processes are mutually exclusive); an RFC happens on an article talk page or other non-user talk page. You might want to read WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Now I'm really confused. The crux: I am trying to reach consensus regarding the guidelines for a MOS:FILM section vs. interpretation of said guidelines in the "Lists" vs. prose about lists discussion in MOS:FILM Talk page. One editor refuses to accept the opinions of other editors. If there is agreement that contradicts his viewpoint, he does not accept it. And now he has attacked a new editor who dared to post his/her opinion by accusing him/her of being a possible sock puppet. Taking a dispute or inability to reach consensus to a higher level beyond a Talk page is new for me. I have no "been there, done that" about this in my WP experience. I think the current situation necessitates intervention through RFC because it relates to a MOS:FILM guideline. If a final consensus is not reached, one editor is going to continue to delete content and revert edits -- and this "my way or the highway" discourages participation from other editors.

Forgot to add: WP:RFC says

• "RfC is one of several processes available within Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system. Alternative processes include...the dispute resolution noticeboard." I've got a pretty good handle on the English language, but this explanation about RfC is not a straightforward description of its purpose. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a question in there? In any case, that new account who has only made that one edit does seem to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone; their !vote and/or comments should be discounted in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that an anon creating an account so as to join a discussion necessarily suggests he/she is a sockpuppet. He/she could have just as well have stayed an anon; but then, a comment posted anonymously would probably have also been dismissed. There are many registered users in WP that haven't done much through their account, preferring to stay anon. And after being attacked for creating an account and posting a comment, I'm sure he/she is not going to subject him/herself to more attacks. I don't presume guilt without evidence. Anyway, the reason I'm here, trying to find guidance about what the right steps to follow are, is because you seemed to know something about RfCs. If you think I should seek this guidance somewhere else, I would appreciate knowing where I need to go. Because the combative stance by one editor needs to end and the only way to find clarification and consensus is by intervention from outside input. What's happening is neither good for film articles, nor good for the WP community. And I've been editing WP for too long to now shrug this off and not give a damn. (I'm clocking out for now.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, is there a question in there? If you post a question, with a question mark, I will try to answer it. You may also want to ask any questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on what transpired in Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) @ WP:FILM talk page and continued in "Lists" vs. prose about lists @ MOS:FILM Talk page: Should I request RfC @ Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture -- or -- a resolution request @ Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Which of the two is the correct place to go for outside opinion on the dispute?

I would be remiss not to warn you that you may be accused by User:Tenebrae of being biased and abetting a canvass. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are two current problems: (1) You've posted the current discussion/dispute across two different venues (rather than simply leaving a brief notice at the second and linking to the discussion). This kind of thing is problematic and leads to fracturing and confusion and irresolution. (2) The discussion(s) haven't resolved yet. So in my opinion, you're going to have to let the discussion(s) resolve or at the very least die down before taking any further action. Ideally the discussion should have been held on the talk page of the film in question, with a neutral note perhaps posted in the WikiProject and MOSFILM venues. Going forward, I personally recommend that, for instance, you: (A) Let the discussion resolve or die down -- for instance, when it has been inactive for one week. (B) Then and only then (assuming there was no consensus agreed upon in the discussion), start an WP:RFC on the film's talk page. (C) Personal note: I however am not convinced you are capable of writing a sufficiently brief and sufficiently neutrally worded RfC, or of formatting, titling, and submitting, or listing it correctly. I believe you need further guidance on that. Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This was the first time I've initiated a discussion about reaching consensus among editors. Because it's about interpretation and application of MOS:FILM guidelines I began where I thought it belonged (WP:FILM), then realized that was not the right venue and shifted the discussion to MOS:FILM's Talk page. (No beginner's luck here.) I will do as you suggest and let it resolve or wait a week if it's not. And you are correct that I will need further guidance on composing an RfC. (I know when it's time for me to pull over and ask for directions.) Thank you for your kind attention and response. I appreciate it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs to be collapsed

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))

• It (SR's vote rationale & the ensuing rebuttals) should really be moved to the comments section. The !vote should have said "Oppose -- see my comments above" and the 4,500+ bytes of commentary should have been placed where others' placed their comments, above the poll section. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Premature archive of RfC

