Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Thanks for your edit at Eckhart Tolle anything else that you think needs to be tweaked? Also would you mind taking a look at The Power of Now and giving some feedback on the talk page. I think it needs a major reworking and would like to collaborate with other editors in the process. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give your insights and feedback on PON and Tolle. This is very helpful. Good luck with your other projects! I look foward to working together in the future. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS I've done a rewrite of The Power of Now if you any further feedback or want to make changes or tweaks, all contributions are welcome! Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Softlavender: Thank you for your help. Removed images and edited captions. 301man (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Soft, if you have a few minutes sometime could you take a look at this other book article by Tolle and give any recommendations you might have on the talk page? Right now I'm the only one active on the talk page and I'd like some additional input before I revamp this article in a way similar to the other Tolle book. This one, does have some secondary sources but there are still whole sections which are unsourced and appear to have been made up by an editor based on personal opinion. Thanks so much, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi SoftLavender, You are a good writer and editor and if you have any time I would value your edits and comments on an essay I've just published called WP:POV RAILROAD. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the compliment. :) That's a good topic -- I've definitely been on the end of that. I'll take a look at it when I have time, OK? Thanks for thinking of me, and great job doing this to help Wikipedia! Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, I took a look at that. Very nice of you to create that essay. I made some copyedits, for clarity of reading (you can revert or ignore any of them). Two things stood out for me to mention: (1) I think you need to wikilink the following (do not assume that anyone reading the essay will automatically know what you mean or the policy referred to): canvassing, game (gaming the system), COI, and possibly even POV. (2) The "Traits" (or perhaps it should be called "Characteristics") section is a little jumpy because the elements are not parallel. In a parallel list, all of the items are the same part of speech: verb clauses, or noun clauses, or adjective clauses, etc.; and even within those categories, the subcategories of clauses are the same: e.g. all gerunds (if that is the choice) for verbs. You may actually want to either change them all to the same kind of clause (if that's even possible), or subdivide that section, adding subheadings or intros to each subsection, so that you group all similar grammatic clauses together. Hope that makes sense. Keep up the good work! Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender! Thanks for helping with my little pet project. The original version of the essay was much longer and more complete.[1] then CorporateM, who I had invited to review it, really took a hatchet to it. I admit it was too verbose so his direction was good but he didn't have an accurate understanding of what the essay was about (the fault of the writer, no doubt) and he cut out things that were germane. So I went back and added some things, re-establishing the focus of the essay while maintaining his succint, point by point style. If you have any time, please have another look and make edits as needed and/or make comments on the talk page. I'm sorry to hear you have been the victim of this kind of bullying but the upside is that it makes your input on the essay even more valuable as you know what are the important points to get across. Thanks again for your help and WP camaraderie!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As a recent participation at Talk:The Departed#Whitey Bulger and The Departed this is just a note to let you know that there is now an RFC regarding the issues discussed at Talk:The Departed#RfC: Discussion of Lead Section comment on film sources neglectfully or inadequately discussed in main article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For helping me improve Diane Harper, I award you this barnstar. Jinkinson (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, J, glad to help! Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to strike comments 2, 3, and 4 from your post to the Raging Bull RfC. To be honest, they're somewhere between completely inappropriate and a personal attack. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the question, which is whether or not those sentences belong in the article. Furthermore, by taking such a stance yet not actually looking at the sources involved, you've essentially made it impossible for Auto Marmet to ever contribute to Wikipedia. You've basically decided he is and always will be doing nothing more than OR, and thus you never need to read what he's written to see if the newest incarnation is OR. Note that the user is no longer edit warring to keep the material, and opening an RfC on it is the complete opposite of disruptive editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I hear and understand your request; however, I am going to leave them up because none of the other editors have given detailed substantive reasoning behind their opposition, and any newcomers to the page will not know the extensive and disruptive and confused and prevaricative patterns this editor has. I meant what I typed. You yourself have seen the numerous untruths he has posted on your own Talk page, and you have not objected to my calling him out on them. After carefully following this editor and his disruptive, self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, prevaricative editing/commenting over several articles and numerous Talk pages, I do not believe he has the competence to edit here. If you disagree, you are welcome to say so or to rebut my post. You've been mainly on the outside looking in on this matter; those of us who have had to clean up after him and read his interminable, repetitive, disruptive, unheeding and prevaricative replies have a bit more knowledge of his patterns I think. I do appreciate where you're coming from, though, and it was kind of you to make this request. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the talk page of an article is not the correct place to raise those concerns--you need to do that on a behavioral noticeboard, like WP:ANI. I wouldn't recommend doing so right now, though, because his behavior has fundamentally changed, in that he is no longer editing or disrupting the encyclopedia. So long as that continues, and he accepts the likely result of the RfCs, then we have no problem, and we have the potential to help educate and retain an editor with obvious passion for certain topics. If the problems restart, of course, action can be taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally disagree that posting and reposting and reposting and again reposting interminable requests and accusations on article Talk pages is not disrupting the encyclopedia. In fact, WP:disruptive editing appears to me to clearly state that it is. Also, his behavior has not fundamentally changed in my opinion, as evidenced by his continuing to do so and his continuing to misrepresent the truth. The only thing he is doing differently is that he has apparently not edit warred since September 10, because after a month of doing so he got two Talk page warnings on September 11 from both Betty Logan and you. He then figured out (possibly through the WP:DR link you provided then), or someone told him, that his only way forward would be RfCs. But all his other behaviors (including lack of competence) are exactly the same. Believe me, I probably would have filed an ANI by now, had I not had a disinclination, and lack of time, to gather and organize the hundreds of disruptive diffs from him and his various IP socks, and the comments/edits of his respondents. I understand your viewpoint about the RfC, but I'm letting it stand. Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for your great work on Luke Barnett. A fine example for us all on how to fix an article up for deletion! Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Shirt! Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Softlavender, I would like to ask you to refrain from deleting edits by others to Diane Harper's page. Edits that improve the content are welcome but arbitrarily removing content that you don't like are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks. user: popcorn66 —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your part in our joint effort to re-kindle Yintan's motivation and to encourage him to continue his good work for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. @}-- Pdebee (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Softlavender, in your recent edit you rightfully mentioned that the standard TOC causes a ton of wasted space here. I've therefore tried to hide the unnecessary subsections with the {{TOC limit}} template but this doesn't seem to work or I'm doing something wrong. Could you help please? --Croscher (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Croscher, I wasn't that well-versed in TOCs myself, but reading through WP:TOC just now, it seemed that the key was (1) putting the {{TOC limit}} after the lead, and (2) adding a number to denote the subheading level cut-off desired. Seems to have worked OK now. Thanks for the prod! Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! My fault was that I thought I had to set a limit of "1" instead of "2". Because of this my trial edits always generated the default template. --Croscher (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Softlavender! Since you posted on Yintan's talk page, I wanted to let you know it seems like he just left. He was probably fed up with the image copyright issues going around. ///EuroCarGT 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the update, Euro, although frankly I'm not surprised. Losing his temper and using profanity and failing to understand the basic premise of image copyright procedures on Wikipedia were bad signs, and signs he was teetering on the edge of something drastic. Although, it is sad that these notifications all seemed to bombard him all at once out of the blue. I'm sorry to see him go, but maybe down the line when he cools off and starts reconsidering how he could contribute here, or misses it, he might come back. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope so. I agree with you, Softlavender, that his recent behaviour was so out of character with his normally steady and humorous approach. The three of us managed to bring him back from semi-retirement not long ago, but I don't think he had flushed the previous frustrations from his system and it's now clear he wasn't ready to face the latest wave of frustrations. Ah well, we can all hope, like you do, that he'll re-join once again when he feels better and re-motivated to continue the good work he did here. Thank you, btw, for allowing me to barge in on your conversation with EuroCarGT... With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Softlavender, did you have any contact with User:Youreallycan? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Callanecc, no, but if you look at the history of this page you'll see I recently had a vandal post from someone with a similar screenname, which post I deleted. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why I asked, after I blocked the account I was trying to figure out why it targeted the pages it did. But not to worry, it's blocked now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've started a discussion on the article's talk page, and would appreciate a more detailed explanation there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw your reason for undoing the edit, and wanted to ask: Why is it that on several disambiguation pages, no links are given? One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapunzel_(disambiguation). I don't see why my edit can't be on there if other disambiguation pages include no links . 172.1.4.91 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "had had" can sometimes be appropriate and grammatically correct, but it produces an awkward sentence. In the context of the I Surrender All article, this awkward construction is unnecessary. If more recent events or research revealed that Deniece Williams did not have a number 1 hit in 1985, I might say that she had had a number 1 hit (from a 1986 perspective). Otherwise, it is enough to say that she had a number 1 hit. Does that make sense? Thanks! Jacknstock (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi J, it's not a matter of sometimes -- it either is correct or it isn't. "Had had" is the past perfect tense of "to have", which is what is needed here. I get that you were startled by the double/repeated wording, or perhaps you were searching Wikipedia for double wordings to correct; however this is the correct formation here. It's not awkward; it's standard English grammar. Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

