User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Yngvadottir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Thanks

Thank you for your message. I appreciate the advice that you gave concerning those matters. Feel free to give more advice in the future as you see fit. Cheers - Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Maunz !

Ha de Yngvadottir! I have translated and improved User:Serten/Popular image of red indians in Germany, I think that would be funny enough (and less ozonic ;) for you to have a look at. Just do so if you have the time and like to, I am always very thankful for your support. Grüßle Serten (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, Carl May and so forth. It's on my list, but it'll probably be a few days. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good heavens

See this. Bizarre-ness aside, apparently Arunga changed her name or something, although I guess that will have to wait for additional sources and so on. What a weird and sad situation. p.s: that's not a cat. I have seen cats and I know they're very cat-like §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ersatz cat. I'll add the name change at the end with a "reportedly"; every single other thing in that article is also in the other sources, and it's from the APA. Big sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Poor guy.

No english article, thoug talented. See Drmies talk -red haired girl. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Matignon Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I see now, but not many useful sources (and he did some church art, but then German Bestelmeyer designed several churches). Let's see .. I have another small article to copyedit; I have the copyediting request above about Native Americans; I promised an IP I'd try to write up a centenarian director of no one else did; I have a hot press source for an article I previously wrote ... and a Danish writer I need to write up ... and I'm probably forgetting one or two—whoops, I almost forgot I have to look at the Moonwatchers again—and there may well be an AfD requiring urgent action, or someone may guilt-trip me into actually doing some admin stuff ... but I'll see what I can do. Assuming of course I don't get blocked and have to do my off-wiki tasks :-) Give me a few days. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OH my - no hurry at all... Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Using cite templates, or not

You appear to prefer not to use cite templates (example). I am just wondering your reasons for that preference. Personally, I find it much easier to keep references consistent by using the templates, and it also helps assure that you have the desired information. Just wondering.

Part of that wondering is that I have been working on a follow-on to WP:Cite4Wiki for some time now. It is primarily focused on presenting references using templates. I wonder if having some capability to provide references output in a non-templated form would be desirable (i.e. reasons for and number of people who would desire such). Doing so would open up a large can of worms regarding formatting that I am reluctant to get into coding. Knowing why you prefer not to use them might help me understand the issues. Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Makyen: Yes, I don't like them. When I create an article, I don't use them; generally in articles started by others I follow the guideline and if references are mismatched, try to use the system that was first established for the article or most recently dominant in it, but if it's entirely bare URLs I will often follow my own preference in expanding them. I believe we wound up with the template output we did partly as a compromise; in different fields and, particularly outside the sciences, in different countries there are many competing ways of presenting footnotes, quite apart from the rival uses of parenthetical references defined in a bibliography (MLA style and that "sfn" style, to name the two I see). However, to my eye the output of the citation templates, Harvard style, is completely ass-backwards: it puts the date, which is relatively unimportant except when comparing scientific research, at the front, bolds one of the least important items in the citation, the volume number, imposes reverse order of names, which is of no utility in a footnote (as opposed to a bibliography) and presents difficulties since different linguistic cultures divide names differently or don't divide them at all (I often cite Icelanders), and as realized in the templates, it cannot accommodate updated dates in news reports or the entire page range of the article in a book or journal in addition to the specific page cited, so that I have to stuff the updated date in with the original date as a backdoor method and abandon the citation templates for following references to the same work unless I want to repeat vast amounts of information unnecessarily. (And one thing is just stupid: reflinks blindly adds an access date for a Google Books citation, because it is a URL, but the citation is to the book, which will continue to exist even if the Google Books link goes bad; an access date is ridiculously inappropriate and comes from the citation template having that field available.) The style was developed for citing social sciences articles, and is poorly suited to humanities applications and unfamiliar to many working outside the sciences, but the template system required choosing one format ... in my view this is invidious, there is no policy or compelling stylistic reason to harmonise citation styles between articles.

Further, while editors using scripts to fill out citations will obviously find the templates make things easier, that ease comes from the script: typing the templates themselves, as I do, takes much longer than manually coding the citation and introduces a large number of additional opportunities for error. Even now that we've gone through a period of clean-up when errors in the citation templates in particular articles have been flagged in red and fixed by both bots and human editors, I still come across articles where someone forgot to put in the title, forgot a pipe, or mistyped a parameter (and the curly brackets themselves are a common cause of BracketBot alerts). I used to copy and paste the blank templates, as suggested: that introduced the further hassle of figuring out which one to use (encyclopedia and journal article templates are under-used because it's not intuitive where they are, or even that we have special ones, and most editors use "cite web" when they could be using the more appropriate "cite news"; and a couple of things, such as a translation, I've never quite figured out what template to use). I eventually realised that the order of elements within the template doesn't matter and that there is quite a lot of cross-validity of elements, so when I do use the templates now, I rarely consult that page and usually build it up in what order seems best to me, labelling elements based on my memory of what parameters are coded; note that there I'm drawing on extensive experience including memory of such things as there being a "format" parameter available, and the templates are in fact requiring me to work both harder and smarter than if I just slammed it all in using wiki-code.

So there you have it :-) Summary because this got long: There's a big element of individual preference here (similar to the one that would obtain with Viz Ed vs. wikicode if Viz Ed. actually worked) and it's counterproductive to change the citation format of an article without a very good reason, but in practice the citation templates have to choose one output, and that is a big negative from my point of view, and when one is not using automated tools, they make things appreciably harder, at least for those of us who are not always citing the same narrow range of kinds of sources. I'm an extreme case: I'm unusual in the breadth of things I edit, as well as in the complexity of some of the sources I want to cite, and typing footnotes is something I have a lot of experience with. But there it is since you asked :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the long an thoughtful response.

I agree that the templates, and their output are not ideal. However, my feeling is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. My viewpoint is certainly biased based on the fact that I use tools to help fill in references nearly 100% of the time. I agree that for someone who knows what they are doing, is editing an article with a known and consistent style of reference, and is not using any tools to fill in reference information, then making references without the use of the templates is easier. Where I feel this breaks down is that articles are not the work of only people who have that skill-set and knowledge. They are, often, the work of many people. I find it easier to maintain a consistent style of references by accepting the structure imposed by the use of the templates. It also allows easier transition from editing one article to the next. Without the use of the templates the amount of context that is changed from working on one article to working on another is increased (i.e. you have to check for and remember yet another referencing style).

I will keep your comments in mind while thinking about what other features to build into Cite4Wiki Phoenix.

Questions regarding tools that would make referencing easier: When creating a reference what places do you usually start? Possible examples: You have a book and are looking at a page??? You start with the title? An article in a ? you start with the title, the publication? What source for your sources do you normally use (web service (JSTOR?), library public/personal, etc.)? Are you usually looking at a webpage and wanting to cite the contents? — Makyen (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I have to say I see a huge variety in referencing styles here: the sfn things are gaining ground, being pushed by the GA and FA people; I see a certain amount of "make it look kind of like the template output"; a lot of folks are using "author=", sometimes jamming all the co-authors into that, because they don't like the name reversal or because multiple authors are so fiddly; and the most common ref style in some quarters is the bare URL, with URL covered by title and dash indicating newspaper/website as the sophisticated second :-) In fact aside from those who upload a script and then rely on it, I'd have to say I see a movement away from the citation templates as just too fiddly (now one gets red messages when one gets them wrong, that has been scaring some people; plus of course a lot of editors now do use Viz Ed.) So I believe to a great extent you're trying to put lipstick on a pig. But that's me :-)