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)

Thanks. I still think 7 days is waaaay too short for any page, particularly a Policy page. Some people don't even log onto wiki for a couple weeks at a stretch. But thanks for the template; I couldn't remember where to find it or what it was called. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems at Garage rock article

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)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Misplaced Pages's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Misplaced Pages at its 16th birthday celebration

Re:

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)

No that's not what he said. Please stop bringing your petty grievances and bickering to my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear

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)

I'm not responsible for how many distractions you have. Per WP:TPO, do not selectively remove my comments from an ongoing discussion. If you want me to stay off your talk page, do not post further on the thread I opened there. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

When I have exactly two distractiond and you're 100% responsible for one of them and at least partly responsible for the other (as I laid out on my talk page) ... yes, you are. I didn't selectively remove anything. I asked you to stop posting on my talk page, and then reverted a couple of attempts by you to violate my request. If you continue to do so I will ask for you to be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for your ability to handle two discussions. You did not ask me to stop posting on your talk page. Moreover, per WP:TPO, you cannot selectively remove posts from a discussion. If you want to close, archive, or delete the entire thread I opened, you may do so, but as I mentioned in the thread, don't prevent me from responding to a thread that I myself opened, and don't remove posts from a thread. See WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What you have been doing on my talk page is not a discussion. You have been talking past me and ignoring everything I say. You were wrong in the initial collapse, you were wrong to revert me despite the discussion already being closed, you were wrong to say I reverted the same edit three times, and you were wrong to continue posting on my talk page despite my repeated requests that you drop it. Your refusal to recognize any of this would be endearing if it wasn't so damn frustrating. But your lack of patience after I twice told you that I would be happy to discuss the ethics of collapsing with you after the ANI discussion you sucked me into is closed was the worst. If you are still willing to engage in civil discussion, I would be happy to forget this whole affair ever happened and keep the offer of said civil discussion open. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not talked past you, and in all of my lengthy and exhaustive replies I have quoted you directly on each statement you made that I was referring to you when I replied. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you say (repeatedly) that my yesterday edit was a "revert"? You even called it a revert "of the same content on the same page". It was a compromise with your concern that the collapsed segment was too long, as it only moved the top of the collapse two lines down. I explained this to you several times on my talk page. If you had actually read and understood my edits that you reverted, and my replies to you, there is no good-faith explanation for this. Can you provide one? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

All three of your edits were reverts of the status quo ante. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri on a phone here. If I make an edit and you revert, and then two weeks later make a different edit that addresses your concerns, that is not me edit-warring, and the above response does not answer my question. Either you reverted my edit without reading it, in which case you were the one edit-warring, or you were already aware before posting it that three reverts of the same content on the same page was untrue. 106.133.133.47 (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed edit-warring. I'm sorry that you don't understand or accept that, but your understanding or acceptance is not my responsibility. Not only that, you did not make an edit "that addresses concerns". The content was the hatting as it existed at the close. You changed that three times. All three of your edits were reverts of the status quo ante. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral collapses

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)