	Friendship
	Thank you, Softlavender, for your continued friendship and support, past, present and future! — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Good Morning Britain (2014). If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tbhotch but I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years and am a Veteran editor and do not need a Welcome or information link. This is not an appropriate way to deal with an edit you do not like or one you disagree with. The appropriate venue for that is the article's Talk page. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good for your time here, but have been here for 7 years and being a Veteran editor won't make you the owner of a page, or justify edit-warring, or put you above the P&G of Wikipedia. I welcomed you as you are acting as a newbie. But, OK, the next time, it'll be a 2 or 3 level warn. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting an edit, with a clear explanation, is not warring and certainly not WP:OWN. Posting a warning on a user's Talk page for an explained and Wiki-cited revert is not an appropriate way to deal with a disagreement on Wikipedia. The way to deal with reverts of your edits (if you feel strongly about your original position) is to discuss the matter on the article's Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see [2]. --Demetrioscz (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping The Power of Now on your watch list and up to WP standards :-) — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have left a comment at the talk page and please adhere to WP:BRD. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Diane Harper. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. I see you have reverted the edits again and have failed to discuss the edits at the talk page,I won't be lured into WP:3RR, but if you fail to address your edits at the talk page as per WP:BRD I will take this issue to the notice boards for admin intervention. Daffydavid (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daffydavid, I reverted your mass reverts before I looked at the Talk page. This was not an attempt to edit war; simply the order in which I happened to proceed. As you rightly mention, you are the one at risk for 3RR there. I've responded to you on the talk page. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no reason for you to delete the line about Abrahams converting to Christianity. It's a noteworthy part of his story, given that he was well-known for his Jewish origins. It would be misleading for readers to assume that he was of the Jewish faith until his death. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at Talk:The Sun Also Rises (1984 film). Could you comment at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Template_removal. I am wondering why {{The Sun Also Rises}} is being removed from The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is how my eyes must have looked after shoveling snow and editing before having my morning coffee this morning. I have left several replies on my talk page. Thanks for all you efforts here at WikiP in this situation and so many others.

MarnetteD | Talk 15:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. I don't think the album's infobox is appropriate, but if it is, it should be moved down further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. No, I won't modify the infobox for the recording. I think it should be deleted. If the recording had been a big hit or had won the Grammy, it would have its own article, but there is enough detail about it in this article without the box, which is redundant and, I think, does not belong at all in this article about the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the album charted briefly on the pathetic show albums chart is meaningless. All of the major Broadway musicals' albums chart on that chart -- the chart is basically just a list of the new Broadway show albums. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not going to do a revert or anything (the last thing I want to do is spark another edit war), but I thought I'd point out that the citation does in fact support the statements you removed. While it is true that the landing page does not include the language, the PDF copies of Syngenta's letters, which are linked to the citation and of which the citation is a summary, does include that language. Maybe the letters should be ref'd directly instead of the landing page. Thanks! Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jtrevor99. The letters do not support the language I removed, which is why I removed the language. That is also why I added the "(s)" to my edit summary. Feel free to move this discussion to the article's Talk page if you prefer. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this probably should move to the talk page. I'll post here one more time and if we don't resolve it with that, I'll move this whole thing :) At any rate, I am NOT going to make any changes as again, I don't want to spark an edit war. Anyway, you removed two statements.

Statement 1: "Syngenta therefore demanded a retraction and public apology...from Hayes' university..." Upon a reread, I find that you're correct. They instead requested a meeting with Berkeley's reps to discuss the situation.

Statement 2: "...Hayes' employer had found the statements lacked credibility..." is supported on page 2 of the second letter, which reads as follows: "Either Hayes did not report the alleged threats of lynching and rape to the vice chancellor, dean, and legal counsel at Berkeley - in which case, he was lying during his Democracy Now interview - or Hayes did make the report and the vice chancellor, dean, and legal counsel at Berkeley found Hayes' story not to be credible." Keep in mind of course this needs prefaced by "according to Syngenta...", which I attempted to do in the original wording. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jtrevor99. Nothing in any of the letters supports any of the text I removed. I'm not interested in discussing article content on my user Talk page. If you'd like me to copy/move the above conversation to the Syngenta Talk page, let me know; please do not further discuss article content on my Talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice you recently contributed to the talk page of this article. Could you please visit Talk:TV-am and see what you think of the issues raised there? Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ubcule. I just woke up so I'm a little fuzzy; also I'm not British so I'm much less familiar with the programme's history than Brits are. I think getting rid of the unsourced nonsense was a good idea on the other editor's part. I suggest that you correct any misspellings and put {{cn}} tags on the info that needs verification. I think the fact that the article has started to become more factual and more sourced is a good thing. To resolve any disputes, I suggest agreeing with the other editors involved in editing the article that a certain amount of time will be given and after that, any unsourced statements will be deleted within a certain amount of time after they have been tagged. I think that's the only real way to solve disputes over various unsourced material; otherwise, there's nothing verifiable to go on one way or another. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw your comments at Template talk:The Sun Also Rises. Now they are trying to make the template irrelevant by imposing changes at The Sun Also Rises (opera), The Sun Also Rises (ballet) and The Select (The Sun Also Rises).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I already pointed out to you that that was what was happening. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:editorial, which explains, "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." Yes, I see that using such words could subtly take weight away from the previous para, and give a little extra to a sentence or para that it starts. My concern, as a writer, is that such words also serve a useful function in that they signal to the reader that a shift in meaning has taken place, making it easier to take in the meaning. In the case of that para at Eckhart Tolle, would you also feel that beginning the paragraph with "On the other hand, . . . " would also be non-neutral wording? Thanks. EMP (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi EMP, it's usually better to have these discussions on the article's talk page -- that way other editors can participate as well. The paragraph doesn't need an editorializing word or phrase to begin it, as that is neither encyclopedic or necessary. If it were the same paragrpagh, then such a word or phrase might be useful. But not for a new paragraph, particularly not one which has already been alluded to in the first sentence of the section. Hope that helps. Any further discussion however should take place on the article Talk page rather than a user talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure you saw the note--but now that I think of it, you likely have Tolle talk on your Watchlist. EMP (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, usually I would offer help working on the article however at the moment I just have to many projects going on. However if there are any particular Times articles you want to know the contents of let me know and ill email you the full articles as I have a subscription at the moment, although will be giving I it up soon.Blethering Scot 16:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I added cats, talk page tags and avoided a redirect at Template:Ian Charleson Award. Looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't revert you, but what's the logic behind keeping discussions that clearly won't result in action and are in violation of the instructions? WP:UAA/I just says they "should be left on the noticeboard for several hours", which has clearly happened. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

