User talk:Softlavender/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Exceeding 1RR on Caitlyn Jenner

Softlavender, as you well know the Caitlyn Jenner page falls under Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions. You have reverted two edits in the past hour. A few weeks ago you reverted five edits within 24-hours.

As for her image, you could have just moved it back up instead of spending one of your allotted reversions by reverting my edit.

The 1RR rule applies in aggregate so once one makes a reversion one cannot make a reversion on any other DS article for 24-hours. Ping me back. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"As for her image, you could have just moved it back up instead of spending one of your allotted reversions by reverting my edit." No idea what you mean by that. You duplicated the image in the infobox in the body text, making it appear twice in the same article. Perhaps you did that accidentally, without realizing that the image was still in the infobox. I simply removed the erroneous duplication -- as you know, images cannot appear twice in the same article. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else should have made a decision about which image to delete, since you had no more deletion quotas left under 1RR. Look at the timeline. We posted at nearly the same time. Since the image had been deleted from the infobox I moved it to the body which was a reasonable thing to do.

And, a couple of weeks ago, you made made five reversions in less than 24-hours when you're only allotted one if that. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Formal notification of Adminstrative Appeal re: Ruritanian romance edits.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding false accusation of edit-warring. The thread is Ursula LeGuin.The discussion is about the topic Ruritanian romance. Thank you.

When I'm wrong I admit it and...

.......offer an apology for not getting it but yes...this does indeed require a formal RFC (Caitlyn Jenner image debate). Specifically, it needs discussion to see if other agree or disagree that Non free content criteria can be met with the specific disclaimer of NFCUUI (see talk page), but this will likely have ramifications on a few rare articles, such as Chelsea Manning.

I am going to seek some advice from another editor I think we are both aware of, who has taken part in discussing these types of issues and the best way to frame an RFC. Let us look at my last thread on the talk page as a straw poll to see what input is given on the subject, in preparation for a formal RFC. I will be sure to ping you when I begin the discussion on how to frame the Request for Comment. Thanks and, again, sorry for not getting your point sooner.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that such a discussion (re: using a recent magazine cover as the image in a BLP infobox) is more the purview of Copyright policies and Image Use policies and legal requirements than it is a discussion (even an RfC) for an article talk page. And since such use would not meet the "non-replaceable" qualification, it would automatically fail. If you like, I can try to contact Jenner's management via IMDB Pro (I have a current membership), and see if someone there will release a photo. Or I could try one of her family members. I don't really know who she is close to or not (I have never watched KUWTK or I Am Cait [and I haven't had a TV for 5 years], although I did watch the Diane Sawyer interview and the award acceptance speech). It really doesn't have to be a professional photo; it can be an iPhone grab. I really would rather put energy into finding another photo than trying to subvert well-known legal policies and then being shot down later. BTW, I have noticed you've been adding to that Talk page discussion but I have been too busy to look plus sometimes I get tired of the endlessness of that talk page. :). Anyway, there's my thoughts for the moment. I can try to contact or figure out some image-copyright mavens on wiki if you like, or where such a discussion/RfC should take place, if you still want to try for the magazine cover, but frankly I don't think it's going to fly .... Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I read all the way through, I saw this and wanted to comment; "using a recent magazine cover as the image in a BLP infobox" is outright covered under what is acceptable in the infobox. I am very familiar with image use policy but that is not the point. There is not issue with using the vanity fair image in the infobox except whether it passes the specific criteria for a living person. It is a necessary part of the discussion. Whether either of us agree that it should be used (don't really care what the consensus determines, just that it be determined by our actual non free content policy) or it just be left blank, but this is not a copyright issue. Vanity fairs logo is not a concern. The fact that it is a magazine cover is not a concern. There are no legal requirements to meet in this issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

" And since such use would not meet the "non-replaceable" qualification, it would automatically fail" No. Nothing on Wikipedia "automatically fails" but outright vandalism. Non free content is reviewed and discussed. However when this is brought up, I will also be pinging Masem, who is perhaps the most active editor at Non Free Content review.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contacting the management of the subject, in other words...contacting the subject..over this dispute is not advisable. It is the photographer that has to release the image not the subject. That can be done by going to flicker and requesting the release of an image. I also would strongly urge you not to involve Jenner's family. Please do not believe I am trying to "subvert well-known legal policies". I kind of find that offensive. Sorry, not trying to be a dick, but I am familiar with the legal precedent called "Fair use" and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as well as the foundations beliefs and support of using non free content within reason. I respect copyright and understand our non free criteria and add input regularly on discussion of image use, non free content and copyright issues. I could go either direction as far as supporting no image or the Vanity fair image, but the discussion needs to move forward and I wish to do so on the same page as you in one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've answered the infobox image-use questions on the article Talk thread. Yes, of course the photographer has to release the photo, but agent/management is how to get a photo (and contact the photographer) in the first place. There are no usable images on Flickr, just a some images illegally uploaded by fans and a couple of non-usable (non-modifiable) ABC images from the award-acceptance speech. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know your level of understanding of this subject and you don't know mine, however...regardless of that...there really is a manner in which this must be done. I am concerned that you would try to contact the subject over this, believing that the subjects personality rights trump that of the photographer. If you believe that an agent or manager is how to get a release, I will support your effort and be happy if you are successful. Unfortunately, my experience in the entertainment industry, as well as my interest in photography, copyright and fair use tell me it is not the best course....considering that asking for a simple change in Creative Commons license from several images is all that is required.