I didn't do any hatting or collapsing; I restored Jbhunley's text. I didn't violate WP:TPO, you did, and have several times, including by changing Jbhunley's text twice without his permission. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, technically Jbhunley hatted off my text without my permission, with a summary that I didn't approve of. And now Jbhunley has thanked me for the edit that removed said summary. You and apparently DK are the only users who think the hat note is appropriate (ironic since DK was one of the ones engaging in unconstructive bickering). Being thanked by the user whose "text" I "changed" for the edit that changed the text is a pretty good indicator of permission (much more than your personal insistence on repeatedly reverting any edits I make involving hat and collapse templates in multiple forums. But "thanks" are not a good measure for things like this either way; I've now asked Jbhunley for explicit clarification that he approved of that particular portion of my edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing another person's post without their permission is a violation of WP:TPO; you did that twice. You requested Jbhunley to alter the text and he struck the word "bickering". You then changed his text twice without his permission. Please do not engage in mind-reading about who "think the hat note is appropriate". Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What edit did DK thank you for? I am not mind-reading. The evidence is right there, and is really easy to interpret. If you can point me to another edit for which DK had reason to thank you, I'll bite my tongue (as was made clear on ANI yesterday, I am always ready to admit I am wrong), but otherwise you are the one in violation of AGF by accusing me of "'mind-reading". And I didn't change anyone's post. Removing an inaccurate and/or non-neutral summary in a hat note or collapse title and replacing it with the all-purpose neutral default is really, really common, especially when everyone has already agreed that the existence and dimensions of the hat itself are not controversial. I have had my non-neutral summaries removed by others, but as long as the hats themselves stayed I never took it as a problem. The fact that I had signed the summaries with four tildes was completely irrelevant and didn't suddenly mean TPO applied to my summary first and foremost over the hatted comments themselves. By the way -- nice distortion of the timeline and assumption of bad faith. I had no idea until just now that "bickering" had been stricken, as was made clear in my edit summary. I had an edit conflict with Jbhunley's striking, and knew only that I was removing an inaccurate claim that TBST and I were "bickering" that either you or DK had restored. Jbhunley thanked me for the edit that inadvertently reverted his striking by completely removing the whole note; they did not apparently see fit to thank you for reverting me either time. On top of the fact that it is common practice to remove unnecessarily contentious summaries like that, all you have to go on is this fact, but you are choosing to assume instead that I clicked "Edit" after seeing the stricken version around 02:39, and composed all the text present in the above edit in the intervening six minutes, and it was only your and DK's comments of 02:40 that I had a legit edit conflict with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way: It's really obvious that DK doesn't like me, so I accept the theoretical possibility that he was thanking you for any of the edits you made in the two or three previous instances I can recall when we came into conflict, but to assume he went back into my edit history and thanked you for your comments in that IBAN-baiting discussion back in November would be questionable. It's also possible that he was thanking you for some unkind word you may have had for Curly Turkey at some point. I really don't know. But the state of affairs on ANI makes me think it's far more likely he was thanking you for re-adding the claim that my final warning proposal was "unconstructive". By the way: Jbhunley was really clear that he agrees with me on the substance. He just thought my proposal was distracting from the TBAN. I actually agree with him on that point (now). So if asked if he thought the proposal itself was "unconstructive" in light of my having already withdrawn it, it seems like an AGF-violation to assume he would say "No". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Screw it. You're too good and honest an editor to fight like this over minor policy disagreements. We agree on the only point that matters here for building the encyclopedia, and this isn't a social networking site. You can blank my above comments if you want. Or the entire section. It's not worth fighting over this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Freddie Bartholomew

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 agree, that revert should have said why. You broke the first sentence in the Early life section; otherwise, it looked sensible. Try again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IP, please discuss on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Any idea what virtual-history.com is?

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 really don't know; my impression or guess at the time was that it was some sort of information/image/links aggregator. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's actually very helpful. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to enforce breach of agreement

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)

Nursery rhyme versus poem

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)

• Actually, a followup question - why did you remove the image from that article? As far as I can tell (not found a source yet) the image is of a wall honouring the poem/song in question, so it's quite relevant. Was there some sort of fair use concern I'm not appreciating? Mortee (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nursery rhymes are not songs unless they are composed as songs. The image was completely unexplained but I have researched it enough to add it back with an explanation. Just FYI: Discussions of article content need to stay on the talk page of the relevant article; so in the future please post queries there instead of on user-talk pages; I'm making an exception here as you are a relative newcomer to Misplaced Pages. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for the pointer. I'll make sure to do that in future. While we're here, though, and separate from this case, what form should that sort of explanation take, on the article? I'm working on a draft where the same concern might apply. Mortee (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking, what's the right way of explaining why an image is being used? Is it just a matter of having a descriptive caption that shows the relevance of the picture to the article, or is it something more? Mortee (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you are asking. I have already completely replaced the inaccurate and unhelpful caption of the image; any other questions would have to be specific questions about specific images in specific articles, as the question is too vague. You might want to read WP:CAPTION. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought from what you were saying earlier that there was a general principle that the use of images had to be explained and I was wondering what the format was. It sounds like it's more case by case, but informative captions help and WP:CAPTION gives guidance on how to write those. Mortee (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be using the word "explain"/"explanation" in a different meaning or context than I am. I was referring to the unexplained (not too mention totally inaccurate and completely unhelpful) caption, nothing more. One doesn't have to "explain" why any relevant image is in any article, unless it is a WP:NONFREE image, in which case a fair-use rationale for usage in each individual article it is used in is necessary on the file's page. (Usually a non-free image -- e.g. an album cover or a DVD cover -- is only used and uploaded for a single article.) A caption doesn't have to be a complete sentence or lengthy explanation, but it does have to make sense and be accurate and correctly identify the image. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I misunderstood this edit summary. Thank you for explaining (pun fully intended) :-) Mortee (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on basque national liberation...