All actions on the board other than commentary are to be taken by admins, per the policy -- that's why it's an admin board. Even beyond that, there is a clear conflict-of-interest problem which the username (which includes her initials) reflects, so an admin removing the discussion would rightfully place it in the holding pen rather than deleting it. Softlavender (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Which policy? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arms & Hearts, you linked to the policy above. If you have any questions about it, the best place to ask them is on that talk board. Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't linked to any policies. WP:UAA/I is a how-to guide. Do you mean WP:U? I don't have questions about the content of either, just your understanding of them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Good solution.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Softlavender, It has recently come to my attention that you have deleted my addition, in the bibliography section of the "Maria Callas" entree, of a reference to an article written by me. The core of this article was the subject of a lecture I gave to the Foundation of the Hellenic Parliament, on the occasion of an exhibition about the great American-Greek soprano. I have been an editor, like you, as well as a publisher and author, and a collaborator of the Greek Wikipedia.

You mention that this addition is "self promotional", as the reason for the deletion. I don't know if you had the time to use the link I included, to facilitate readers to reach the article itself. And maybe this is too much to ask, knowing how rapidly reviewers and administrators have to skim over the material if they are to get the job done. Still, I would like to assure you that the farthest thing from my mind was to promote my self or my work. If you had read the article, and because you seem to be interested in music subjects, you would see that I uncover new material not mentioned in the usual biographies, many of which have turned opera to soap-opera. My interest is to disseminate such new ideas to the wikipedians.

The article was published in English in The Netherlands in a prestigious and specialized quarterly magazine on Maria Callas, that for the last 24 years its publisher, Karl van Zoggel, in collaboration with musicologists and music reviewers throughout the world, has been publishing material on the 'Divina', that keeps alive her memory and enriches our knowledge of her achievements.

I write all this to clarify the difference between self-promotion and dissemination of new material. Unless, I have been a victim of fate, since my father was the founder of the National Opera of Greece in 1939 and first discovered Maria Callas, assisting her financially to finish her studies and signing with her her first professional contract. But these are circumstances beyond my control and feel it is unfair that I should be penalized for my family relation or that I should hide such facts to avoid unwarranted misunderstandings.

I would be very happy to receive your views on the above. All my best --Bastias (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bastias; if the addition was not meant as self-promotion, then, although it's always a shock when one's edits are reverted, I don't think you should have too many qualms about its being deleted. It is less about about Callas, and more about someone with your last name, whom I presume was a relative of yours (your father I presume, since you mention him in your post above), and various historical and political events. It does not belong in the Bibliography of an encyclopedia article about Callas, especially since it was not used in creating the article. If you feel there is information in your article that can be used in the Maria Callas article, then the best option, since you wrote the article and it is a conflict of interest for you to add a reference to it or information from it into the article yourself, is to post the link to the article on the Talk page (Talk:Maria_Callas) for other editors to look at and see if they want to glean anything from it to add into the article. You need to disclose that you wrote the article (and that it's about your father), and that that's why you are using the Talk page to present it as a possible source rather than adding material from it directly to the Wikipedia article yourself. That way, disinterested and unbiased editors can make decisions about what, if anything, they want to add into the article from your treatise.

I hope that's helpful.

I notice that you have two accounts, Bastias and Johnbastias. This violates Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, and you'll need to get one account blocked in order to prevent sockpuppetry. You can do that voluntarily by contacting an admin (for instance, User:Bbb23 often handles superfluous account blocks), or eventually, someone will report you to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and one of your accounts will be involuntarily blocked, so it's better to take care of that yourself by self-reporting, so you don't get called before an administrator's investigation. Good luck with that! Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bastias or Johnbastias, Softlavender's mention of my name also pinged me, which is how I became aware of this dialog. It's true that it is not a good idea to have more than one account unless there's a legitimate reason for it. However, accounts aren't necessarily blocked for sock puppetry unless their editing is disruptive. Bastias was created on October 11, 2012. Johnbastias was created on March 7, 2013. Both accounts started editing when Johnbastias was created (March 7, 2013). The biggest problems I see are conflicts of interest and the intersection of edits between the two accounts at Fotos Politis. Is Costis Bastias a relation of yours? Is there a reason why you have two accounts? Would you object to my blocking one? If not, which one? In my capacity as an administrator, I expect a response to my comments and questions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory&oldid=611634031 was to qualify who thinks "LGBT rights" are "human rights and civil rights". The original sentence read: "LGBT rights are considered human rights and civil rights." What counts as "human rights," or what that concept even means is disputable. What counts as "LGBT rights" is disputable. In order to avoid a point of view that assumes certain values and beliefs, it is best to attribute that view as held by someone, rather than stating it like it is a scientific fact. The sentence should ideally say who thinks "LGBT rights are considered human rights and civil rights." In the absent of the specifics, I will revert your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory&oldid=611638058.