I don't dislike you. While we have recently butted heads over the Caitlyn Jenner Article, I know you to be part of the overall consensus that we have all agreed on. I ask only one thing. Don't let your reaction to me or my opinion control what you support or oppose. Let it all sink in first and then let us discuss the issues, because frankly, I don't know where you are coming from, any more than you understand where I am coming from. A true test of neutrality is how we both accept the facts as referenced and how we move forward on the content dispute itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Grandfather of Beethoven

Dear Softlavender,
You have renamed Ludwig van Beethoven's grandfather from Lodewijk to Ludwig. You may have had a good reason for this, I nevertheless find it unlikely that someone born in Mechelen in 1712 would have been christened Ludwig - in the Church archive in Mechelen you will probably find Ludovicus, and in regular text Lodewijck. The German Wikipedia, in this case, does what it uses to do with all those Lodewijk, Ludovic, Louis... Also Louis XIV is called Ludwig in the German Wikipedia. Are you sure of your modification? Kind regards Riyadi (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Riyadi, you appear to be confusing me with someone else. I made no such edit. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, the edit was indeed made by someone else, just before yours. Riyadi (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI_2

Re: [1]

The article talk page is locked to editors with fewer than 500 edits. I cannot "engage with the editor".--Sanstalk (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See my post on your talk page. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Might this editor be a sock who was previously involved in editing in this sticky subject area? It definitely seems that way, when their first edit is to ANI to complain about another editor. GAB^Hello! 15:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect storm

Hi Softlavender - thank you for your intervention on the matter of British monarchists qv. Noticeboard, which somehow had quickly developed into an argument with allegations of POV etc, the main perpetrators being quite familiar and who seemingly spend much time quashing neutral POVs and being particularly vocal should there be the slightest connection with Jeremy Corbyn.
Upon reflection and with regards to the point you raise, I am not sure that this category is a good one for Wiki to maintain: most British monarchists are not overtly political so unless there is a hidden agenda it seems to me, especially in view of the recent hostility, that it should be determined what constitutes a British monarchist before proceeding further on what has been made to be a contentious matter. Please advise - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've said all I needed to say on the Noticeboard thread. Please don't post further here on my talk page, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But what is the answer to who constitutes a British monarchist, since it is not a term used whereas, just by way of example, anti-monarchist or republican is used in the UK? Please advise before shutting down the conversation - many thanks for your thoughts on this matter. M Mabelina (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Required notifications

It looks like you forgot to notify the editors who you brought up at COIN. There's a template at the top of the noticeboard for this. Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ducky

You say there are more than "one of MarkBernstein's antagonists, blocked/banned or otherwise"? Like who? I'll do the SPI if you folks don't want to. Doc talk 10:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Ask Mark. I didn't say or imply that he even has any, because I have no way of knowing, but if he does, that would be the logical place to look. Softlavender (talk)

Why isn't he banned yet? It's interesting how someone are untouchable because they have a very leftist/progressive viewpoint. I guess that just reflects the majority of powerusers, bureaucrats and admins. Jørgen88 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Conspiracy

Maybe you should see Conspiracy before you accuse me or others of being a sock. Just because foaming at the mouth progressives tried to protect criticism against Kotsko months back and blocked me without any proof, doesn't mean that I am a sock going after Bernstein (as if I'd waste my time on someone like that). If you have any serious accusations, you're free to take them up the proper way. Also, back when I started to edit the Norwegian Wikipedia years ago, I had a completely different username than the one I made on the English Wikipedia, which means you can't compare my two profiles. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

RFA.

Ignore the naysayers at the RFA, continue to vote. Admins and bureacrats like Wjbscribe know better than to engage in mortal kombat with a voter on an RFA talkpage like they did to you. Dont let it get to you, they'll all the bit soon enough. 2602:30A:2CAB:9070:7DB9:24C0:4059:F4D4 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your restoration of content by 7 BANNED users

Your restoration of content by 7 BANNED users - yes, I edited BBB23's page. Surely a handful of barnstars awarded by banned sockpuppets shouldn't be left as is? Or if you think so, why? What about Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits? --Elvey^(t•c) 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Joseph McBride

Thanks for removing the notability tag. I almost immediately realized it wasn't necessary after I clicked "Save page" and was in the processing of removing it myself when the phone rang. Also, feel free to revert my attempt at clean up if I took out too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, how lovely Haffy! I thank you very much. I've been thinking about you recently, and all the joy you give to others. Blessings, Softlavender (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bless bless, 7. Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Colin Welland

Not sure what you're going on about the birthplace. I didn't touch it. The NYT obit had his death place and full birth name, which I added. Connormah (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Connormah, when I saw that you had removed (moved actually, not removed) all of the references from the birthplace in the infobox, I erroneously (and overhastily) read that as changing the birthplace back to what the NYT and every other obit erroneously has it has. (As you'll notice on the Talk page, it has taken us ages to get to the bottom of his correct birthplace.) Anyway, I restored your citation and mention of London in the body text (missed the infobox, but it's there now). Thank you very much for finding his middle name, that gives further proof of his birthplace being Liverpool. Anyway, the citations and footnote in the infobox need to stay or else everyone will be changing it back the way the obits have it, which is incorrect. Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh! Eh! Alright! Lavvy. If you add in any more reliable sources for his birthplace, people will start to imagine that he had dark curly hair and a moustache wore a shellsuit! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Collateral damage from rangeblock

Hi Softlavender,

I'm writing on your talk page because you took part in the discussion about the extension of a range IP block, there're less than 2 hours left for the new block to start and yesterday I added some information making a summary at the end of the section: may you please join back the discussion and give your final opinion about the matter?

Thank you in advance!

Centocinquantuno (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bethel, Alaska

Hello. Could you please explain why a fire that destroyed two schools in Bethel, Alaska does not belong in the towns history section? How exactly is the destruction of two schools a run of the mill fire? It certainly belongs there more than the Taco Bell hoax, which nobody seems to have a problem with. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an interesting place

I have a close friend who had a devastating "brain accident" several years ago, rendering her partially aphasic. When confronted with particularly puzzling behavior (usually inappropriate behavior), she styles it as "interesting".

Here in the Oz we call Wikipedia, a teacher can be summarily blocked in 2 seconds flat for something that causes no damage, but we must debate for hours headed into days over what to do with an editor in a position of trust that has done things over the course of many years and thousands of articles that I would not tolerate from my 6 year old son.