I use a wide variety of sources, but probably the most common are: online newspaper archive; Google Books ref. to a book (including books that are collections of essays/articles, books that have a translator, and books where Google has not recorded the page numbers); and offline book (again often an individual essay/article, but probably less frequently than on Google Books). For online material, the first thing I often do is copy and paste the URL, then for a book, get the page number(s) in place, since they will be hardest to reconstruct if something goes wrong or I get interrupted. Then author/editor name and title of book, usually then copying and pasting those to OCLC Worldcat, which will give me the publication info including (long) ISBN, and if I'm lucky the article title and author. Or for a newspaper, article title, author and/or agency if any, then newspaper name, date, page number if Google News Archive. But I suspect the order I work doesn't help you much, and what would help me more in articles that already use the templates is to be able to fit in stuff like: translator; pages taken up by the contribution and specific page within it; date of 1st edition and date of particular edition I am using; revised date for online news. Just for books that are not collections of articles, see this and this for two examples of difficulties. The former was first issued in two volumes in two different years in the 1930s, then a completely rewritten version was published in two different years in the 1950s, then there was a 3rd edition published in 1970 that is completely unchanged from the second (that's the one I'm using), and there is also a one-volume edition in some libraries; the author's name is differently alphabetised in different countries; and the book actually uses section numbers rather than page numbers, so it would be useful to be able to give both, or to use the section numbers instead of pages. It's also in a foreign language and only available on Google Books in badly indexed snippets (in many cases indexed to the wrong volume); I'm using hard copies. Oh, and I almost forgot, it's in a numbered series so there are two competitors for the "volume" cell in the citation template! The latter is an English translation that also constitutes a significant update of the original; it was written in association with the original author, who used the opportunity to revise his book, and it is also multiple volumes with different years of issue involved. My point is that problems like this - both these books would require adding material to the reference after the citation template for full citation - are not uncommon when citing sources in the humanities. The templates have actually required me to acquire a whole different level of expertise on top of what I already needed for actual encyclopedic writing and referencing, namely how to fill out and if necessary outwit the templates. I won't presume to suggest how to solve these problems, although one solution might be to have a separate set for humanities books, the output would be further from Harvard and thus offend those who want our articles to use similar referencing styles - which I see as a hopeless and counterproductive aim. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Makyen: Adding a ping because I am not sure you saw this even higher wall of text, but also because over the last 10 days I've figured out how to hack the citation templates to include the 1st edition year (orig-year=). I've been called a Luddite but I'm actually rather scarily good at figuring out these things. The problem is that others aren't, and nobody should need to be, but I don't think it's actually possible to write a script that enables a humanitiies scholar to feed in all the bizarreries we tend to need in citations and have it spit out a citation that will look reasonable to a medical researcher or a sociologist, and that won't be more trouble than just slapping it in in whatever order one's alma mater and department taught. On the other hand JSTOR offers what, 3 models of output for every citation ready to copy and paste. Can we possibly have that? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI.

FYI: [1]. CC.

Removing museum list?

Winslow Homer - Mink Pond - User:Hafspajen/The Fog Warning (Winslow Homer)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9_Lalique&diff=627287224&oldid=626672286 What is this about. Hafspajen (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked what you'd done and started a talk page section.

By the way, did you see I got to both those paintings? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will check. You got - paintings? Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I found time to copyedit both the articles on paintings. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What o you think about- this?

Hmm, that was a puzzle that the deletion discussion didn't much help with - I would have closed that as no consensus, which is why I don't close discussions! However, the prose in the latest deleted version is very similar to the previously deleted version, and both are full of vapid puffery. Also, looking at the actual article, I think I may remember this or a similar deletion discussion - I don't believe having your work chosen for UNESCO holiday cards confers notability, and that and similar honours are central to the claim of notability. I'm a bit surprised Dennis Brown restored it, actually. It's been created many times and if the people trying to get her an article still don't have any better evidence of notability for her, I don't think it can be salvaged. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember her as well. Just found some data for her, from artprice. 2013 data; World ranking 63,358. Turnover in 2013 657 USD (at auction), 50% of lots bought in (i.e. not sold). Comparison; Robert Gibbings, here, rank 32,187, turnover 4,968 USD (he's been dead since 1958 and a book illustrator, only did a few independent prints). Might be a useful tool- I wasn't aware of it till just now. Chabas is at number 12,480. Banksy's at 374 ("Lot 323: A brick wall with superimposed paint surface, from the estate of a lady of title").Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fog Warning

The Fog Warning is already on sea! Dont waste your valuable effort on the draft. Serten (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Oh dear. I suppose I'd better do a history merge then. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my - forgot about that. What luck I have an admin who can save me and keep up with Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Yngvadottir I agree with your notion at the sysop candidate talk page about the (imho ridiculous) view that the encyclopedia is approaching completion - there are a lot of major, important articles to write, and major changes are needed to keep existing ones up-to-date. My point is that there is less low hanging fruit around. Something like Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change is not easy to write, you need to bridge the Nature–culture divide, and most WP authors strongly belong to a section, and do not believe in bridge building. And its not very easy to overcome the my-article-is-my castle turf-defending approach I e.g. met in Mediterranean_Sea#Environmental_history or even worse, Tragedy of the commons and History of sustainability. That said, as it is often, success in the start hinders developements mid term. Serten (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Hi Yngvadottir -- thanks for your help on my addition to Rape in Pakistan and for adding more information about the documentary. Not a pleasant subject, but perhaps if more light is shed on what is going on things will improve. CurrentUK (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Province of Campobasso

I can't remember what you said about Italian but if you do understand it proficiently can you proof and improve this? The history is a bit rough around the edges.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not one of my best languages, but I'll try - however, my list is long right now. Did you see I did the Swedish biathlete you mentioned above? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just did yep, 13 days ago now, Thanks for that!! . P.S I love editing your talk page just to see the adorable late Ersatz!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good, glad you like it (and my cat :-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Ipigott's checking Campo,. if Italian isn't quite your language any chance you could find something more for Fredrik Belfrage? It's at AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Done; I'd noticed that and reckoned he'd survive without my intervention but there's now a bit more in the article and I've switched the pic to the happier-looking one in use on sv. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	The Copyeditor's Barnstar is awarded to Yngvadottir for excellence in correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style issues. Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (<blushes horribly>) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tss, no need. Hafspajen (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you distrust the documentary

Why are you trying to help the Government by making Mermaids: The Body Found seem fake when EVERYTHING when in the documentary is absolutely true (this is my first time leaving a massage on wikapeda so forgive me if I did something wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.119.217 (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See your own talk page for my response. We go by reliable sources. You would need to find better sources, which would be hard since the film makers admitted it was fake. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Sorry for the mess - maybe I should have waited more. I want though to nominate it to DYK, and I am affraid it will not be enough words and length. Or? Hafspajen (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that might be it, and it's not a big problem for me to help - I'm just juggling a lot of tasks. And right now I'm afraid I'm rather busy at work. But it can't have close paraphrase or saying the same thing twice, and didn't you mention Ukrainian Wikipedia? It can't have anything taken from there that is not actually in a reference. There is stuff that can still be added, you have at least one additional reference you still haven't used, and I don't know whether DYK increased the number of characters needed - however I'm afraid I can only do quick things at work, so don't worry, and maybe you and others have fixed it now anyway, but I'll look when I get home and have fed the dog. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: OK I've had what I think will be my last try at it. I made the background exposition longer and more emotional than I would have preferred, I used the Winslow Homer.org page on that painting for additional information including a short quotation, and I removed only the last bit of the blockquote, which was saying exactly what the following paragraph says. I have checked the DYK rules and unless they failed to update them, the minimum length is still 1,500 characters of prose, not counting extended quotes; I believe what they were talking about was increasing this to 2,000 characters, but after my edit the article comes in at 3,015, so it is amply long. It could use a separate section on Reception, and probably a brief section on Provenance, stating what museum it's in and how it got there. I would also suggest slightly lengthening the lede, which doesn't quite cover all the points, and taking the references out of it. But in sheer number of characters, the article is already long enough even if DYK have doubled their requirements. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let us not be caugt in some kind od Wiki-madness here. But canyou explain why do you keep removing this part+

This period Homer had depicted generally lighter subjects, depicting country life, seascapes, young women, children, and farm animals and placed his figures in elegant or romantic environments or pastoral landscapes. Over time this kind of genre paintings made by Homer became more dramatic, reaching a climax in the last period of the American master.

IS it this one? Because somehow one has to say that it became more dramatic, because it did. Hafspajen (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What EXACLY it is wrong with this passage? I don't think it is wrong in any way, and it not a duplicate of what is said. Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

THIS IS THE UKRAINAN VERSION:

Alarm signal fog - one of the works on marine subjects by American artist Winslow Homer (1836 - 1910). In the painting "Summer Night" present a look at the raging sea, as the dramatynu performance . But in the room (on the coast) is still dangerous, though storm and tickles your nerves. Two girls even dance. Dancing has long ended for fishing in the film "Alarm signal fog." Sea - a dangerous area, then death walks daily. And be careful and reminded alarm. Fishing pidnalih oars to escape. The real tragedy is present at the watercolor "Tornado killer (after the tornado)." Strict sea just quiet. But the tragedy has already occurred. Waves of debris thrown on the coast of the fishing boat and corpse-negro fishermen. It's simple and terrifying, no concessions noble prejudices about ugly theme, the impossibility of such works hang in the living room or office. Over time, the dramatic works of Homer narastav, reaching a climax in the last period of the master. Psychological tension Homer paintings of his highly potsinovuvav another master psychological drama - 20th century artist [Andrew Wyatt]. .