Lincean (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Two credible sources mentioned the conversion. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither is either credible or reliable. See WP:RS. Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The source mentioned are most reliable and objective. Please, prove with reliable sources of your own that Harold Abrahams did not convert to Catholicism, in spite of the numerous sources which mention it as a fact. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read my two edit summaries: "Abrahams never ever converted to Catholicism. Those non-WP:RS sites (WP:MIRRORS) are quoting a false rumor erroneously promulgated on Wikipedia. Check out Harold's exhaustively researched biography book, Running with Fire, by Mark Ryan." Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your argument is unacceptable. Can you argue something against the sources I mentioned the last time? Perhaps the solution is to mention that there are opinions holding that Abrahams converted, which will leave room for further additions, whenever and if something new will be discovered.--Alexander Tendler (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My statements are not "arguments", they are Wikipedia policy. Please read the links I posted; they let you know all that you need to know, and why your sources are unacceptable. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no! Facts come before policy. The fact is that Abrahams' conversion is mentioned by several independent and credible sources. Wikipedia policy aims to include credible sources. Except the statement, you do no bring any proof that the sources I mentioned are not credible. You want to apply here a general policy which, in these circumstances, is unjustified and unjustifiable. Again, I suggest the compromise of mentioning both possibilities of conversion and non-conversion, including the sources for both. Fair enough? --Alexander Tendler (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Falsehoods (which your belief is) are not facts. And even facts require WP:VERIFIABILITY with reliable sources before they are admissable on Wikipedia. The fact that you do not understand Wikipedia policies and seem unwilling to even read or learn them is not my problem. Either learn Wikipedia policy, or move on. I'm not interested in discussing further, as you have not complied with my repeated requests to read and learn Wikipedia policy, or in fact read anything reliable about Harold Abrahams. Since this is the case, you seem to be merely pushing an agenda, and an erroneous one. I'm not interested. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite answer. --Alexander Tendler (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit on the page for the song "I Surrender All". Oslo Gospel Choir is a charting choir in Norway and Europe and a Dove award recipient. They are considered to be one of the best, if not the best Gospel Choir in Europe. They have sold some 1.6 million albums and have a 25 year relationship with the great American gospel singer Andraé Crouch who the choir has sung and recorded with on many occations during the choirs over 25 years history. On these grounds I therefore think it is correct to add them to the list. Mortyman (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mortyman. The Oslo Gospel Choir article is completely uncited and also gives no mention, much less proof, of any Dove award. I recommend you update that article with citations and with proof and mention of what you just stated. Otherwise, I think the addition to the Notable Recordings of "I Surrender All" stands to be removed. Softlavender (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Citatations added Mortyman (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain this edit? We are mystified. :) Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Daniella! I'm glad that bizarre nightmare is over. If you ever have a truly dishonest editor harassing you, repeatedly, in the future, be sure to report it -- and if you need help in the report, reach out for someone to help you file it. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, when you rearranged the page for chronological order, you deleted two of my comments ([3]). Later you picked up one but you missed the other. It doesn't matter anyway, the discussion is closed, I just thought you might like to know. Ivanvector (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector; that was purely accidental. I realized by the byte count that something seemed to possibly be missing (the hatting hadn't seemed to take that many bytes), but all the !votes seemed to be there, and I didn't have the time or any more willpower to scour it for what might or might not be missing. (I had moved everything by hand, one section at a time, by date.) I figured someone else probably would. Thanks for figuring it out! Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As a Dutchman I was very critical of what has been written about our history and folklore. With your contribution and the esteemed Meertens Institute as a source, I feel that the Hans Brinker story has been given it's approriate place on Wiki. It is very much an American children's story, not Dutch. By the way, the New York Post wrote this weekend that the Dutch were forced te trade with other nations because "our swamps were unfit to yield crops"... That is why we were dependent on Poetin's wits... Ridiculous! We are one of the foremost agricultural exporters in the world. Our tulips are traded all over the globe, and so are our cows, pigs, sheep, bulls and many of our crops. We are famous for puting our marshes into pastures and fields of wheat and corn. The New York Post should be ashamed of itself... Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha yeah, the Post is a rag. Thanks for adding the Meertens Institute as a source; I'm glad you feel the article is OK now. Thanks for writing, Robert, and happy editing. :) -- Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You reverted a free screenshot as dubious. So I am proposing VHS covers: the PAL 6-VHS box set, the PAL 4-vhs box set, the 1998 PAL 3-VHS box set, the cover of NTSC "Book I" of six VHSs, or this or that. I tried to find 1980s promo ads of the serial, but I found almost none. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi George Ho. There is no need to change the image. It is fair use and complies with Template:Infobox film. If you have any further questions about that, the best place for your discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Talk:Brideshead Revisited (TV serial), rather than here on my Talk page. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. About this revert: if you can find reliable sources to give citations for the sentence I had deleted (neither of the claims of which had any citation, pace your edit summary), I take my hat off to you. But in your hasty action you've actually removed a reference, and a corrected reference, I had made. I would be grateful if you could do the courtesy of reinstating these. Alfietucker (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to our discussion on the Richard Strauss talk page, out of curiosity I had a look to see where that sentence came from and found this and this from back in March 2011. Maybe you can remember why you removed the fact tag back then, and the sources for those sentences. Alfietucker (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't recall why I removed the tag 3-1/2 years ago. I had recently been listening to the Exploring Music weeklong series on Strauss, and also had researched the two TIME magazine cover-page profiles on Strauss during his lifetime. Perhaps it therefore seemed obvious to me, from contemporary statements in both of those venues, that during his lifetime he was considered the greatest composer of the first half of the 20th century. Feel free to move or copy this discussion to the Strauss talk page. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

SL, I'm afraid by inferring what seemed "obvious" to you, you've committed a bit of WP:OR. I guess it's something we all unwittingly do from time to time. Given this, I do suggest it's probably best for you to simply delete that sentence and be done with it. And yes, I think I will copy and paste this little aside to the talk page just to make clear what has happened. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Strauss-operas there was a a discussion going on here [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Arabella_et_al:_which_comes_first]. The consensus is to use the opera-template instead of the composer-template. I am now staring to implement these templates. Please do not hinder my work.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor seems to be jumping the gun on removing all composer templates for Strauss. I support your action and emphasis to him that things still need to be worked through. I've no created a new section for this discussion to take place. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not jumping the gun, see my complaint on Ariadne auf Naxos-talk page from Dec 3rd, 2013. Eight months is more then enough.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You could probably hat most of that thread.--v/r - TP 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, T, that was my plan after an OK from Amaryllis. S/he hasn't posted, but then again I didn't ping her or let her know I had later decided (after my post) to hat the convo. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You received a Wikipedia email about access to Newspapers.com about 2.5 weeks ago about access to WP:Newspapers.com access through the The Wikipedia Library. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google doc. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you undid my edit without discussing the issue? What, exactly, is wrong with the statement you deleted? SchnitteUK (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi SchnitteUK, the reason for the revert is in the edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen your positive and constructive contributions at Hamdi Ulukaya. A similar WP:OPENPARA (Nationality - ethnicity) and NPOV issue has arisen at Arto Tunçboyacı. A nationalist POV editor has reverted my correct edits without participating at the discussion I opened, and with an edit summary that doesn't even reflect the truth. I would like to see you, I am not asking you to revert or anything like that, -I keep that option for myself but maybe after I receive some feedback to my arguments, which are similar to the other case, at the relevant discussion page. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. This singer's older brother has another nationality (I am not referring only to citizenship) according to his own article. Of course being born from the same parents, under similar conditions, they both have the same nationality: Turkish. (My source was removed, other sources show ethnicity.) The older brother died (PBUH) as a Turkish citizen. The younger may have added a US passport or Green Card to his Turkish passport, becoming a Turkish American.