An analogy was made and summarily dismissed about that kind of behavior in a workplace. Well, I run a non-profit and am its only paid employee. I have a rotating irregular staff of about 60 volunteers. If I got that scatological, I'd be gone. Immediately. If I tolerated that kind of behavior from any of my volunteers, I'd be gone. Immediately. Yes you can fire a volunteer. They don't have a union. It's not hard. Why is it so hard here? Yes, my friend would definitely say, "Wikipedia is interesting." John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think he should face a (long hard) block. I don't know whether I should propose that. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That too was dismissed as "punitive". Bull. If a person (the only thing I have agreed with in the whole thread is that it is a fair assumption said person is male) lacks the common sense to not engage in that kind of behavior, then their lack of common sense becomes something to prevent. In other words, CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• One more thing, John: I believe that, based on recent rashes of events, two things should be added to the behaviors that are considered WP:DE: Mass creation of redirects, and mass removal of prods. We have recently had at least four editors caught out mass-creating redirects, and at least three to five IPs mass-removing prods. It's time to make a stand and put it in writing that these activities are not allowed. I don't know where to make such a proposal though. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor administrating

I'm afraid your repeated accusations on ANI reflect rather badly on you. First you falsely accuse me of not notifying the user [2], then you falsely claim I removed material from an article three times [3]. I assume good faith and don't think you were intentionally dishonest, but definitely lazy as ten seconds of fact checking would have sufficed. Try to check the facts better in the future, thanks. Coupled with your refusal to discuss the issue at the article talk page and your willingness to overlook NPA violations if they come from people who share your view, the overall picture in my view is of an admin who is not currently doing a particularly good job. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea I am an admin or that I share any particular person's view. My points still stand, although I appreciate the correction -- you removed the material twice, not three times. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you were an admin. Well, that's certainly an embarrassment for me and a touché for you; I stand here an equally bad fact-checker myself. Let's call it a draw. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Deal. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And of course I should not have removed the material more than once, I'll gladly concede that point. It happens, but it's no excuse. While far from a 3RR violation, I should just have discussed after having been reverted. Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well the discussion page is open and I have provided my reasoning, I'm very much interested in how you are going to twist this Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

False edit warring

There is no edit warring except when Jezzip came in to start and edit war

>Users are expected to collaborate with others

I did exactly that. You can see it for yourself.

> rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Jezzip is the one beign disruptive, there was no edit war on the article except when and the Tip came in,

Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So now you are siding with the other guy when I clearly showed you my reasoning of EDITING, which Dr.K undone it and I brought it back, thank you for stabbing me in the back it helps Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, policy (especially WP:BRD) is very clear. You must discuss on the article talk page, and gain WP:CONSENSUS, before repeatedly removing sourced content. If you revert again, you will likely be immediately blocked for edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>before repeatedly removing sourced content
It was false source content, the content was sourced from "giving gifts", rather than "Manumission was discouraged", this is the twisting of the Hadith
>If you revert again, you will likely be immediately blocked for edit warring
I'm not reverting again, so calm down, and good for you standing with them even when I explained my decision and you still falsely accuse me, I never was part of disrupting editing in the article, Tip and Jezzip are there because they are following me around. and Undoing my work, which had it's reasons explained
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also why did you deleted my source content? You never explained that yet you are there reverting the article to Jezzip's version, I'm in love with how BIASED you are, great work Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't delete any sourced content. You did. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I improved the article my removing the false source content that was referencing giving Eadith and not manumission discouraged after a user complained and I added three hadith of manumission encouraged and you removed those hadith I sourced in favor of the giving hadith taking a biased stance in the article, but as usual, I have to deal with your kind and I'm dealing it in the talk page now and bring the sources with me right there. In my opinion you should have left the article the way it was with my edit, since the burden of proof lies on Tip and Jezzip to provide evidence that manumission was disocuraged and NOT ENCOURAGED, which I did provided it in Dr.K user page that is why the page hasn't seen an edit war since TIP and Jezzip started editing without giving their reason, yet you blame me and REVERT my edit, GOOD JOB Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please look at my two edits: [4], [5]. I did not remove any sourced content. Please stop saying that I did. It was you who removed content, multiple times. Please stop posting all this material on my talk page. If you want to discuss the content of the article, do that on the article's talk page, not here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to discuss it here, because I'm not understanding why you are siding with them, you clearly removed the way the article it was even though you didn't remove ANY HADITH, I'm baffled by your back stabbing. So what was wrong with the way the article was when I fixed it and THEN go to the talk page or do you have to side with the others, please bring forth your neutrality Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking me

The extent to which you stalk me across articles is a little bit creepy, particularly as WP:ABF seems to be your standard approach to me. You don't need to like me or my edits, that is mutual. I think your overall contribution to WP is negative and the project would be better off without you. But when editing articles and talk pages, you would do well do stop misrepresenting other users, editing without bothering to take the time to read what others say, and always assuming bad faith. Jeppiz (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>The extent to which you stalk me across articles is a little bit creepy, particularly as WP:ABF

You are tasting your own medicine now, how you feel, besides he is an administrator so show some respect. let him do his job. Are we as editors suppose not visit any articles you visit?

>seems to be your standard approach to me

Crying foul now?

>You don't need to like me or my edits, that is mutual.

WHAT?

>I think your overall contribution to WP is negative and the project would be better off without you.

That is what you think about everyone who is against you.

>But when editing articles and talk pages, you would do well do stop misrepresenting other users, editing without bothering to take the time to read what others say, and always assuming bad faith.

Another bunch of false accusation, the disrespect on you is amazing. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Did Softlavender pulled the tooth of the lion? Incredible. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A rose by any other name...

Re: "Why is this case titled "Improper redirects" and not "Neelix"?" — There is a tendency for ArbCom to depersonalize disputes by removing names of parties from the case title, for better or worse. I do think that in some situations such a move might help to lower the level of public posturing and rhetoric. It also allows the expansion of the case if there are other parties who come to light (for example, if it proves to be that more people than Neelix are creating masses of problematic redirects).