We can't cite another language Wikipedia, and based on the sources we are citing, they've got it wrong. He had painted the sea before, but what happened when he went to England was he became focused on the sea and on the hardships and dangers of fishermen's lives, specifically. Also, in the intermediate period between the Civil War works and the fishermen/dangerous sea works, the sources don't talk about landscapes, they talk about young women and children at play, and pastimes like croquet. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: "In the late 1860s and 1870s he turned to lighter subject matter and found an equally enthusiastic audience for his paintings of healthy, handsome children playing in the country or at the seashore, and of adults enjoying leisure-time pursuits. However, perhaps feeling the need for more important subjects in his art, Homer spent 1881–82 in Cullercoats, England. Both a fishing village and an artists’ colony, Cullercoats provided Homer with more profound themes: the arduous lives of fishermen and their families." Portland Museum: "Homer’s art changed dramatically in theme and mood. He created monumental marine narratives and seascapes". Winslow Homer.net: "In 1882, after spending over a year and a half in England where he had made numerous paintings of the fishing community in Cullercoats on the North Sea, Homer returned to America and established his studio at Prout's Neck, Maine, where Homer family made its summer home. Living and painting at this point where sea meets land, Homer confronted some of the great themes of man and nature." Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not citing the Ucrainans. I want this in the article: Portland Museum: "Homer’s art changed dramatically in theme and mood. He created monumental marine narratives and seascapes". Hafspajen (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It was the above two sources I tried to put together in this sentence: This period Homer had depicted generally lighter subjects, depicting country life, seascapes, young women, children, and farm animals and placed his figures in elegant or romantic environments or pastoral landscapes. Over time this kind of genre paintings made by Homer became more dramatic, reaching a climax in the last period of the American master.Hafspajen (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not accurate, I'm afraid; overlapping the other statement about new themes and mood starting with the stay in England, and echoing the Ukrainians. There was a change in both theme and mood. It wasn't that he continued to make genre paintings but they got more dramatic. (And I'm not sure the mid-period works should be called genre paintings anyway - I don't see a source saying that, but someone else may.) Also the descriptions in the sources we are currently citing don't have "pastoral scenes" or even farm animals. They are either getting this from some other source - in which case it should be easy enough to cite it - or paraphrasing inaccurately. In addition, tacking on "the American master" is out of place. That belongs in the lede if anywhere. Oh and maybe in the Reception section if you cite someone saying something like "This painting is one of those that establish Homer's reputation as an American master." But otherwise it's pure padding. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well. 'shrug' - do as you wish. Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I think I've helped you as much as I can. I've done my best and explained my reasoning for the cuts, and I added a little point and neatened up the references. but Winslow Homer isn't an artist I know particularly well; you, Xanthy or someone else may well be able to find better statements of some of these things. But please, please leave me off the DYK. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not DYK ing it any more. I am tired of it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be a real shame; it's definitely ready and on a painting people should have the opportunity to know about. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, what is happening? Yngvadottir, shall I bring it to DYK myself? Same btw for the Draft:Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries, may I mention your contribution there? I was very happy about your help. Serten (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone else nominated it :-) My copyedit is in the history of your draft, and hopefully will help get it accepted by the reviewer. But the reason you're creating it through AfC is to get feedback from people who are experienced at evaluating articles, so sit tight now, unless you have any refs or page numbers you can add. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it in article space, AFC tag is still inside. "Vor Gericht und auf hoher See" we all are in the hand of the Lord ;) Lets see what happens. Serten (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see :-) I've done a little cleaning up and made the Wikidata link. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

About the translations

Hey, I just wanted to ask more questions, if that was ok. Is it fine if I look at an article that has translation requested, and I do it? Like, if there was anyone specifically assigned to that, or should I just inform I want to do it? As with the translators available list, it's fine for me to add myself to that as well? --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 17:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@KorinoChikara: I believe the translators available list is for translating Wikipedia/Wikimedia communications rather than articles, but you may know better than me at this point :-) Either way, feel free to add yourself to either and to just translate an article that's been requested. There are also a lot of articles - for example on places - marked with "Expand from Swedish" or whatever. So far as I know, if you feel like doing any of these tasks, there's no particular protocol except for the attribution thing, and even that can be amended later. Just do it. WP:PNT is perhaps the most urgent, since articles can be PRODded and deleted if they don't get translated, and people are also needed to evaluate them and say whether we actually already have an article on the topic or if they have no claim of notability or are defamatory - all speedy deletion criteria. In addition, there's a long second section to that page consisting of badly translated articles that need fixing, some quite old - a rather thankless task, and not as fun as starting a new article, but extremely useful and again, it sometimes saves an article from deletion. So in short - yes, please, do any of these things, it would be really helpful :-)

Ok, thank you very much again. I will start looking around for things I can help with. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Techno Viking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gain consensus at WP:RSN before using kymm anywhere, it's already been dismissed as a RS. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_152#Know_Your_Meme_on_ASMR, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Is_Know_Your_Meme_a_reliable_source_on_viral_videos.3F, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_August_14#22:26:47.2C_14_August_2014_review_of_submission_by_Eventhorizon51 etc... Otterathome (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. As I have explained to you before, the point there is that there is a Know Your Meme page; it's being used as a source for itself, a permissible use. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Techno Viking. Otterathome (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

See my response above. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is this. Sick, have you seen this lately? [2]. Kind of funny. Hafspajen (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen pinged me initially. I hope they remove that claim to TenPoundHammer's edits without having to be told to. I'm ... a bit weirded out that anyone would not see that as a legitimate citation, and have posted to the talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how is possible to misunderstan: , but lots more if you include my User:TenPoundHammer. And TenPoundHammer would never do a thing like this above. He is a very sensible guy, know him from long, from the Warrington -time, _{before I stopped editing the English and got this account on Swedish. Later it was just easier to change the old one to Haf too.} Hafspajen (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Puppy

Hafspajen has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

And read this, is fun!

Aww, thank you. Puppy! mys, mys!

I had actually been by your talk page and seen that. I have two articles I have absolutely got to write, plus various other things to do, or I would already be translating that. The tree is married! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Trees are weird things. The Japanese thinks that it lives auspicious spirits in them, and mark them with ribbons. see Tree worship. The Norvegian article looks good to, but I got caught in certain things ... or what. The weird thing that the translation button will not activate. Probably because I edited too much. Hafspajen (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh ... translation button? I'll get to that one soon if you want me to. I just have to do other things first. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no hurry, was messing around with a nomination, Paul Gauguin with Crisco, with the Edmund Leighton and there is three red links (or four) red links of artists in the Art Gallery of New South Wales ‎ and - found a ref for Auguste Toulmouche so it can be expanded a little. And we don't have an article on Regency style - just a redirect to Regency arhitecture. And on top of everything the Blacklock DYK nom hook - looks like it doesn't make sense .. or what. See also Wish Tree. Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Blacklock nomination and I don't know why the reviewer says the hook doesn't make sense ... although I'm also not too surprised he continued to live with his mom, since she was widowed. I do note, however, that there's no reference on that sentence ... (and I don't believe it says on the page that that picture is of his wife). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, I have taken care of the first problem by adding the reference to the sentence we want to use as the hook .ツ (The reviewer now says your hook is okay, I think, too, but the sentence would be less run on and confusing with one comma, probably. There was one in the history, I think). Fylbecatulous talk 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

was there was a comma in the history? ..? Hafspajen (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, Here: [3], but the wording has changed some since. I hate to change back since the reviewer has already said the latest sentence is okay. What I was thinking was to add one comma: that the painter William Kay Blacklock lived with his mother, until he got married at the age of almost 30 (portrait of his wife pictured)? I use commas, to break up long sentences so they don't seem tangled, like I guess it was to the reviewer until you explained it. Fylbecatulous talk 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that is too bad. But it can't be his mother. Was only deduction since he used his wife as model. Hafspajen (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Les parents d'Auguste Toulmouche étaient Émile Toulmouche et Rose Sophie Mercier, et il avait un oncle sculpteur. A partir de 1841, Auguste Toulmouche reçu les premiers éléments du dessin dans l'atelier du sculpteur nantais René Amédée Ménard. Puis, Toulmouche complèta son apprentissage en prenant quelques leçons de peinture auprès de Biron, peintre de portraits et de scènes religieuses inscrit comme professeur particulier de dessin et de peinture à Nantes à partir de 1844. En 1846, Auguste Toulmouche alla à Paris pour suivre l'enseignement de Gleyre. Gleyre avait la particularité de n'être ni professeur de l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts, ni membre de l'Académie. Il laissait les talents personnels se développer, donnant à ses étudiants toute liberté pour le choix des sujets. Cependant, cet enseignement très libéral ne rejettait pas certains principes de l'enseignement académique comme la bonne maîtrise du dessin avant d'aborder la peinture ou l'élaboration très soignée du tableau. Jeune fille (1852) fut acheté par Napoléon III, Le premier pas (1853) par l'impératrice Eugénie, et Après déjeuner par la princesse Mathilde. Toulmouche avait du succès avec ses petits tableaux de genre réalisé de style néo-grec. La leçon de lecture (1855), fit l'objet d'une bonne critique de Théophile Gautier.