Hi, Why should I have a User Name?. I'm not sure I have time to devote myself to this, but in this case, if he also has U.S. citizenship, then the lede should read that he is a Turkish-American musician of Armenian descent, per WP:OPENPARA. The words "of Armenian descent" need to be in the lede because his Armenian heritage bears so greatly on his music, per WP:OPENPARA. Of course, all of this needs to have citations, and if someone is removing cited info, they need to be reverted, and if they persist they need to be warned on their user Talk page. The article Talk page should have a brand new discussion about nationality and ethnicity and how the lede should read. This discussion should not be in the Galata thread. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will revert, as you say, and add a note about the discussion title so that no one misses it. Secondly, his name in Armenian characters is in the lead and makes clear the ethnicity, which is also clearly stated in the next paragraph. We could think of adding something about Armenian music but he also makes Turkish music, so that should be at least "a Turkish musician who makes Turkish and Armenian folk". Note: I am not sure lf Tunçboyacı (the authentic surname) has a passport other than the Turkish one or not. I saw a reference to him in another article, Night Ark, where his name was together with Armenian American Ara Dinkjian as "Turkish-Armenian". I must have read that "Turkish American". A simple confusion. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Why should I have a User Name?, as I mentioned, the opening sentence needs to say "is a Turkish musician of Armenian descent", (emphasis mine) for the reasons I gave. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Be my guest. You do it please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of rollback is limited to cases of unconstructive editing and vandalism. Your use of rollback to revert my edit and delete six reliable sources is misuse of the tool. Please do not use rollback this way again. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Softlavender. Well, to be honest, I originally saw the template used on Karl Jäger and decided to copy and paste it. However, a look at Template:iw-ref shows that this template is no longer being used across Wikipedia. So, this was a mistake on my part to copy the template in the first place. Sorry for the confusion. - Hoops gza (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. I really appreciate your keeping such a close eye on the page on Bejun Mehta. I am wondering, however, why you edited out all of the changes that I made the other day, updating the information, which was at least 18 months out of date. I cited the sources for the material and I made small grammatical edits, all of which you erased. Unfortunately, you did not explain on the page why you refused all of the edits that I had made. If I'm doing something wrong, I'd love to know. Thanks so much-- --Jls9097 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. I appreciate your concerns regarding the Henry Ian Cusick page and see there was an issue where you instruct for DHUME to stop adding SPECIAL to SPECIAL COMMENDATION and sourced the Sunday Times announcement. I just edited that to put SPECIAL back sourcing the actual website for Ian Charleson which does say SPECIAL COMMENDATION. I know this was an issue so I just wanted to let you know so there is no further problems. Thank you! --Dani808 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You reverted it again even with 2 resources which included the official website of the person who actually received the award? I have contacted the actor directly who is providing an actual image of the award. I take it that will be sufficient? --Dani808 (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

perhaps I should remind you of the problems one can produce by concentration on dealing with one particular problematic editor. It tends to produce unconstructive exchanges. I deal with hundreds of similar situations, and perhaps can do so fairly, because I cannot follow up everything. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi SL, none of the online databases carry the entire San Jose Mercury archives. It's either pre 1922 or post 1985. The library at UC Berkeley [4] mentions it being available on microfilm. I've emailed the Wikipedian in Residence there for help, haven't heard back. I wouldn't get my hopes up though. - NQ (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi NQ, yes, as I mentioned in my request, the more current archives only go back to 1985. The microfilm is also available in one of the basements of one of the buildings of the San Jose library (I forget which building and basement; I checked a good while ago, and tried to figure out who the reference librarian in charge of it was; I think I even emailed them for help but I think I got back a bureaucratic response). I left a message on Talk:San Jose, California, but I just left a link to the RX discussion rather than the full details, which I perhaps should add. I may have to eventually pay someone to get me this. Anyway, thanks so much for correcting the page number -- that's going to be invaluable whichever way I end up finding it. Thanks again, Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note to self about location of microfilms: http://www.mercurynews.com/archive-search/ci_7418630. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your sweet nick has very little to do with your revert, which you have done without a word of explanation. Indeed, my edition was wrong, but I am here for pleasure of creating something useful to other people. Let me feel it - I am a human being like you. Your revert was necessary, but you could write at least something like "wrong word". 85.193.194.118 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

When a random anonymous IP makes an inappropriate edit – which happens hundreds of thousands of times a day on Wikipedia – it's easiest and fastest and most efficient to just roll the edit back with one click, without the need of an explanation. I do not use gadgets (which provide automated explanations); some editors do. If you are truly "here for [the] pleasure of creating something useful to other people"; then by all means I overwhelmingly suggest creating an account, which will provide you with all kinds of guidance, support, and mentorship, and an identity which will more than likely garner edit summaries if and when future edits you make are reverted. I hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, My students have told me that you almost single-handedly saved my Wikipedia page from deletion. While I don't make a big thing about my past, it's nice to still think of what I did when I was younger as being pretty significant, so thank you for restoring my page. All the best, Paul Terry P.S. My birthday is wrong but you'll never find a source for my correct birthday as IMDB have it wrong so it will never change (a nice little quirk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.141.14 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Just because I admire your continuing excellent contribution. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much, Gareth! That was certainly unexpected. (But now that I peruse a bit, I take it you saw my addition to the Watford article!) LTNS! I hope you have a great holiday season, and if I don't cross paths with you before then, a propitious New Year! Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Your sleuthing is admirable. For my part I had to look up your internet abbreviation—I found this:
Some guy: Hey, I'm back from the crash!
Some other guy: Wow, ltns!
Some guy: LTNS?
Some other guy: It means long time no see.
All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the listing of the unsupervised generic homework assignments, some of which you have commented on recently: Education Program:Louisiana State University/CHEM 4150 Environmental Chemistry (Fall 2014). I contacted the instructor of the course - User talk:B.J.Carmichael but she told me that she was a coordinator and implied somehow that she is not responsible for this awfulness. Oh well. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Smokefoot, I am in agreement with you. I'm already aware of that group of homework articles, and actually linked it in one or two of my AfD comments. One of the assignments has already passed through AfD and been deleted (see the Talk page). I think others of them (some still at the sandbox phase) may be destined for that as well. I see the appeal to teachers in assigning students Wiki projects, but it severely compromises and in many cases outright damages Wikipedia. Essays and term papers are by definition WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, even beyond the amateurism and extreme fallibility of the possibly well-meaning students who write them. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I wish that you could somehow communicate your views/insights to Wikipedia-Central, because many editors see homework as a mechanism to recruit new editors and I have recently been semi-chastised for suggesting that most homework assignments are junky. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#New articles from a class project At least in the Chemistry project, the growth in these homework assignments coincides with the increased sophistication of the articles. So the gap between the students abilities and the quality existing content is widening. Also because the students's contributions must be a grade-able chunk, they write essays that are inserted into otherwise decent articles or the instructor invents contrived article topics such as what we are dealing with. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted, and when I have time to look into it and put my thoughts together, I will try to comment. I hear ya. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Smokefoot, I'm genuinely tired of Wikipedia being used as a homework venue. I have never been in favor of this (although I can see the appeal for teachers); it creates endless problems for actual editors, for Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability, and for Wikipedia's reputation. Wikipedia is not a learning tool -- it is a reference (teaching tool). This should all be obvious. Where do I express my views so that this can hopefully be stopped? Do you know? Perhaps DGG knows. (At one point he mentioned Wikipedia:Education noticeboard and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents; but I'm not sure those are the appropriate venues for a request that homework be kept off of Wikipedia.) Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What follows is my own personal thoughts on the matter, and the most realistic advice I can give on what is likely to succeed. I may have my own views about what might be desirable if I ran WP. I may similarly have views about what might be desirable if I ran the Real World.