This naming protocol probably should be made into a formal rule if it is something ArbCom feels strongly about — the fact that this naming rule is applied unevenly is the chief cause for complaint, I think. best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks Carrite. In the past I had seen titles, even initial titles, like "Kww and The Rambling Man", etc., so it didn't make sense for me. Also, as I had mentioned in my post, the Neelix problem goes way way beyond the redirects. Also, Neelix is the fourth uer this month to get called upf for creating tens of thousands of redirects, so if it was only going to be about mass redirects, the core of the Neelix issue would have been missed. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping clean up the Neelix mess. Your link to Wikipediocracy is what I had also used to understand the situation. Those folks are quite perceptive. As always it is useful to remain skeptical of what others write when they have an agenda. Nevertheless, when Wikipediocracy complains about something there is often fire behind the smoke. It's easier to call somebody out, ridicule then and send them away than to clean up the resulting mess. Thank you for concentrating on the latter. Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This statement is plainly incorrect. WP:GAR states that the GA icon should only be removed after the delisting. Just because an article is very different from the version that passed GA does not mean that the GA icon can be removed earlier. sst✈^discuss 05:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Champagne Charlie (1944 film)

Did some work here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Good work, as not in my "wheelhouse", you certainly have done a nice cleanup. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have Maltin, Leonard. Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 2009. New York: New American Library, 2009 (originally published as TV Movies, then Leonard Maltin’s Movie & Video Guide), First edition 1969, published annually since 1988. ISBN 978-0-451-22468-2. Champagne Charlie doesn't appear there, so I cribbed from the TCM site. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm trying to provide a date though, for the article. Check this: [6]. Since the VHS was apparently not available until 1989 (I'm seeing that as release date on Amazon UK), even in the UK, he must have first reviewed it in the 1990s in my opinion .... Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

He probably had a review in the older editions, but as the number of films increased, in order to keep the volume manageable, some articles were deleted, I guess. Champagne Charlie does appear, however in the Timeout Review c. 2004. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to log off as I am off to a NHL hockey game. Go Jets! (BTW, I really enjoyed this!) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK have a great afternoon! Re: Maltin: There would have been no reason for him to review it in his book guide unless the VHS was available (the review tells viewers to look for a certain performer), hence it is appearing in the 1990s editions on GoogleBooks, but not prior to that. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Made the cite into a Harvard citation with a MLA reference notation in the bibliographic tracing (whoops, I'm talking librarian, here – LOL.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, looks fine, although I think it would also be good for the reader to have the TCM version to view, so the reader can see that we are quoting the review in its entirety, not just a snippet. I personally in that case usually use a parenthetical note in the citation that says "(reprinted: [])", but that perhaps won't work as well with this kind of citing. I'm all about the reader, and I like viewable refs, which is why I don't usually use that kind of citation. PS: also re: Maltin, I think I misspoke above, plus I also slightly misunderstood your point. There appear to be several different movies called "Champagne Charlie", and I don't actually know when the VHS of this one came out because I was accidentally looking at the Hugh Grant movie. But we do have proof that Maltin reviewed the film as of, or in, his 1995 book, so that suffices .... Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate your editing style as I am predominately a writer and have only dabbled at line editing in the real as well as "reel" world. I did edit one book and was the editor of a trade periodical and an online historical journal, but it is not my forte. Maybe we can collaborate again on some article; this one came about serendipitously. ... and the Winnipeg Jets won! (It was the oddest game as Jets 2.0 were playing Jets 1.0; there is a story here to someday chronicle.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad everything turned out serendipitously (although frankly I am baffled by the Jets conundrum LOL)! Thanks for all your great work on the article, it's pretty sharp now! I think it might do well with a current review that is positive (Maltin and the other one are pretty negative), if a good quote can be found, but otherwise fine. Cheers and see you around the pedia. :) -- Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Today

St Cecilia's Day

A Boy was Born

Thank you for the cello suite help! Did you know the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I may have heard some of them on the radio, but no, I'm not specifically familiar with them. Plus I'm not particularly up on Britten, to be quite honest. ... Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why yes, it is St. Cecilia's Day! (I'm a little groggy.) I would listen to Handel's Ode but something pretty is on the radio right now .... Happy day! :-) There's some good poetry about this as well but I'd have to look it up. Softlavender (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am kinda partial to Gounod's St. Cecilia Mass to honor the day. I listened to it while my coffee was brewing this morning. They are all good choices though. I hope that everyone has a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, G. I may check that out as well .... Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap, M, I thought you were Gerda. LOL. Thanks for visiting on this fine St. Cecilia's Day! Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries S :-) I just hope that the music strikes your fancy if and when you get to listen to it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gerda: I've frequently heard that the problem with Bach's cello suites (and violin sonatas/partitas) is that it's hard for performers to get a grasp on them as there are no obvious musical phrases, instructions, or themes, so it's hard for a performance to "cohere" and the performer has to make sense of each movement for themselves (out of whole cloth), and the "sense" isn't provided by Bach. I've alluded to that now in the lede. Is it OK for me to state that, without citation (yet)? We can probably find a citation somewhere about why they are so difficult musically (as opposed to technically), but I don't know what to search under to find that. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I like to listen to them but don't really "know" about them. Stating that in the lead is MUCH better than the list of performers we had so far. - Thanks for reminding me of the mass, my last Christmas present to the community. The Boy was supposed the 2013 one, but I still am not over missing the image and Britten's title in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• OK Gerda, I tried to talk about the music in the lede, like you wanted: Cello Suites (Bach). I'm kind of tired now so I think I'll leave it at that. I hope I have done St. Cecilia justice. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your musical rescue work on Bach's cello suites

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This was my reminder, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt What! Another person is re-preciousized, yet again. I'm starting to think you are toying with me and want to cause me anguish. I just told my wife that somebody on Wikipedia was being mean to me again. She said, "Dear, that's because you deserve yet." I'll go sulk in the corner now. Bgwhite (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My doctors and family tell me that I have to focus, so I can't be fair. If that translates to mean to you, I am helpless. Get out of that corner, hug your wife, and pass Precious again" to others generously - it's easy and for everybody - and know that's not mean ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For contributions "above and beyond ..." on Champagne Charlie (1944 film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you, Bzuk! That is very much appreciated!! Softlavender (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dog article

I can't remember... you are into dog articles? Buccleuch Avon popped up and looks suspect.