Hmm? Poor Reluctant Bride! She looks furious. Bed now, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That was good work! Wonder what will happen now. Our Blacklock was a wery weird DYK nom, so I withdraw it ... so I don't know - this should be nominated - since it is such a great fun... but ...Hafspajen (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

William James Webbe- another artist with an obscure biography- article in Italian Wiki. Ethel Kirkpatrick- a couple of her woodblock prints went for £250 yesterday (and that was only because I stopped bidding- may have gone well over £300). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Soo, you go and drive up the prices..

Hafspajen (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xanthomelanoussprog: Webb(e)'s on de., too, with one respectable reference - found it online - plus The Victorian Web. Sadly he liked Biblical themes, like a lot of that mob. Also absolutely nothing of his on Commons? I may have a root around for sources on him and Kirkpatrick, but I'm about to start my next projected article on someone less visual. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a go at him, maybe tomorrow night. What caught my eye was a description of him in a magazine as having "mysteriously" disappeared from public view, sometime in the 1870s. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Intriguing. I don't see that in either it. or de. Hope you can track him down :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ach, all theses Cristians are really insupportable. By the way, Xanty are we ready to launch Dr Hill? Last I put an article in mainspace Yngvadottir got a nervous breakdown ... but now with picture and all maybe it is ready to launch?? User:Hafspajen/Jonathan Hill (theologian) Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fiona MacCarthy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(designer)|David Mellor]]. She first met him when she went to interview him for ''The Guardian]''. They had two children Corin and Clare, both of whom have now become designers. After suffering

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anna Morpurgo Davies

added a link pointing to University of Rome

Carl Cameron

added a link pointing to Israeli

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hobby Horse Polo

Dear Yngvadottir, I need someone confirming that I didnt fake the rules and quotes based on German sources in Hobby Horse Polo ;) Its a DYK candidate, you told me you dont take part there any more, but I believe you will have some fun while having a look on the article. Serten (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sporfle. "Die unglaublich ästhetische Einheit zwischen Mensch und Tier"?! I am at work and when I get home I have to finish my own current draft quickly because there is a biography edit-a-thon at WMF in San Francisco and I don't want anyone there wasting time writing about the same person from zero, nor do I want to go! But I'll see what I can do, starting with a copyedit and more bibliographic info about the press clippings there. Have you thought of also asking De728631? or Drmies? I do see you already have a check mark though. OK, back to work, will see what I can do ... Yngvadottir (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

De728631 ist the right one! Let me ask him. All the best in frisco. Serten (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serten: I won't be going to Frisco, it's at the WMF :-) I have to pack up the laptop soon now, but you have adequate referencing on the game; however, unless you have a 3rd-party reference that actually says there is no drink penalty in the Swiss rules, your hook is synthesis. So I suggest a new ALT:

... that there are two rule variants of Hobby Horse Polo, one of which imposes a drink penalty for fouls, the other of which requires loud neighing for a goal to count?

gottago Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thnx! Serten (talk)

Il est reçu le 1 er février 1648 membre fondateur de l' Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture . What is that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

'On 1 February 1648 he was accepted as a founding member of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture' (on which there is doubtless an article at a title mnus "royal"). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly doubt this conversation is about Hobby Horse Polo. Either confine to the allowed subject or take another punitive sherry. Sitzenmachen!. Serten (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A frugal Swabian is offering a drink? Who'd have thought?! ;) I'll take one of those. Proscht! De728631 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Frugal Swaben? You take another one Baden vorn! Serten (talk)

Oh, big old faux pas. Let me see then, perhaps I should go with a sip of ice wine from Baden. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was very surprised when I discovered that what was to our right was not one big blob called "Germany". I'm still having a hard time figuring out though why all those areas feel the need to be different--different foods, different wines, different beers, different treatments of the livestock. I mean, Baden, Schwabia, Bavaria, Thuringia--are you really all that different? I'll make allowances for the Fischkopfe, since they could apply for honorary Dutch-ship. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dododaky went online ;) Serten (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that's my favourite drink. Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, never heard of that guy before. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Taksen's DYK?

He never got a notification, looks like it..... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taksen&action=history What shall we do+ why? Hafspajen (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) That was silly. I have to add it, but how. I copy from Drmies, and add. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor Taksen! That's so silly - I had asked to be removed from those, and for Taksen to take my place. It was this edit by Hawkeye7, who did not include all the names listed at the nomination template. Thanks for noticing and remedying. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the the diff and I did copy all the credits from the nomination to the prep area:

Man Writing a Letter – Drmies (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
Man Writing a Letter – Yngvadottir (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
Nom credit: Hafspajen (give)
Woman Reading a Letter – Drmies (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
Woman Reading a Letter – Yngvadottir (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
Nom credit: Hafspajen (give)

What happened was that you added the name to the top but not to the only part that counts, the templates below, that get copied to the prep area. When I am marking up a prep area, the templates are highlighted in yellow for me to copy while the text is not. I failed to notice the mistake.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GOOug, hooug , my mistake. Hope it is OK I gave him the template I copied... or? Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vilhelm Grønbech, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Darwin and Friedrich Schlegel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Unneccessary POV claim w edit of Midnight Rider for Oct 16

For diff please go look at the sourced OSHA report referenced in article and here [4] It was not POV but how OSHA specifically defines their different violations. I actually left off willful. OSHA Quote:"Production company for "Midnight Rider" film cited for willful and serious safety violations following worker fatality and injuries". One violation was defined technically as "willful" and one as "serious". So this was not POV and clearly sourced. I would prefer not to "revert" as there was recently a dramatic attempt to vandalize the page with chomping and reverts that elevated to the wiki admin page and a userid and two sockpuppets being banned. Hopefully you do not mind restoring the "serious" as it is actually very relevant in this context. DFinmitre (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@DFinmitre: I still think it's better to leave it off; this is an indictment (the POV of the prosecutor if it goes to court, if you like), there will always be adjustments between this and the sentence or out-of-court settlement, and there is no need to belabor the seriousness of what happened. The section actually badly needs to be cut down - there is heavy duplication - and if it's tightened up in that way, the stark facts will jump off the page with all the more clarity. If you disagree, consider quoting as you did above; I still think that would be overkill at this stage, but if you still feel we need to reflect the OSHA document down to the adjectives, then a direct quote is the way to go. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I appreciate your thoughts, but there are two points on this issue. First it is clearly not POV as you keep asserting, and maybe adding quotes "serious and willful" would make that more clear. These are very specific "types" of OSHA citations. Further it is not an "indictment" by a "prosecutor", as that is a totally separate criminal case by the Wayne County, GA District Attorney. I agree it can be a bit confusing to those who have not read the full article and many of the references, it is a very complicated series of events and multiple conflicting statements by many individuals and corporations. OSHA is a federal agency and these "willful and serious" citations have yet to have even been filed as official complaints as is explained in the OSHA section below. The accused producer has yet to be convicted of anything so in this context it is very relevant as to why New York Marine Insurance chose to revoke their insurance policy and refuse paying the loss, which led to the lawsuit referenced and Miller's claims that they should. This is all highly relevant as to why production was halted, thus why it is in this section despite more details in a later section. If you change the context of the serious OSHA violation to a minor citation, which your action did, it will leave the reader questioning why New York Marine took what is a substantial action against the production. This lack of information thus favors Film Allman claims against NY Marine. While I agree the article could use some clarification and some elements moved, which fortunately is gradually happening with a group of editors, all of these elements are relevant as to why the production was delayed, specifically changed, likely into a whole new film, that would no longer be Midnight Rider, and likely halted completely. This is all every relevant to the production section and would actually create confusion and favor one disputing party over others if chopping took place without strong familiarity with the article. Again I suggest "willful and serious" are highly contextual to this section and not POV but technical descriptions and I would be in agreement with your suggestion of putting them in quotes. Would you agree with this?DFinmitre (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on what you think the article needs, yes, you do need to quote it. However, do take a step back and realize the article is an overview of information about the film, not a blow-by-blow of the legal situation. (Not including the word "major", for example, does not imply it was minor.) It has indeed not yet reached conviction; there are still several possibilities for what will happen; and nothing should be said twice, or the reader is likely to start skimming. I would advise you to shorten it quite a lot, while keeping the refs. It will then be easier both to read and to update, and the reader will be able to look at the refs for more detail. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement "Based on what you think the article needs" implies you do not agree with me, which is established by your further major/minor argument that removing the word "serious" does not change the relevance of the OSHA citation as it directly relates to what cut off funding and halted the film. Since we can not reach concensus on this issue, I will refrain for now from reverting your edit. Although I find the discussion of the overall article interesting and worthy of discussion, it really should be a separate discussion and really should be on the article talk page for all of the editors, as I clearly can not act or speak on their behalf. My argument here is that your stated reason for your edit "Unnecessary POV" was not actually correct in this case due the unique technical nature of the word "serious" in that it was neither the POV opinion of the editor or the writer of the published document from OSHA. The word was in fact a descriptive term to specify a much high level of citation than a general one. There are no minor "OSHA violations" as far as I am aware, just that some are elevated from citation to "willful citation" or "serious citation" that have very significant and serious legal implications. Lesser citations likely would not have been significant enough for NY Marine to justify dropping the insurance policy for Film Allman LLC which thus halted the restart of the film in LA, which is very relevant to the film. Do you still disagree with this argument on your assertion of POV?DFinmitre (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think in Wikipedia's voice it lays undue weight on the matter (which is a form of POV), and as I say, I think further that the article should go into much less detail about accusations and legal claims. Since you disagree on that matter of emphasis, I do think you should convert it to a quotation. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with you in my first response that the quotes would be more clear, but am hesitant to revert without concensus due to the highly controversial nature of the page. Your argument of "undue weight" would not apply when this is not an adjective, and I agree that would be clarified with quotes, but a clearly cited technical term that is highly relevant to why the film was halted. Frankly your edit creates an incorrect POV, implying the OSHA citation was similar to the many that film productions offen receive that would not justify canceling insurance. Again your arguments of what the group of editors should do for the article in general are not relevant to this edit and should be made on the article talk page, not directed at me individually. It would likely be an interesting and informative discussion.DFinmitre (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You have my permission to copy over this entire section to the article talk page, but I do think BRD applies, and since it's important in your view to preserve the terminology in its entirety, I do think you should reinstate the modifiers as part of making it a quotation. I don't see how anyone could fault you on that, especially since you see it as required for accuracy. I don't see the applicability on this narrowly defined point of the argument that the topic is so contentious that consensus on the talk page is required - and that's why I haven't taken the issue to the talk page myself. What I think should be raised at the talk page is the degree of legal detail overall, in particular the repetition. The article is not in a legal journal. I don't consider the article concerning enough in its present form to broach that there myself - if I had, I would have edited it much more boldly - but I'm happy to see my opinion presented by copying of this conversation over there. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable response, and I agree with you our discussion here does not need to be on the article talk page. Please be aware I do not disagree the article is in need of refinement, however I disagree with some of your assertions of how it should be refined, and it is that I suggest you broach on the talk page. Cheers DFinmitre (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eminent Geman painter lacking article.