It depends on what you want to say. If you want to say that these particular assignments are not being done well, the Education noticeboard/incidents is the place to go. (I think there is already full realization about the unsatisfactory nature of some of the Fall14 courses, and that we will see better in the future. If you want to say that some type of assignments should be avoided, then the appropriate place is the education noticeboard. If you want to say that all education program courses should be stopped, you should first consider how you would keep course work off Wikipedia, since anyone can organize a class to write articles without the help of any formal program, and the absolute most that could be accomplished would be to remove the program for providing them assistance. (We have sometimes seen that trying to come down hard on a particular course has resulted in the instructor doing in the next term without telling us anything about it, and that work done is such a way has been particularly hard to identify and remove.) But if considering the alternatives you still think that would be desirable, then probably the Village Pump is the place to go to suggest the removal of all its related pages from enWP. I'm not sure you realize that some actions, such as actually ending the Education Program, are not within our power. See Wikipedia:Education program and its "about" page"; within the US/Canada the program is run by an independent organization not technically under the control of the Wikipedia foundation, let alone the English WP, and the formal affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation is still in the proposal stage--see Wikipedia:Affcom.

Incidentally, I would suggest not calling its assignment "homework", which is likely to alienate everyone who has ever participated, including myself -- tho I generally no longer do. We are talking about educational assignment in Graduate and Undergraduate university courses, and almost none of them consist of the sort of rote work usually referred to as school homework. I think it's been suggested that some of the course work is of that nature, but please be aware that for some of the courses, substantial work has been created as the equivalent of term papers (& that some of these have been excellent) , and in some others, small assignments, such as adding a reference, have been used for familiarization purposes (and many feel that this is a more feasible approach for most courses than term paper length assignments).

Personally, I think we at Wikipedia are doing what is necessary and appropriate to do about these course assignments, which is to remove the incompetent edits and the bad articles through our normal processes, and try to make contact with the individual submitting them--just as we do for everything here. I and many others do not think that we have been active enough about this in the past, but for a large number of independent reasons I do not intend to take part in any general campaign. Rather than a general campaign, I see it as the same as raising the standards at WP in general, one persona at a time, one article at a time. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, DGG, thanks for at least opining and giving your best thoughts. It doesn't sound like anything can be done to stop the influx. Here's my two cents: I attended a Top 5 university, and wrote various assignments and term papers in factual non-creative subjects, at least one or two of which I am immensely proud of and retained to this day (or at least until my last move, wherein the movers lost them). But I have no illusions that either of those excellent term papers, or any created today, are Wikipedia material, because term papers by definition require original conclusions and original thought, not mere encyclopedic gathering of facts. This is even above and beyond the problem that undergraduates (and even graduates) are by definition not seasoned experts in any genre or in research and accurate presentation, but rather are learners. And I imagine I need not go into the woeful state of education (in this country at least). All of these add up to the fact that these assignments -- and yes university assignments are homework, not voluntary -- are not Wikipedia quality or Wikipedia material. Unless the assignment is to create an encyclopedia-quality article on a single subject that has already been requested by seasoned Wikipedia editors as needing an article. Even then, the novice attempt would be suspect in my eyes, but at least it would be something that Wikipedia needs. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have long used Wikipedia for homework. I think for about seven years. But I am an active editor and restrict what students can add and clean up what does get through my filter. There have been no complaints. The students are senior-junior chem majors and the length of their contributions is short. That having been said, the latest incident from LSU was really pretty disappointing - not instructor involvement and the "coordinator/ambassador" was only briefly involved. I tried to delete some of the most egregious material but those actions were reverted by User talk:Pigsonthewing. PigsontheWing, seemed to be concerned that we (actually me) were discouraging or even insulting the students. Although User:Pigsonthewing has limited experience with these homeworky projects, his actions were understandable, if naive IMHO. His pleas for a second chance from the students-instructor-ambassador/coordinator went unanswered by any of these authors or supervisors. As I explained here, the students had dropped their "essay bomb" and had moved on. I would support removal of all content from the LSU course, so if you want to proceed with that action, let me know. About general policy on homework, I would also support a message to relevant parties that our standards are high, long essays are non-ideal, and faculty involvement is expected.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You said on the talk page of Pa'u riders recently: "Just as a technicality, and I don't have time to find scholarly written proof (although it exists), pa'u as it is pronounced by all of the historians, documentarians, and newscasters in the 5 videos I posted in the discussion above, definitely pronounce pa'u without kahakōs".

I found it...and oddly enough it is the exact example you gave in the discussion so....uhm bingo? ;-) [5]. This explanation of the Hawaiian language (just learning it myself) discusses the use of the okina and how it makes the word sound by using "Paʻu rider" as an example. The kahako is explained directly below using Waikiki but...and this exactly what you were stating, it says, point blank: "The macron however, is used less frequently than the okina, in part because it isn't often needed to distinguish between words. This book, like most English publications from Hawaii excludes macrons".

These means we might need to re-discuss their use on Wikipedia at the MOS Hawaii again. I am going to look further for more sources on this but a big thank you for pointing this out. It seems the article (like the phrase itself) is something of a hinge point to how we understand writing and pronouncing Hawaiian words and phrases on Wikipedia........and no the irony is not lost on me that we do not write Wīkīpedia and pronounce it Weekeepedia. As for this being a 'quick" encyclopedia....have you notice how things can drag on for some time ;-) (I kid..sort of. Mele Kalikimaka) --Mark Miller (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thank you for the note; however I think you missed my point, at least on this particular word. It's clear that this word with this particular meaning does not have kahakos, written or not, because of the pronunciation of the experts. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that is the point, but in discussion you also said that few people use the macrons. The source is showing no kahakos for the word and has the basic reasoning that the letters have a specific pronunciation.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I said that in another discussion, concerning their popular (not scholarly) disuse; that discussion was before I had gone back to listen to the scholarly videos. We are discussing here, and I was discussing in the thread you are referring to, whether there ever legitimately ever were or are any kahakōs in the word pa'u which means skirt. There are other iterations and pronunciations of those letters which mean various things in Hawaiian (and I'm not just referring to pau without the okina), which makes the subject and the sources and even the dictionaries very confusing and inaccurate. What we best have to go on is the pronunciation of the historians, scholars, and experts, and they are all distinctly pronouncing pa'u without any kahakōs. It's very clear to me, perhaps less clear to those outside of Hawaii. Anyway, hope that helps; unfortunately I don't have time to dig further for the article, or edit the article, at present. Thanks very much for your help in the article thus far! Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Throughout Great Britain there are many celebrations across the island, particularly in Scotland. London: thousands gather along the Embankment on the River Thames to watch the fireworks around the London Eye. The New Year officially starts when Big Ben strikes twelve. Scotland: there are many unique customs associated with the New Year. These form the Scottish celebration Hogmanay—the Scots name for New Year's Eve. The street party in Princes Street in Edinburgh is one famous example. Wales: Calennig is celebrated, with celebrations attracting thousands of people to the capital, Cardiff. Happy New Year! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)|}