I was looking at your user page to see if dogs were mentioned. I didn't know you were an oooooooold grandma. I'll try and write louder so you can hear. I won't mention that I'm close to your age. Nope, won't mention that all. Just stay off my lawn. Bgwhite (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually a dog-article maven, only got into that at one time because of the troll who I tracked after they had posted a Tom & Jerry screenshot on an unrelated article. For me, Hafs and Phil are the dog mavens. Anyway, I put the Buccleuch Avon article on my watch list in case it has further problems. I'm a Baby Boomer, and we never grow old ... Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Archiving AN/ANI

Softlavender, please do not archive cases so quickly. There could be a number of editors, including the filer, who would like to see how a case is resolved and there is no hurry to move them off of the page. I'd allow at least 24 hours after a case is settled before archiving the discussion to allow editors to see the resolution. There are cases where editors are unsatisfied with a case closure and want to reopen a case or they provide additional comments to it. Thanks for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I'm a very experienced archiver on ANI. I am archiving quickly for the WP:DENY issues, as is appropriate. Other threads I leave for at least 24 hours after close. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major opera composers (2nd nomination)

User:Kosboot has withdrawn his nomination. I think everyone is in agreement to "projectify" the article so WP:WikiProject Opera can work on it. Can you help?4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What a team!

Why don't we nominate [7] and [8] as chair and co-chair of a new anti-bullying taskforce? EEng (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• EEng, I do NOT need this when I come back from vacay. You should know better. Where's my "Happy Thanksgiving" message? My "We missed you" message? My "Hope you are OK" message? Just for that, I hope you get an anti-bullying tag-team trailing your ass and posting War and Peace–sized walls of text at you that quote the Bible while fulfilling Godwin's Law. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your hope's already fulfilled [9]. And what makes you think I'm a "dude" [10]? I'll have to get the WikiSexism people on you! EEng (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a missed message for you: the lead of the Fifth is starving, missing your loving attention! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole article Symphony No. 5 (Sibelius) is pretty sad, to tell you the truth. It sounds like it was written by a pathologist. The symphony is so lively and meaningful, and so eminently listenable, but that is reflected nowhere in the article. I don't know that I have any time or inclination to fix it though. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you would just write a lead (and if necessary insert the stuff in the body), to do justice to the piece! Most readers would not get past that anyway ;) - There must be sources! I found Barnett helpful whenever I looked, for example Scaramouche. - "Sadly unreferenced" has unfortunately to be said about many of his works, sometimes tagged, sometimes not. I understand that Sunday is the day of Finnish independence, - for many a reason to celebrate Sibelius also. - I have another celebration today pictured on my talk), so will not do much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I have time to add anything to it, which of course would entail research and references -- I can't just make $#it up. I sort of have a backlog of things I'm wanting to do right now .... Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Back from celebration: understand! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Grace (musical) summary

Hey Softlavander, Christopher Smith here from Amazing Grace. Thanks for your excellent work on the Amazing Grace (musical) article. I want to ask for your help with something. The summary which currently appears in the article is based on an older summary which I wrote back in early 2015. Because the Playbill content was needed before we opened, the Broadway Playbill contained numerous things that were never actually seen on Broadway, not just events but whole songs. I'm sure you know this is quite common on Broadway (to have additions and subtractions occur right up until opening.) So for the purpose of accuracy I would like to amend the summary and song list on the article to conform with what audiences actually experienced. Out of courtesy I wanted to get your thoughts before altering your work. If you care to see it, I can actually share the opening night Broadway script with you.

--Csmith18 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Csmith18, I'm going to call in the assistance of Ssilvers, who actually wrote and added that plot summary to the wiki article, presumably based on the original Playbill summary or something derived from it. Ssilvers, can you look at the above comment and make what changes to Amazing Grace (musical) you deem appropriate? (An IP had made a lot of changes a few weeks ago and since there were no edit summaries or citations provided for most of the changes, I had reverted most of them.) Thanks very much Ssilvers for your assistance. By the way, this entire discussion can be copied to the article talk page if desired or appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Softlavander and Ssilvers for your work on this. I can provide a redlined summary with proposed changes. Most of what is in there is still valid, just some time, place and action changes, and only two songs dropped (thank heavens, I have heard of shows that swapped out six songs or more.) I have the opening night script here for editors only. And sure, this can get copied over onto the article talk page. 100.34.70.25 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion now moved to the article's Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

This is a tad off topic, but I just realised that I'm fairly sure you called me "Less than competent" awhile back which gave me a good laugh reading back on it... ([11]). You will be happy to know a year later I have gained some competency Happy editing! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please mind your own business

Don't get your arse everywhere you like. Ok? - 106.220.120.143 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

All right, Softie, what have you been up to? EEng (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, ask User:Supdiop. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

One laughs at first, but really it's sad. EEng (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

[12]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Keurig!

This whole matter is an interesting conundrum. (You just got reverted by an IP--don't jump to rollback yet.) First of all, the footnote itself is editorial commentary of course, and if we had to be strict about it we should remove it. Obviously Sylvan was totally wrong; there is no way in which "excellence" can be translated as "keurig" (never mind that "keurig" is an adjective), and one wonders where he found that translation. He is right, of course, that everyone likes the Dutch, and everyone is right about liking the Dutch, no doubt.