Adolf. [5] HELP! Adolf Eberle - Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(For the talkpage stalkers: Adolf Eberle). I like the dackels ... but that article is ripped out of a very old encyclopedia, and is pretty short. I'll have to hunt for additional sources, I returned the expressionist books to the library and can't go there tomorrow, and right now I am badly late for bed. I'll see what I can do, but don't hold your breath. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Hafspajen (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

..Like this it reminds me of the village I visited when I was little... Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Looks like our fried Serten has a little problem with a silent editor. Hafspajen (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked between work tasks and left him a stiff note rather than a template. Hopefully that will do the trick. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Eberle's paintings
Musikalische Unterhaltung auf der Alm 1914
Le Chasseur et la jeune fille avec des teckels
Die Naturkunde-Stunde
The day's bag

@Hafspajen: Adolf Eberle. Adequate refs but not much info, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Great job, Yngvadottir!! You mean no DYK? Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No DYK :-) And no space in the article for a huge gallery either, which I regret. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Haloo allo, I asked for the article the put the paintings in. I can pack them, if you are happier. At leastthe ones on your talk!!! Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, and I really tried to find out more about him to make space, but wasn't able to. Where are you going to fit it? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here and there, like after the selected work list

Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Yngvadottir, Thank you for taking out the time for advising and guiding me in the right direction. I'll do my best again and contribute here whenever I can. Best Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Too many

This is an insane number of citation needed, for no particular use, since the facts are not contoversial. This is exacly what I meant when I argued about the -anything- thing. One has to tagg controversial facts not just sprinkle taggs arround all over the article, for no specific reason. Hafspajen (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes - however, the one my eye lit on first was indeed problematic, an unattributed direct quote about Léon Bonnat, and I wound up sourcing it at his article and then introducing the same citation in the Bonnat article. I see you've also been adding sources. Is there a talk page section? The editor who added all those citation neededs should really have started one. Whether they did or not, I think you should post there a fuller version of your argument that a lot of this is not disputed, before removing some of the tags. However, the article was vastly under-referenced, and I suspect draws heavily on reference works like the one I found to be an undisclosed source in the Bonnat article, and there may be copyvio. So reference and rephrase what you can. The editor went about this the wrong way, a sloppy way that is not the best or fastest way to get the article fixed. Thanks for noticing it and working on it. This is the kind of article schoolkids look to for information. And now I must start preparing for bed, sorry :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No discussion, no. I removed only one saying citation needed for the sentence they are using naked models when a picture beside depict one. I think she just put a citation needed at the end of every paragraph. Just mischief, using fully valid policy. Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There were places that needed citations. So thank you for fixing those. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I made this already a few years ago. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that's cute and Hafspajen should definitely use it. But I've never been accused of having common sense :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Using! Thanks! Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cairn in Snow... translation from German - well actually not. Something, very unfinished. . Hafspajen (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Now wikilinked to the German and the French and I've done a little tweaking including making the title italic. Soon for bed, sadly - work tonight. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

you Oak? Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I certainly like oaks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at AN/I

Your unfair comment at AN/I, invoking my name only to insult me in a factually false fashion regarding a matter that I have nothing to do with, is noted. Thank you for alerting me to it, although what purpose you think it served, I suspect I will never know. I suspect you will never know either. Bizarrely, and the reason that I'm responding at all, on the specific factual issue I agree with you completely and have never ever in any situation nor under any circumstances suggested anything whatsoever to the contrary. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider whether random hostility towards me, misunderstanding and misrepresenting my views, is the path to happiness. I suspect, again, that it is not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jimbo Wales: We wisely have a rule that people substantially mentioned in an AN/I discussion should be notified, and that an echo ping does not suffice (I'm sure you of all people get a huge number of pings, and besides I flubbed your handle). My thought was that you might wish either to correct the account that was given there of your suggestion - I was unable to find it on your user talk, possibly it was in your address at the con - or engage the point I raised about it? I'm glad I violated your sanctum since you say I have committed a factual falsity.

As for my motivation, I recommend you follow policy and not speculate about that. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Queen of Sheba

I've already blocked that editor once, are you saying he still doesn't understand our copyvio policy (please ping me or add TB to my talk page when you reply). THanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: He's railing against it in edit summaries and, now that he's finally posted at a talk page, in his edit there, claiming that inaccurate paraphrases are being used out of an exaggerated fear of contravening copyright. But so far as I know he hasn't been copyvioing again - just edit warring and at some editors' request I've been trying to get him to discuss. I gave him a short block; I think the story is pretty clear from his user talk page. Maybe he'll listen better if you also talk to him? He's editing on topics I cannot judge well; some of his work appears to me to be an improvement, although I've told him it would be better if he didn't just cite specialized encyclopedias. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter Moras

Hi there. I created a Moras article, but for some reason it's not showing up when I search for it. Any idea why? Sca (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sca: Walter Moras. Hasn't been deleted or moved ... if you were searching for it on Google, they may simply not have noticed it yet (they tend to notice articles with Google Books links almost immediately—otherwise it can take a couple of days); if you were searching with the Wikipedia search box, it won't auto-fill a new article until next day, there's a bot that has to run first or something. But I assure you it's there :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah I was in the Wiki search box — didn't realize there's a delay. Thanks. Sca (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bald eagle at Palais Equitable

Hello, I saw your edit where you reverted my change of Bald Eagle to Bald eagle at Palais Equitable. In my editing to make Wikipedia usage match the MoS, I have been searching for and fixing links to Bald Eagle, which are generally errors. For that reason, I made the change there to keep that page from coming up on the list of work I need to do. Do you have any objection if I revert your reversion? Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Yes, I do. As I stated in my edit summary, the piped link works; there is therefore no reason to retroactively impose the MOS change that was made, just because you are searching for all instances of the usage we previously preferred. The original link was not an error, and it is hidden from the reader (piped). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Heh, thanks, actually I'll be working :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, you too :-) Actually I'll be working. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks :), Well wear a mask and cellotape a candle to your forehead

–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning on wearing black and scaring people. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, you too :-) Unfortunately I'll be working. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you too. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Festina affair

I disagree a bit with your unlinking of the foreign-language Wikipedia pages at that article. However, there is a template, {{Link-interwiki}}, in which one can keep the red links and still link to interwiki articles; if it is fine with you, can I do that? Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added them. Feel free to undo if you don't agree. Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Just got back to my computer; I had thought of those and wondered whether you knew about them. That's fine by me. I suggest next time such a situation arises, just go straight to using those. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok

Desdemona and Othello, by *red* Antonio Muñoz Degraín

View from the Artist's Window - brand new only three seconds old.