Thanks very much, Gareth, and a very happy Calennig to you! I have no idea how to say Happy New Year in Hawaiian (I don't think it's done), so I won't attempt that. But I learned a new thing from your message -- although I already knew about Hogmanay, I didn't know about Calennig, so Cheers, too. I guess it's nearly 2015 there, but it's only 11:30 am here. It does not yet sound like the Battle of Trafalgar. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised to learn that "epiwafer" was a popular term right around 2000-2002, the exact time that my company started to use epi wafers. I should pay more attention to ads, I guess. Anyway, it quickly settled back to more normal terminology, like "epitaxial wafer", looks like. I guess another move is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, I think it best to look at all those Google searches on the Talk page, and see which spelling/nomenclature -- adding the web + book, singular + plural spellings (that's four searches for each spelling) -- has the most hits, for the title of the article. If you want, I can do that and add them up. Of course, the company name will skew "epiwafer" so we can exclude that if you like. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't use plurals, and book searches are generally more authoritative than web searches, but feel free to provide more data. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Plurals are for the Google searches, because obviously many of the mentions (even in books) are only in plural, not singular, so an exact-phrase Google search (i.e., in quotation marks) will omit those mentions unless a plural form is searched. I'm fine with the fully spelled-out version as long as all of the other spellings redirect to it; therefore should probably also create a redirect for Epi-wafer, since that hyphenated form is sometimes used as well. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point(s). Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The "American Farmers" category needs to be non-diffusing. There is a "women farmers" category but no "male farmers" category - all the women were removed from the main one, but none of the men. That was an issue settled with the women writers' category flap from a few months back. I tagged the categories for non-diffusion. Montanabw^(talk) 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, didn't know that. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much, Gerda, that is so kind and beautiful. You are a lovely angel on this encyclopedia. All very best wishes, and heartfelt thanks, Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You make me blush, - don't you know that I am the notorious infoboxes criminal, and leading member of a cabal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding my edit notice ("Every editor is a human being." - not be me) by this sermon wisdom not only for Sundays! May I use it on arbitration enforcement? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha how charming Gerda, yes of course; use however you like, it's under CC license :-) Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, I checked the photo just now, and I believe it to be a copyvio. It appears to be a professional photo taken by a professional photographer for professional purposes, but the uploader, who calls himself "CarlPotts1", indicates he took it himself, which seems unlikely. Softlavender (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think Potts hired the photographer himself, and therefore owns the copyright? Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If that were case, the file should not read "Own work", and the photographer's name should be listed as the Author, and a scanned copy of the copyright-release agreement or the work-for-hire agreement should have been sent to OTRS. Otherwise, the photographer should have uploaded the photo themselves and released it with an acceptible CC license or public domain license. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He says his daughter took it. She obviously took it for him, so presumably, he owns the copyright. Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's still incorrectly filed then. There needs to be proof of who took it, and that needs to be indicated on the file, and there needs to be proof of who owns and releases the copyright. If a work is uploaded under "Own work", then whoever uploaded it clicked "I created this", which is clearly not the case. I'm personally not convinced his daughter took it, unless his daughter is a professional photographer (i.e., has a professional website of her photography business, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a real US national tour would be important to be added to the article, but I did a google search, and found this and this, ah! and this is the full itinerary of the tour. -- This is only a Non-Equity tour; the leading players are not notable, and the director is not notable. Even though it is a 6-month tour, I would not say that it is essential to add it. But if you do, I would not name the designers, unless they are blue-linked people. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please revisit the merge of infobox hymn, found on any hymn, such as I Surrender All? I changed the docu of {{infobox musical composition}}, adding a special section dedicated to hymns, meant to avoid "wading though parameters", - please check if it makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I don't feel calm about this yet and I don't think I can be neutral. I may get back to it at another time. :) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are not calm. Are you ready to answer questions? Just say no if not.

• If I read "music by", I don't know what part of music. I know hymns where the melody is composed by one person, settings by many others, how would that show? I find "music by" ambiguous. (Example: our featured article Messiah proclaimed (until I changed it) that Wachet auf is by Bach. I would say the melody is by Nicolai, famous settings - Bach, Reger etc, - might appear in comments, if needed.)

Obviously it refers to the original composer, as with any song -- never later settings or adaptations. Also, there is no need to add the unattractive and out-of-place explanatory word "by" in the hymn infobox, for either the Music or the Words. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, some thought it was Bach for Wachet auf ;) - I didn't use "by" until a GA reviewer told me that I can't equal a chorale to a person. I also don't see much difference between that "by" in the parameter or in the value.

• The image could be down in the article, no problem, but can we ask readers where they would like a relevant image? My personal answer would be "first glance". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally see no reason to have an image in the infobox unless the rest of the article is cluttered with images. Normally articles on something as inanimate and old as a hymn need the image in the body text to relieve the large walls of text. Unlike a person, album, film, book, TV show, or business, a hymn is not an item that comes with a specific face, image, logo, or album/book/video cover or poster. Plus an infobox shrinks an image, whereas an image in the body text can be large and the text visible. Images in infoboxes are mainly specifically to ensure the reader that they have come to the right article. A hymn article has no real need for that, plus images that are used don't necessarily help the reader identify that they have come to the correct article, and do not definitively identify the hymn, since a hymn is an inanimate religious musical work, not a commercial sales product. If the only reason this template was put into discussion was to achieve an image option, an image parameter could possibly be added as an option to the existing hymn infobox template. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many questions, - my personal view:

• I like to see a face, of a hymn writer or poet, or a manuscript, or a print, - something that gives me a feeling for the period right away.

That is to the detriment of the images in the body text, which is what these articles need, as I mentioned above. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The size of the image is variable.

Only if the infobox is greatly enlarged, which is not generally advisable. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• "to the right article", - I disagree, this is only true for readers who searched for something specific, - I want to address those readers also who come by chance, by a click on something they don't know yet.

Very seldom do any readers come to any article by chance. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, the missing image option was not the only reason, - it was the first lacking parameter of several. The main reason for a merge is to avoid redundancy. Imagine we wanted a new parameter, such as translator, we would have to insert it in two templates instead of one. We used to have an infobox for Bruckner's symphonies. Imagine the multitude of templates if we had composers multiplied by genres.