Anyway, I'm with the IP. I think we should go with the first option ("neat, tidy"), since it's really primary--otherwise we're sort of guessing at what Sylvan thought, and thought wrongly. Besides, no Dutch person would say that a "keurig rapport" means an excellent or choice report: "keurig" would be all sevens and eights (on a 1-10 scale). "Keurig" just has all these connotations of cleanliness, of Dutch housewives of the 1950s sweeping their stoep, before the hippies came and ruined it all. Later, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Drmies. I'm basing my opinions on my observation that there are several definitions of "keurig": [13]. In my opinion, "neat, tidy" doesn't particularly work for a coffee product because coffee can't really be "neat" or "tidy"; however "fine, choice" can and do describe coffee (and have even been used in coffee brand names). I'm using a dictionary as my source because we can't just go by opinions. I notice just now that "excellent" is actually in that dictionary definition as well, as an alternate meaning (I hadn't noticed that before)! In any case, I think the jury is still out on what the footnote (if any) should say. Maybe we should just footnote to the dictionary page and leave the interpretation up to the reader; or list all of the definitions. I personally think listing (only) "neat, tidy" is not a good idea. Of course, this entire discussion can be moved to the talk page. UPDATE: OK, I just noticed your "the footnote itself is editorial commentary of course, and if we had to be strict about it we should remove it". I think that's the best idea. The only reason I originally added the footnote is that someone had already added some editorial commentary about the definition within the text of the article [14], [15], so I settled on the compromise of a footnote. I say let's just remove it. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There's only one thing missing in your comment, and that's that you did not seem to unequivocally support the necessary admiration for the Dutch. Even the decision to lose all those games and stay out of UEFA Euro 2016 is to be admired, since we're letting other countries have a go at it. Yes, it was a calculated move.

I think the article makes it clear that this was that person's translation, right? So go for it and cut the footnote. Is that coffee really any good? I've had it once or twice but it always has a hip millennial marketing flavor to it, infused by advertising and hard to ignore. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There was something on my mind about the Netherlands a few days ago but by golly I can't remember it. How's that for a cogent comment? You know, I actually know two Dutchpersons outside of WP (one of them has translated Dutch books into English) so if you had stonewalled on this I might have brought them in and gone over your head, even if your head is stratospheric now because of this ArbCom election. To be honest I don't drink coffee even though that is heresy on this island which is famed for its Kona coffee. I got interested in the company (and its more-interesting parent company which had a major and long-term environmental and social commitment) when some gigantic dreadful homework article called "Environmental impact of K-Cups" was posted on wiki and was full of huge science errors and bizarrely inaccurate OR and the usual uncurated nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a spammer

That's a very serious accusation.[16] Do you have any real basis for this? -- Kendrick7^talk 06:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This is the part where you strike out your accusation and offer an apology, or else I'm forced to conclude that you are an asshole. Given recent comments on your talk page,[17] that might not be much of a stretch. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I would avoid the words "asshole" and "stretch" in close connection when addressing a lady. But I'm likely out of fashion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, very sorry: I got into a very bad place there. The Too soon redirect has been like my baby. I've taken great pride into giving out the link on message boards and comment threads 2 or 3 times a year. I'm really just sad that my baby probably won't live to see its 8th birthday, but such is life. :'( -- Kendrick7^talk 04:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing the Elon Musk page

You keep bringing up that Canadians don't have to get rid of their citizenship to become Americans, yet you ignore the fact that it is possible to give up Canadian citizenship (which is all the article is saying happened, yet you keep unnecessarily and erroneously inferring something else). Also, how do you not know what the word "formerly" means? Formerly means "in the past", which means it is no longer the current situation. Ergo, he's no longer Canadian. There's no way you actually have an English degree if you don't know something simple like that. And you don't just get to decide whichever sources are credible or not, especially when the source is a well known, highly regarded publication such as Entrepreneur Magazine. Your evidence that it is not credible seems to be solely that it doesn't say what you want it to. Wikipedia qualifies this as a credible source, and I doubt that the magazine would just make up random facts about him. So quit reverting my edits unless you have proof to refute them, or I will have you banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyers31 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

. . . and lots of barnstars too

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Thanks for your kindness, may 2016 bring health and good cheer. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I love that banner! So pretty! Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Founders of companies of the United States

There are two possible classes of founders:

1. People who are American citizens, and therefore are already in Category:American company founders anyway, making a second category for the location of the company not a valuable addition;
2. People who are not American citizens, and therefore the location of the company fails to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the person in any way, shape or form.

Either way, the category simply has no value. For most people it's an unnecessary duplicate of another category they're already in anyway; and for the small minority for whom it isn't, it isn't even a defining characteristic at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion that the founding of a company in the United States by someone who is not an American citizen is not a defining characteristic. That doesn't track with every other "by location" and "by nationality" category system we have, in my opinion. And your preemptive removal of the category from all the articles that it was on has skewed the information available for the CfD you are apparently finally going to open just now. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

It was based on this, and my tip is that the water ("eau", French) goes in the middle - at least, that's the way I remember it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Eau! I mean, Oh! I appreciate that, as I just made a couple of image edits on fr.wiki and had to use my by-now Pidgin French to explain. (I couldn't even be bothered to use the cedille for "français" [would have required a copy+paste], so they probably hate me). Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

They don't hate you, they'll just haughtily pretend they can't hear you. EEng (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thus far, they haven't reverted any of my changes that were edit-summaried either in English or in crappy French. And they actually expeditiously made my edit-request made on the talk page of a protected page [18]! It must be the Christmas season or the recent Paris events that have softened them up. Fortunately, the only time I have visited France (lived two weeks in Paris and two weeks in the Alps), I was quite fluent, although it's hell hearing four-year-olds speak better French than you do. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You will have to bully, harass, and lie about some other editor. I am asking that my account be closed.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You will have to bully, harass, and lie about some other editor. I am asking that my account be closed. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's entirely your choice, MBUSHIstory. I erred in not noticing that your second link on your second ANI filing about Checkingfax was to your userpage (not talk page). That was human error (and I repeated the error here on my own talk page, now deleted because you kept posting on my talk page after I had requested you not to and had warned you that I would delete both threads if you did). However, I have never bullied, harassed, or deliberately lied about you; I think this should be obvious by the fact that early on I removed Checkingfax's templates from your userpage. Moreover, when you continue to post long accusations in venues where they do not belong (you were notified that they belonged on the SPI, not ANI), you arouse frustration and impatience in others. Best not to continue that. And if an unwarranted SPI is brought against anyone, the best course of action is just to ignore it, or make a simple statement there that you are not a sockpuppet. Everyone on Wikipedia gets accused of something or name-called something or disparaged somewhere along the line. Generally the best course of action is not to respond. Focus on article content, not on other editors or their actions. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Doodles