Hafspajen (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a little tiny bit of work on it. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.. Did you started the scaring people in black clothes? Huh?

Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, only on Hallowe'en, local time. I'm leaving you and Xanthy to flesh out Description and themes - sorry for edit conflicting with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You did? Hafspajen (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

>:: That's him. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Mu%C3%B1oz_Degrain

Muñoz Degrain Paisaje del Pardo tras la niebla 1866

Hmm, not hard to read, but lacks sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I imagine it would be enough for a stubb at least ...

Founders of the Ukrainian academy of arts

Found an interesting painter uk:Мурашко Олександр Олександрович.

Hmm, yes ... and he looks like a wild man. Crisco 1492, does this look transferrable to Commons? uk:Файл:Олександр Олександрович Мурашко фото 1905-06.jpg Yngvadottir (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It claims PD 70, but the author is supposedly unknown. Those do not match; to claim PD 70, we need to know both the author and his/her year of death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, was afraid of something like that. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

<- That'll do, and I see you found a stub. I found some sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hafspajen, I have to go to work and it's been a miserable two days with no time for article writing except rescuing a Hungarian railway line. Argh :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor you - well hope you will be better soon. We all try to rescue someone - I prefer 105 years olds. Hafspajen (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page of Bach's church music in Latin

Re. [6] — Please kindly invite Gerda Arendt to update Bach's church music in Latin#Mass in B minor, BWV 232, and related earlier compositions along the lines of the recently updated content of Missa in B minor (Bach). Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see what a friend you lost, Yngvadottir. Francis, I don't know why you come here to ask (Yngvadottir to ask) me something. I updated the Missa, a link is enough, or a short summary. It was like that before you "merged" the Missa to there (where it had never been before), it can be like than again. Will you do it or should I? - Question for all, because of my limited language: does the phase "music in Latin" (music in French ...) make any sense? So far I believed that music is a "language" that transcends languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good; I was going to point out that you would see the ping just as soon as you were free, Gerda. I think the "in Latin" query could best be answered on the talk page of that article, but it doesn't sound odd to me, particularly since Bach is known for church music with German words? (I think ... not my field.) As to the other, I don't believe there's a big rush, WP:NODEADLINE and all that, and I see there's already a discussion with Montanabw on the article talk page. So I would suggest going back there and laying out what should be done next, but that need not mean right now. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have very limited time today. Thanks for your response. I was simply asking language (not a particular article) about the phase "music in (any) language". We don't have an equivalent phrase in German. It's the text, not the music, which is Latin. I am sure that Bach wrote differently, because he went with the words, but I am not sure if it can be said like that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But German is often much more precise than English, as you know. Do raise the point on the "church music in Latin" talk page; as I say I think it's ok but am no expert. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, helped, will ask there when I have time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir,

For clarity, I'm not going to start a discussion with other people on your talk page.

In the diff I posted above ([7]) you suggested to report back to you "If the rewrite does not happen promptly,...". Well, it hasn't happened promptly.

I didn't like the obvious WP:FORUMSHOP aspect that led to your admin action, overriding a discussion that was going on at Talk:Bach's church music in Latin, but was prepared to give it a chance because you expressed taking responsibility if it wouldn't work out.

Re. changing the "promptly" to "WP:NODEADLINE" post factum: not nearly good enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I thought and think the rewrite had happened at Missa, BWV 232a, which was subsequently moved to Missa in B minor (Bach)? In fact checking now I see considerable work by Gerda after you placed the "under construction" tag. Whereas your comment above relates to the section in the parent article, Bach's church music in Latin, which you had previously said on the talk page was superior. That is a different task, which is why I reminded you there is no deadline. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why your admin action was so disruptive, and you should have given attention to the discussion that was on the talk page: I pleaded to have the workshop for the update in one place (for clarity: in main namespace, another thing you seem to have missed), not in two places.

Shows the disruption caused by what in policy is called WP:FORUMSHOP: I was not invited to the forum where your admin-imposed solution was designed. You didn't hear any of the parties, except Gerda afaik, and were clear in taking responsability. Now is the moment to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarity: I think Gerda understood the signal [8], so I want to close this discussion here. I hope you understood what I meant, that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So long as she did :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), the former name is a dab now. (What we call "vollendete Tatsachen".) I am in the process of cleaning up after the move. Two years ago, I described myself as the cleaning lady of TFA ;) - You deserve my pumpkins! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "So long as she did" — apparently not, could you have a look at Talk:Mass for the Dresden court (Bach)#Name? What I see is battleground behaviour (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt admonished) and am at a loss what to do next. Some advise would be welcome. Preferably on the content of the issue being discussed at Talk:Mass for the Dresden court (Bach)#Name, and in that location. I don't want to open a second discussion forum on it here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Francis, I would have been happy to wade in there if I knew enough about the topic to be useful and if I agreed that she is battling. What I gather is that you have already made one move of the article and simply don't accept Gerda's arguments about sources and about Mass vs. Missa. I see you making one or more points about OR but cannot judge them, but just because she has unpleasant memories of RM discussions and was admonished for battleground attitude regarding infoboxes in specific, does not mean she is battling here; rather, you are pressing her rather hard, not seeming willing to accept anything she says or does. I had the impression she had already performed a rewrite that you insisted needed to be done, and accepted a move you performed thereafter. Now you have apparently taken the naming issue to RM. What more do you require? Short of agreeing with everything you say? As I say, I cannot judge the merits of the case, which is what is required (and why she has been citing sources, both the title page(s) and scholars) so I may well be missing important factors. And personal style in discussion undoubtedly differs between the two of you. But from the outside it looks like you are closer to battleground behaviour than she is. Especially since you say there that you have taken it to RM, I do not see it as appropriate for me to intervene, although there may be a talk page stalker who feels they can help. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I try to comment as little as possible, but at least one point needs clarification: It's not Francis who took it to RM. He moved and expects me to do so. I have unpleasant memories and know of two cases where the composer's title was not adopted. The pictured title on a publication doesn't matter. This will be the third case then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:190.163.4.132

FYI, they are still making personal attacks and using their talk page as a means with which to do so. The user is still trolling, as indicated in the page history when they tried to stir up an argument again. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Please stop referring to them as a banned user. The thread at AN was inconclusive, and you rightly apologized on your talk page for that earlier revert war on their talk page. I see their post now (as well as your and SummerPhD's deleted ones) and will tell him again to stop attacking people, but he's blocked - poking blocked people is gravedancing, please don't do it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. Since I am apparently not welcome at their talk page, I will reply here (and whatever it is, I will not go back to their talk page since it's pointless for such reasons).

I meant in my comment that by resuming their editing on another IP, the person was effectively evading blocks recently placed on several IPs while these blocks were still active. Epicgenius (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* 189 – [[Wood Pit Colliery]] underground explosion, [[Haydock]], [[Lancashire]] (7 June 1878) (total fatalities, which included one man and all of his five sons, may have been 204 or more<ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53

I'm afraid your additions were removed when I restored the page to its previous state. The editor who "opened" the case did it all wrong, and, as my edit summary said, it's not my place as a clerk to fix it. If it had been a simple fix, I would have done it, but they didn't follow any of the instructions on how to open a case, meaning I would have had to do the whole thing for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw. Thanks for the note. I assume you're leaving one for them? If they re-do it properly, I can always re-add my extra piece if data. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I left them a note and offered to answer any questions on how to open a report if they don't understand the instructions. They are an experienced editor, but SPI can be confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Restarted, now hopefully in the correct way. I haven' readded your commend as it would probably be inapropriate for me to do so. Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I did so, I hope in an acceptable place, thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

BNA access

Hello, Yngvadottir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you!! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor201504

Hi! Sorry about the edits, I'm doing an experiment for school to test Wikipedia's reliability. Thanks for reverting my edits so quickly! Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor201504 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Editor201504: Oh. Well, thanks for your honesty. But you need to stop such breaching experiments immediately, or I will have to block you. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Korean vandal

If you run what he has been posting, both on articles and his userspace, through some translation software I think it's apparent that he's not going to be explaining anything. pablo 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. When I did so I recalled that I had seen that before. Several now blocked accounts with user names in Korean script have posted the same. I wonder whether at least some of them are the same person, unaware this isn't ko.wikipedia? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly - the one I was looking at was User:Jeong Bo-seok, who is definitely only here for the swearing; I doubt he/she would be any more welcome at ko:wp, not with edits like those anyway. pablo 13:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the current one. Currently reverting all the articles to before their first edit. I may be extending too much good faith, but it would be nice not to have this happen again. I see they've given me an old-fashioned "Fuck you" now :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A real charmer! pablo 14:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Here's a list:

User talk:미국
User talk:보건복지부
User talk:로벤타
User talk:북한 시즌1
User talk:북한 시즌2
User talk:서울메트로 4호선 470~471편성
User talk:서울메트로 4호선 463, 469편성
User talk:일본 시즌1
User talk:이마트 구성점
User talk:미국
User talk:브라질
User talk:Transpose-4 (the last two have a longer screed)

Materialscientist and Discospinster have often been the blocking admins - does either of you know of a sockpuppet or long-term abuse page on these accounts? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Best known for" IP

I am growing weary of this kind of thing [9], [10], and particularly this [11] from your friend the floating IP. Persistent accusations of bad faith are, I understood, exactly the kind of thing this "deal" was supposed to prevent. I haven't reverted him once since that deal was agreed. If you and Drmies are not to be made to look ridiculous by this guy, can you tell him to curb this nasty chatter? I wouldn't take it from anyone else, and I am not prepared to take it from him. Next time I will consider opening an ANI against him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Unfortunately there's a substantial disagreement over the words "best known for", and the IP is right to note that we've now been going round in circles for a while. I believe the decision that the other is showing bad faith is now mutual (with the same going for the IP editor and Summer) - both of you have valid points about each other, yours about the implications of the word "wikilawyer", the IP editor's about AGF not being a suicide pact. I must admit to frustration - that article seems like a good test case for us to talk through the issue, but I now can't see a satisfactory way out of the trenches. I've spoken to the editor about his tongue, and he did step back after that. I'm hoping he will continue to control himself, but I do acknowledge your frustration. Pinging Drmies, who's been away this weekend and may not have looked at that conversation yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really feel that the IP is showing bad faith in this discussion; I think he has an inflated idea of his own competence, and he doesn't understand the implications of removing the "best known for" wording. I've tried to explain it, but he's not interested. The more I point it out, the more he feels I'm "only there to piss him off". I should not be forced to accept his view just because he doesn't understand my objection. If he actually gave a reasoned response to my objection, I might be happier with it. It's worth noting that he's the only editor I've ever seen who objects to that wording. In some cases he's right to remove it. No question about that. I've even removed it myself sometimes. But in other cases the wording is valid, uncontentious, and survives intact for years and years on some articles, with no objection from anyone, until he comes along. Then there's this unholy fight, in which he's usually alone, and never, ever looks for compromise. I'm trying hard with this guy, for Drmies' and your benefit – not for his benefit. I have even ignored edits that I objected to (I would have reverted anyone else who made them). But I won't be bullied by him. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This [12] is ridiculous. This is going to have to end now or I will make a formal complaint. If anyone is interested in the truth, I was following Summerphd's edits and realising I don't really agree with a lot of his opposition to the IP. I did however agree with him at the Shipping talk page. I see that you and Drmies didn't get criticised for posting there, even though I am sure neither of you have any interest in shipping. How exactly is the IP sticking to his side of the "deal" you made? If I was stalking the IP, where have I reverted or changed his edits? Nowhere! Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, he has now made a larger complaint on his talk page [13]. Perhaps you could ask him exactly how making one edit on a talk page constitutes stalking. I was not aware that I was banned from interacting with him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

After this [14], where he called my attempts to sort out this "best known" thing "repeated absurd attempts to derail this discussion", it is best that I do not engage with this IP again until a wider discussion has been held with others. My patience with accusations of bad faith has been exhausted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This [15] is simply a pure insult, which I will not dignify with a response. This guy is taking all of us for idiots, including you for helping him, I am sorry to say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Summerphd has been harassing me for quite some time, and when one person is attacking me, it's certainly easier to imagine that other people are too. Perhaps you and I can in fact resolve this particular misunderstanding, seeing as there are now a number of articles that we've both edited with no great problem. On that talk page, and here, you are accusing me of not understanding your arguments. That, of course, is a pure insult. To me it appears that you are simply on a Gish gallop, throwing out whatever irrelevant arguments you feel like to stymie any useful discussion. Let me reiterate here what I said there. My edit was made to the way certain facts were described. I removed a subjective unverifiable claim. You have aggressively and doggedly demanded that I explain why the facts themselves are there, which is something I don't care about and is irrelevant to how they are described. By trying to start a different argument it seems that you're only interested in derailing the original discussion. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: I will look again, but I see the IP endeavouring to keep to the bargain, including participating in talk-page discussion rather than edit-warring. I recognise SummerPhD's point that the IP will be under scrutiny - heck, I'm scrutinising his edits between other tasks, and that's the agreement when we edit here anyway. And I accept your explanation for how you got involved at Talk:Michelle Thomas. But I must point out that it's contradictory for you to say you are sure I am not interested in shipping; amongst the very diverse articles listed on my user page you will find some on ocean liners and I think one on a freighter/incinerator ship. Quite apart from your knowledge that I have undertaken to respond to the IP's concerns and beyond that to shadow his editing somewhat under the agreement which is the main focus of your complaint here. Please don't assume bad faith in anyone's choice to edit anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP's removal of the offending comment is noted. I do not accept that I am insulting the IP by saying that he does not understand my arguments. No insult is intended by that, which I am sure was not the case when he suggested I had a poor grasp of basic writing. Hardly the same thing. It is pointless to continue the discussion there as I know an unending load of rubbish when I see one. What I will not tolerate, and I see it has continued right here without comment from Yngvadottir, is the persistent accusations of bad faith. "Stymying useful discussion, derailing the discussion" – that is not acceptable. I don't care if that's what the IP thinks it looks like. He should learn to assume good faith, yes, that means even with me. I know what I think his behaviour "looks like", but I am keeping it to myself. Same goes for accusations of stalking, which I see Drmies has supported, although there is no evidence for it whatsoever. If either Yngvadottir, Drmies or the IP considers my behaviour to be harassment, take it to the relevant admin page and let an uninvolved admin investigate it. Otherwise, desist from that accusation. I said above here that I do not think the IP is showing bad faith, and I will stick by that. But I expect the same from him. If I don't get it, I will take it elsewhere. There's no reason why he and I shouldn't edit the same articles, as he says, but I feel that the talk page discussion is futile. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E.ventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xango. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Erika Jensen-Jarolim

Your recent editing history at Erika Jensen-Jarolim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I personally hate getting to the point of bringing warnings like this to user talk pages, but your edit warring is getting problematic to the point that you could easily be brought to ANI for violating WP:3RR. You should know better since you're an admin, so I'm hoping something just got you really passionate and you're missing the details being covered at the article's talk page in a hurry. Take a breather and try focusing on the discussion. I for one hate going to ANI, so I'm hoping this just serves as a bonk on the head that it's time to slow down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The two of you are determined to gut the article one way or another, to the point where you make conflicting complaints. If she's notable, her work merits a fair statement. The gutting produces an unbalanced account reflecting POV; it actually demeans the subject. Some of the justifications given - such as "no foreign language" and "no-non-MEDRS" make no sense. Nor does "She might not even want this mentioned" when the article started off as an autobiography. I've attempted to respond to your contradictory demands. I've examined and incorporated others' additions. But you, Kingofaces43, started the AfD because you assumed she was non-notable, and what you two have been doing to the article makes it hard to see her notability. I don't give a tinker's damn if you take me to AN/I, ArbCom, or the woodshed, have some respect for the subject of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You're really jumping to conclusions here (again time to slow down and remember to assume good faith). The gutting comment was on dealing with the COI edits and building from the ground up on the article first rather than leaving everything there instead. I also started the AfD because I thought the notability was questionable, but I didn't have a horse in the race either way, and withdrew when I saw we did meet notability.

There wasn't anything particularly conflicting in the things myself or Jytdog mentioned either, which is further reasoning to slow down and ask questions rather than get excited. The justification for things were laid out rather plainly at the article, and I was trying to address your confusion there too. You keep citing notability, but keep in mind we are past that point. Notability applies to whether a topic merits its own article. Once you start getting into content, that's a matter for NPOV, etc. (see WP:NNC). We're talking about due weight in the article now, which means we need to be especially careful about claims in medical topics per WP:MEDRS. That means we need to pull information from secondary sources such as review articles demonstrating that her research had significant contributions to the field in some way. NPOV and article notability are two very different beasts. Is this where your confusion was? The vibe I'm getting is that it seems like there's confusion there and with my intentions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The intentions of the two of you are very clear from your edits. As I say, having extensively rewritten the article - adding external sources, summarizing, toning down, and rearranging - and having noted at the AfD that there were university materials online supporting more of her curriculum vitæ - I did my best to accommodate conflicting demands that would eliminate all the specifics and cast her notability into question. But you two are determined she only deserves a stub - which amounts to, she doesn't really deserve an article. Look at my contribs again - I have not edited the article for some time. I remain disgusted, and will not have my concerns belittled as "confusion" or accept your shared premise that a way has to be found to keep it a stub. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, what mess do I find here? Are people getting crazy? Hafspajen (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask me to look at it again. At least I managed to save the article - with the help of others who also saw she is notable - but I am unable to meet the contradictory demands (and am not qualified to search Google Scholar for some of what's being asked for). Yngvadottir (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How about Sandy Georgia? Hafspajen (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, let it go. The subject is highly intelligent; maybe she will herself suggest papers citing and commenting on her work. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparison?