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)

. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So jailed is a POV term? Or is ETA being a terrorist organization POV?Asilah1981 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrator Incident Board- "User talk page harassment after warning by JordanGero"

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Jordan, your 10,500-byte post on GregJackP's talk page (plus your subsequent and even more vulgar 5,750 bytes there, and your endless wall of text at ANI) were regurgitations of a matter that was settled 1.5 years ago. Please stop. Do not post here further. Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, you're not my familiar, so try to minimize addressing me by my given name. Secondly, you're now erecting a straw man to deflect from my original contention: I did not "regurgitate" anything on the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard: GregJackP commenced that incident, not me. My post on his talk page was pursuant to an unresolved issue I had with him from before, and I wished to resolve that issue by speaking with him directly on his talk page. The matter 1.5 years ago was settled as far as the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard was concerned, but it was not settled between myself and GregJackP. Do you understand the difference?

Additionally, an unreasonable request does not cease to be unreasonable simply because you add "please" to it. I did not commence any new incident on the Administrator's incidents/noticeboard, and my posts on GregJackP's talk page were pursuant to unresolved issues I had with him personally. My last post on his page informed him that I was not going to post there anymore (the only reason I continued until that time was because he kept replying to me). Lastly, given the level of racist vehemence GregJackP communicated in the original conflict 1.5 years ago, and his confrontational, ad hominem response to me on his talk page, my posts were not unwarranted (i.e., any crudeness therein was designed to communicate a point about GregJackP's own vulgarities, e.g., my comments about what I could say to him seriously if I were a racist prick). I also don't see what the length of my posts has to do with their substance.

That being said, thanks for your help in resolving the issue for good. There is nothing left to be pursued on this note as of now. JordanGero (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Coffee, the user above is harassing me despite my explicit request above for him not to post further on my talk page. He is also continuing to attack GregJackP on this page. Would you mind putting a stop to this? Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Lichfield Gospels page

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 Misplaced Pages 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: . I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshire01 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI Overturning

Listen, I'm trying to make a very concise point. El_C 11:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for that terse message. I was frustrated that my comment was closed just as I was writing it (not your fault, just timing). I decided to retain your close, but start my own subsection. My problem is that users with very few contributions skewed that RfC, and that this point is getting lost in text walls about the content dispute and so on. El_C 11:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for baring with me! Much appreciated. El_C 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, El C; it can be frustrating when actual relevant information gets buried in a sea of ANI walls-o-text. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Friendly (talk page stalker) – Could use this perhaps? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

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 Misplaced Pages project for ten years or more.

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

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

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

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Misplaced Pages in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Misplaced Pages

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Misplaced Pages has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

Confused

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 this day, 10 years ago...

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

DYK for Akatombo

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)

DYK for Rofū Miki

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)

Attacking me

Why attack me? I was only trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages by creating Akatombo. Ethanbas 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

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

Edit Warring

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)

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

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

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

Yes, I should've realised when I didn't feel my mouse finger seizing up! :) — O Fortuna! 09:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

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)

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

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

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

Dealing with a user who doesn’t accept RfC

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)

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

Guidance needed

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)

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

(Untitled)

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 Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about the facts, rather than your leftist veiwpoint. The users of[REDACTED] are not just liberals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousedit19923034 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you

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)

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

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

Just a heads up....

...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)

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

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

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

You might want to see this

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

Clear?

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscription costs?

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)

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

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

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

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

Tried to respond to you.....

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" 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Thank you

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)

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

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

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

Swami Nithyananda

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

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

Myke Hurley

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)

Template:Z147