Please be kind enough to point me where I could find the general consensus of Google Doodles are not noteworthy for inclusion. Happy Beethoven's baptist anniversary to you!--123.231.125.99 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's generally accepted to be trivia, and excessively trivial for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. If you feel strongly about adding a mention of a Google Doodle in any article, start a discussion on the article's talk page and gain a consensus about it. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much Bzuk! Hope your season is a great one, too. Thanks so much for thinking of me. :-) Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Softlavender as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ho ho ho. :) Thanks Marnette! I need some David Tennant advice these days, as I just got "into" him recently. Not being a Whovian, I haven't seen him in that, and I found his Hamlet to be dreadful and turned it off nearly immediately. But I recently watched Broadchurch (at least the first series), and am a convert. Plus such an intoxicating Scots accent. Any recommendations? Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi S. It is a shame that the Hamlet turned you off. I liked it but I would not want you to put yourself through it again just because of that. One thing I was interested in was watching Patrick Stewart as Claudius and compare and contrast it with the performance he gave in the same role way back in 1980 opposite Derek Jacobi. Tennant has kept himself very busy onscreen and stage since leaving DW. He has, wisely, played a variety of roles to avoid the typecasting that happened to several of the actors who played the Dr back in the 70s and 80s. He and Katherine Tate appeared as Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado ... and I would have liked to be in the audience for that. As to the TV performances his Casanova didn't grab me. It is a light bit of froth but that doesn't mean that you should avoid it. My opinion is also colored by the fact that I am a devotee of Frank Findlay's performance in Casanova from the dim and distant. For me the only other actor to come close is Marcello Mastroianni in That Night in Varennes. I seem to have drifted off into talking about that Italian adventurer so I will try to get back on task here. HeeHee. I liked Broadchurch season 1 as well - I didn't think season 2 was as good - a little tortured - but Charlotte Rampling has a major role and she was as fascinating to watch as ever. The American remake, Gracepoint, was another in a long line of failed attempts to transfer a good UK program to the US. I have seen Spies of Warsaw, The Politician's Husband and The Escape Artist. All very different from each other and all worth a look. Of course, you might like the shows I didn't and be turned off by the ones I did so my apologies if any of these leave you cold :-) I hope that you and yours have a wonderful week!! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I started watching S2 of Broadchurch, and I really enjoyed Olivia Colman and her increasing chemistry with Tennant, but after an episode or two it got too contrived and long-winded and seemed to be merely capitalizing on the success of S1. Gracepoint is on Amazon Instant, and since Tennant is in it I put it on my Watchlist, but it doesn't get the user ratings that Broadchurch does so I hadn't bothered yet. I didn't realize that it's the U.S. remake of Broadchurch, so that settles that -- I'll skip it. I'm currently trying to find things that do not require me to purchase DVDs, lest I spend a lot of money for something I don't particularly like. (I'm off of Netflix at the moment but maybe I should rejoin, although I don't know if they offer any Tennant material.) I thought Patrick Stewart was quite good as Claudius in the Derek Jacobi Hamlet, except for the prayer soliloquy which he totally botched *sigh* -- rushing through it in triple time for no real reason -- really almost ruins the production. I'll check on how/where those items you mentioned are available. If I have no luck I may look for Mark Rylance material -- another new favorite after viewing Wolf Hall, but Rylance is a denizen of the stage and harder to find onscreen. Cheers and very happy holidays to you as well! :-) Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Mahalo nui loa, Martin! Me ke aloha pumehana, Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Originally only five vowels and twelve consonants in the entire Hawaiian alphabet?! Rock-A-Hula Baby !! [19] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Schro. Love the sentiment and the vintage literary image! Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To all my lovely Talk-page stalkers

I'm too lazy to make this into a deliverable greeting (much less deliver it), but this is too good not to share:

Bleat Along to Classic Holiday Tunes With This Goat-Themed Christmas Album

Frankly I couldn't take "O Holy Night" being so desecrated LOL, but "We Wish You A Merry Christmas" (and others) is hi-larious. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I just found out that the Winter Solstice is a day later this year. It doesn't even begin until 16 hours from now. (December 22 at 04:48 am UTC.) [20] -- Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Haffy! I really appreciate it! Best wishes to you for a much-improved 2016 on Wikipedia and off. xx, Softlavender (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Softlavender! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Discographer! Same to you! Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

		Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
		May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! Very pretty! Have a great one, and a great New Year! Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

More music of the season to share

Now I am the one intruding S. I know that recommending music requires even more care than films or TV shows as tastes can vary. I also know that you are trying to keep your DVD collection from growing too vast. Even so I want to make you aware of A Not So Silent Night and Sounds Like Christmas. There is a wide range of songs and performers - and the two venues could not be more different. They enhance this time of year for me so I hope that you can find them (or at least some of the songs) streaming somewhere on the interwebs. Best wishes. MarnetteD|Talk 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, M. I put those on my Wish List to investigate further. I find I tend to be a classicist and a traditionalist in terms of holiday music -- Domingo, Pavarotti, Battle, Robert Shaw Chorale, Percy Faith, Jack Halloran Singers, Messiah, etc. I did find I like Faith Hill's Christmas album, but it's very straightforward and traditional. I often don't even like UK choirs at Christmas because they're singing the wrong melodies for each carol (yikes). This year I haven't even listened to Christmas music except what's on our very good statewide classical-music NPR station. I'm coming off of mass-listening to some music from Ken Burn's docos (The Civil War and The War): William Walton's Passacaglia: The Death of Falstaff and "Ashokan Farewell". For my Christmas-day email to friends I usually send a video of music or similar; last year it was "Appalachia Waltz", also a Ken Burns staple. (This year I've been so involved in these Langton articles I probably am not even going to send an email!! Ditto on wiki holiday-banner-greeting sends!!!) OK, that's far more information than you asked for but you seem to draw out the length in me. :-) Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