There is no redundancy. A hymn is a hymn. A musical composition is a musical composition and rarely ever even is vocal or has words. The two are so divergent I can't possibly imagine why anyone would conflate them. That's why all these problems are occurring now in this bastardized new template -- Words and Music, which were perfectly clear in the hymn template, are not even in the new template, and therefore the awkward word "by" has to be added to even make the template work for hymns. If there is any template or article type a hymn actually has something in common with it would be "song". But none of this was or has been discussed on any of the WikiProjects that handle these subjects -- WikiProject Christian Music, etc. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I hear a distinction between religious and commercial, but don't believe it plays a role in the presentation of facts about times and location. There is no way to capture the spirit of a hymn in box or even article, you have to sing it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone reads music, and even then unless you blow up the size of the infobox to very large and overwhelming proportions all out of scale with its textual contents and with the article itself, it's impossible to be able to "sing" from an image in an infobox. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think of infobox song because I don't know it, I used what I know and found suitable. I probably would not have started a merge discussion, but kept simply equipping my articles as I saw fit. - Your idea that I suggested to sing from the infobox image makes me smile. No, I only tried to counter the (often heard) argument that the infobox doesn't summarize a person. I meant that all we do here, box and article, are unable to capture spirituality. We can still hint at it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to let you know that I've been a delegate for Featured Topics for well over three years. I know what I'm doing when I say that the tour page used to be part of a Good Topic. If you still disagree with me on that, please let me know. GamerPro64 22:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi GamerPro64, I guess I never knew there was such a thing as a GT or FT (as opposed to FA or GA). Now that I read further, I understand. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Another group of homework writers are about to do their thing. Being graded on length vs quality. See Education Program:Boston College/Environmental Disruptors of Development (Spring 2015)--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Facepalm . I don't know what to say, but anything you would like to request of me I will consider. I imagine most of them will be AfD fodder, and cause untold amounts of extra work on the part of wiki editors who could more productively be doing other things besides babysitting bad homework assignments that have no place being on Wikipedia. You can keep me posted -- I don't know how to Watch this. Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Ugh, the bot archived it already. I was going to comment again (linking all of his many now-deleted articles and templates) so that wouldn't happen before some admin had time to take action, but I didn't realize the cut-off time for the bot is two days of inactivity (which seems too short for ANI). Well, four experienced users, including one major admin (Malik Shabazz) were unanimously in favor of a topic ban, but since there wasn't an actual poll with bolded !votes maybe it went unnoticed. I don't know what to do or say, but I guess if he starts up again, let me know if there's trouble and we can try again. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, two things, if I may. If material on someone's talk page is unacceptable, per our guidelines, policies, and/or user consensus, then an admin can remove it (actually, anyone can). That such takes place without the user's permission, that is probably a given. BTW, EEng is an adult and can handle it, I'm sure.

As for the ANI discussion: ANI is a place to bring things to attention. There is no set clock. As an admin, I agree with the preponderance of opinions there that the material was disruptive--that a discussion has been open for three minutes, three hours, or three days really isn't material. Informed opinions are welcome, of course, esp. from involved, knowledgeable, experienced, etc. editors--but when a decision is reached there is little point in continuing to discuss it. Remember that ANI is for incidents that need attention--not so much for long discussions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What you stated in your request is in error in two ways. You stated: "Reverting a move made without discussion. "Nike, Inc." complies more closely with WP:NCCORP (using the legal status is the first preference listed to disambiguate) and is actually used as an example in paragraph three." First, there needed to be no discussion prior to moving. Period. Second, the WP:NCCOMP guideline states at the beginning "The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title," which indicates that the preferred state is to avoid using things like "Inc." in the title. It goes on to say that, yes, it is allowed, and I am not going to bother with pursuing this further; however, I will put a note on the talk page indicating that the preference based on a move and revert is to leave the article title as Nike, Inc. I did look for any prior actions or discussions related to the title of this article before I contemplated changing it; in other words, I did check to see a controversy had arisen in the past, and seeing none, took action. The example of Nike, Inc. in WP:NCCOMP does not endorse or lock in the article at that title; it is simply an example. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ceyockey, if you read WP:NCCORP, you will see that the reason legal status is not normally included in an article title is because it is usually not needed. However, when disambiguation is needed, the legal status is the first form of disambiguation listed. In fact Nike, Inc. is used as an example in paragraph three, which discusses the use or not of a comma in an article title which includes legal status. Furthermore, adding a parenthetical to an article title causes editors to have to use a piped link every time the company is mentioned and hyperlinked, whereas using the legal status is immediately comprehensible as the specific company, unpiped, and differentiated from both all other uses of "Nike" and also from Nike's various sub-brands, labels, subsidiaries, projects, etc. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are reading too much into the order of items. Legal status, "(company)" and "other suffix" are only prioritized by order in the text; as far as I am concerned, they are on equal footing ... which is why I did not escalate the issue over the current article. As I stated above, just because the article in question is used as an example means nothing ... it was a convenience and not meant to establish a precedent (or so I infer based on how text like this is usually composed). We agree to disagree. I am not on a spree. I do feel that removal of the 'legal status' element is preferable as a company's life cycle is not defined by its legal status. As noted above, I've put a hopefully neutral passage on the Nike, Inc. talk page ... which is something I would do if I found prior conflict related to other companies. I am not a big fan of precedence-first, but the building of Wikipedia is all about compromise, not rules enforcement. Be well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I've found the template {{response}} to be useful recently. See if you find it useful as well.

Hi Softlavender, My username often gives the impression of a nationalists, unfortunately for me, I chose this name years ago. Anyway, did you actually look at the source I provided? see here I don't want to get into edit wars. Jackman's "Turkish roots" has been big news since yesterday when he had an interview with Hürriyet Daily News (type Hugh Jackman Turk/Osmanli into a search engine for yourself). Greece truly was a part of the Ottoman Empire and most the Turks in Greece did emigrate during the First World War (and before).Turco85 (Talk) 11:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your latest revision to Inner Relationship Focusing, it's correct that Focusing should not be linked in See also per WP:MOS. However, it's not correct that there is, as you said, "no obvious specific connection to Emotionally focused therapy"; emotionally focused therapy incorporates Focusing in its core set of techniques, and one of the major books on emotionally focused therapy recommends Ann Weiser Cornell's work (if I remember correctly, the recommendation is in Elliott, Watson, Goldman & Greenberg's 2004 book Learning Emotion-Focused Therapy and/or Greenberg's 2011 book Emotion-Focused Therapy, both published by the American Psychological Association). Both are forms of experiential psychotherapy, and Cornell's work has influenced emotionally focused therapy, if not vice versa. Biogeographist (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for the "education" on possessives on the JC Superstar page! As I am NOT a professional, it was good to learn something new. Is there a resource you could recommend on these kind of issues? Thanks again! THX1136 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, THX1136, thank you so much for the barnstar! In terms of resources, I actually can't think of any specific all-encompassing one offhand, in the digital age. Plus, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style, which is more international than a style guide like the Chicago Manual of Style (which even though U.S.-centric you might also want to check out). In general, I'd say that when in doubt, it's best never to alter the prevailing style of any Wikipedia article (unless it's an obvious horrific uncurated mess), without posing a question about it on its Talk page and hopefully getting consensus. It's also best to get to know the WP:MOS for Wikipedia style guidelines (however even then some decent articles don't follow WP:MOS precisely, for whatever reason, so even if you are conforming something to MOS, if it is counter to the prevailing style on a decent wiki article, it's best to discuss first on its Talk page). Hope that helps. :-) Happy editing! -- Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Sheep Star
	Sheep for You Hafspajen (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: OMG, speechless! And what are those, those things?? LOL. Thanks so much! Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Crab-coloured chopped sheep? Hafspajen (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)