And now for 2016

A view of Lake Bondhus in Norway, and in the background of the Bondhus Glacier, part of the Folgefonna Glacier. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

Thanks, Gareth! That's lovely. Wishing you a sweet holiday season and a fine Hogmany Calennig! Softlavender (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy edits

Thanks for adding all of those signatures to keep the discussion organized. Was the auto-signer script malfunctioning, I wonder? Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. On some of them you or Adam had responded in two places at once but only signed one place. In another you or Adam put five tildes instead of four. On the one or two instances where SineBot should have signed: I don't think SineBot is working correctly lately, or maybe it gets too many edit conflicts. I've seen far too many unsigned edits in the past two to four months that have not been remedied by SineBot. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Please do not reopen the discussion on ANI (as you did here). The discussion at WP:BN#Validity of this RfC is the largest and already going. It is fine to disagree with a close, but your actions are not helping your case at all. Please do not reopen that ANI discussion again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect I do see how posting those concerns in more than one venue could be considered forum-shopping. That was not my intention, however; my intention was solely to point up the (in my view important) fact that a massive change in important policy and procedure had been made without what I consider due process. I do feel that a close review request (rather than simply general concern) is in order, and I am going to post one on AN, because that is the venue for close reviews. Nothing personal about you, as I'm sure you were doing what you felt was in order at the time. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the legal system, so due process is irrelevant. I'm not going to bother repeating again what has been told to you multiple times now in multiple places. Whether you agree with it or not, you had 30 days to voice your concerns and express your opinions. Now that things have been decided differently than your preferred outcome, you are complaining that things didn't go your way. That's life. Things don't always go your way. There are certainly plenty of things here on Wikipedia that haven't gone the way I would have preferred, and yet I somehow survived and have moved on. It's a skill you would do well to learn. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen! But by God I ain't editing with a cell phone, and you can't make me! ;-) Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Softlavender!

Happy New Year!

Softlavender,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 12:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Dear Softlavender,
I hope you are keeping well and I send you my best wishes for a great year in 2016!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Patrick! Much appreciated, and same to you! Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your support, with the Last and other songs, almost singing Pie Jesu, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, nice job! May 2016 find you in excellent health! And happy and prosperous in all ways .... Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL, Yeah, I still think I was robbed of that Pie Jesu, G. Maybe next year. Right now I'm listening to Schwarzwaldmädel, the EMI Classic CD with Mattes, Koller, Dallapozza, Kusche, Lindner, and Finke. It is perfection, especially for New Years Eve (it's still 2015 here; won't be 2016 for another 2 hours or so). If you like operetta, I heartily recommend it, and that particular CD. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That Mädel was part of my youth ;) - Click on "bell" for the plans. How is "The Creation"? Not much solo work in the others, and the voice type of the pope is bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with The Creation, G, so hard to get enthused about soloing in that. I guess you folks will just have to muddle along without me. By the way, speaking of Saint Cecilia's Day, as we and MarnetteD were a bit above, a reminder that Schwarzwaldmädel begins with an ode to her: [21] (same cast there, although the EMI CD omits the snippet of dialogue, in fact all dialogue thankfully). And no, G, I did not know that Bach's New Year's cantata appears in the B Minor Mass, so I'm listening to those bits. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

My first hook suggestion (and still not even in prep) said it more precisely. Any help wanted to get it on the Main page at least tomorrow. (It could replace a Sibelius hook, also by me. Too much Sibelius ;) -will have another one today.) I would like to find a source for saying that in the B minor, the theme has all eight notes of the scale, - so far that's my OR. - The peace bell is onthe German Main page,did you know? Miss Yunshui (among too many others). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Good God, have we lost Yunshui too? The body count of good admins in 2015 is very high. *sigh* Still one hour till 2016 here. I'm not that great at getting things onto the Main page; have only done that once myself. I did give it a plug, though perhaps not in the right place. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The cantata appeared now, finally! - If you have the courage to face missing watch this. - Click on "bell" for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

At least a lot of them are back, so it does give one hope. I know you didn't really know Malik Shabazz or ever preciousize him, but he was the ideal, completely neutral and always kind admin. Just ask Cullen328. I hope he will come back some day too. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I knew him well enough to proclaim him Precious, but not well enough to dedicate and translate an article - which is my way to deal with a loss, keeping me too busy to lament, - the peace bell was the fourth such translation in 2015, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Softlavender!

Happy New Year!

Softlavender,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Thank you Yamaguchi; best wishes to you! Softlavender (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Psychology of eating meat

Hello Softlavender, and a very happy New Year!

I know you don't want to "hash out the details" of the draft I wrote, but I'd be grateful nonetheless for any more specific criticisms you could offer. To be honest, I've never had my work criticized so harshly, and I'd like to improve it in your eyes. I've heard ex-vegans often have strong opinions on these issues, so you'd be a great person to explain why the draft seems anti-meat in ways other meat-eaters didn't notice.[22][23]

If you could point out the peer-reviewed psychology sources I've been "cherry-picking" around, or the perspectives within the sources I do have which I've been neglecting, I'd be more than happy to add them to the draft. The nice thing about the WP:NPOV policy is that, by the time you've adequately demonstrated a POV problem, you've necessarily found all the sources needed to fix it.

Best wishes for 2016, FourViolas (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FourViolas, I'm not interested at this time, for reasons I've already given. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, I respect that. Hope to work with you some other time. FourViolas (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please

Please never leave another message on my Talk page. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well. That's bizarre. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)