Surely someone has written something about this? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not what I know about it. Well spotted, Yngvadottir, looks the same way. Hint - Romantic landscape - Romantic landscapes - Romantic painting. Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How about this one? Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, needs someone with an art history training :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional info on Sophie Hunter

Hello! I just found out that Sophie Hunter has released another music album in 2011 which Guy Chambers wrote. I would just like to request for you to add it in her page. In the lead paragraph, body, and discography section. Here are the sources http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/album-guy-chambers--sophie-hunter-songs-for-a-boy-sleeper-sounds-2308594.html and https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/songs-for-a-boy-ep/id442687025

Lead paragraph should read

Hunter has also acted on stage and screen. In addition, she has released her French-language music album The Isis Project (2005) and the English-language Songs for a Boy (2011) both in collaboration with songwriter Guy Chambers.

Career section

In addition to directing, she has also acted in film, television and theatre and has released her French-language music album The Isis Project (2005) and the English-language Songs for a Boy (2011) both in collaboration with songwriter Guy Chambers.

And please do add a table in her discography now that she has two released albums.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! 94.137.180.20 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was busy until now, but someone else has added it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eduard Ludwig

added a link pointing to Atrium

Karl Heinrich Menges

added a link pointing to University of Frankfurt

The Anomaly

added a link pointing to Simon Lewis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

If you got time on your hands please take a look at the article Detmold child and/or Pettakere cave. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not right now I haven't, so no promises :-) But I'll see whether I can. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Death of Netanel Arami

Thank youShulMaven (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your fine sense of diplomacy

George Cole (artist) George Cole (painter)- Study of a Parrot

Is definitely needed, here -> User talk:Joshua Jonathan#About the Thouth & Thinking pages and User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Why I'm wrong. He adds his comment at the top always, hope is a Thai monk. [16] Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

My what? Surely you jest. I have absolutely got to go to bed, but I will take a look when I get up. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be too late .. one never knows.

Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see he's been blocked after it went to AN/I. Sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, either it was someone trolling and just pulling our legs, and in that case it serves him well, - or somebody tring hard to think + a real lack of Wikipedia:Competence is required... in that case a little diplomacy might have been good. Hafspajen (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

From my quick look, it looked as if the editor had a couple of problems that made this a bad fit for them: they wanted to discuss philosophy, and they were basing statements on their experience rather than on reliable sources. (Sometimes that's ok, and one of the things we need is people who can explain things clearly so that those who don't have a degree in the field can understand, but in science and philosophy, it's not enough, which is why you don't see me editing those articles much.) I fear I wouldn't have been of much use. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OH, well, you would have been NICE. When is that enough, by the way? Hafspajen (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue; also by general agreement, plots of books and films, and descriptions of paintings. (I tend to cite both plots and descriptions anyway, partly because I don't watch movies any longer, partly because it demonstrates notability, but I use a lot more citations than most.) And note that there is a competing essay, Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue; we're extremely harsh on pseudoscience here, and that raises the bar for citations for science. The user's contention that there are only 5 senses despite citations in our articles that scientists recognize more than that is a good illustration. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So if there is a pond in the painting you are allowed to say so. How nice.

Hafspajen (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup :-) But even better to cite a book that mentions it. (For large number of citations, something Eric hates, see Computer Engineer Barbie; notice that everything there about her clothes and accessories and what happens in the book is sourced.) Oh by the way, I put in a gallery in the Oleksandr Murashko article, because it was such a pity not to show more of his pictures. If you haven't already, you probably want to replace it with a better one, I'm not good at that stuff.Yngvadottir (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK: listen, will you please put some kind of protection on Christmas tradition like for two month? Pendling revision or whatever. I predict a lot of mess. Also somebody removed this: Christmas is absolutely not a public holiday in North Korea, there were many attempts of mounting Christmas trees along the North/South Korean border. On October 2014, the South Korean government were forced to take down the tree near the border. Although Christmas is a public holiday in South Korea. Pity. Wonder if we could find some refs. Hafspajen (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

{Huge yawn] I looked at the history before and after going to bed and there's only occasional vandalism. Let's wait and see; we want people to add things. The Korean bit could indeed be in there, but with a source. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)thumb

I have a certain feeling that Mykoly Petrova means Petrova's husband. Hafspajen (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael (think it got "lost in translation") Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I made it Mykol Petrov; not sure of the correct Ukrainian for the first name, but the Petrova was inflected. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cole_(1810-1883) Xanty, Yngvadottir - I am upset. What, the frog-eater are before us? Cole of all people. Hafspajen (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that is odd. I note that his son has one of those articles ripped from Britannica. Unfortunately I am off to work soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

About that Christmas -thing - you shouldn't look back but forward. Nobody edits Christmas articles in October. Pending changes would allow people to add but it will be checked. Hafspajen (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but we have to balance protection levels against our desire to suck people into editing here. I note there was just a positive addition. I don't want to violate WP:BEANS, but let me - or another admin - know when it actually starts. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it will. If you look at previous Christmas and the year before - it is always a hot spot. Also lot of great additions - unsourced - of course...

Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Barbie-peluquera.gif

Computer Engineer Barbie DYK? Hafspajen (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish a way could be found to give Tokyogirl a DYK for it. But I agree with her that the article should be on the doll, not just the book. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course we put her in too! (Now don't you start removing yourself from it please) AH; (looking very pleased with own prophetic abilities) a slow start: voilá! Hafspajen (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Er .... that hook!

... that Computer Engineer Barbie was created in 2010 at the urging of women in technology but the accompanying book depicts Barbie as helpless without men's assistance?
... that the book accompanying Computer Engineer Barbie was withdrawn in 2014 after protests that it depicts Barbie as incompetent with computers?
... that Computer Engineer Barbie runs Linux?

for starters ... (Those aren't even accurate cubic metres.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: @Xanthomelanoussprog: User:Yngvadottir/George Cole (artist). Still looking for his entry in the 1911 Britannica. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Great! Magnifique .... sorry about the hook. We are confused, nobody knows any more if we are girls or boys. Hafspajen (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Could we change the lead picture to THIS? File:George Cole - Harvest Rest.jpg the one there is great, but won't be big enough to make it a FP: 1500x1500pixel is minimum. The scan is not that good quality either... this one could go, I think, but tha it has to be a lead pic. They frown about pics from galleries. Hafspajen (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I don't think we have a very representative set on Commons. Hopefully Xanthy or someone can find more about him. I admit I've not scoured Google Books yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Missed all the fun! Just checked and there wasn't anything in my "Brief Lives of the Drunk and Insane", except for George Vicat Cole, and Sir Henry Cole (no relation), whose 58 volume diary from 1822 to 1862 is in the Vic 'n' Alb (November 24, 1845: Got up, brushed my teeth, emptied chamber pot. Queen Victoria still on throne. Went back to bed.) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That happens when you don't have water closet and Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

First time I feel a slightly on the feminists side - what is this nasty redirect? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frances_Pulteney&redirect=no ? - the woman has a bridge Pulteney Bridge named after her, but wikipedia can't shake out an article on her? Hafspajen (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's far better to have a red link, to suggest writing an article - but only if she's notable. Looking at the article on her husband, I'm not sure she is. (Which is why I haven't undone Colonel Warden's action). She was a wealthy heiress, and her husband changed his name to hers. There's a bridge named for her. Is there anything else? Can you find sources to justify an article? Unfortunately, one of the reasons we have far more biographies of men is that broadly speaking, we define notability in terms of available sources, and far less was generally written about women (until pretty recently). If you can find enough sources, I'll delete the redirect. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC) ... or you can just edit it to create the article. Gotta go for a little while now, dog needs walking. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, if is no good, is no good. Put up this guy - https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Laval on your translation list. Our is just hopeless. Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this too - Senja - but don't change the first picture - we have plans for it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those looks terribly undeveloped, and work is eating my brains, but I'll see what I can do. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Shared IP

Thank you for filling us in on how to disclose a shared IP address. ReachingtheStars and I are married and we share the one computer in the house! We didn't realize that we had to mark this somewhere. Thanks for the help! Brightideas191 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! I thought it might be something like that :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, happy days

You know what? I have no idea what this file is. File:Крамской Портрет художника Николая Андреевича Кошелева.jpg. Will you, can you, please, at least tell me who's the guy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Portrait of Nikolay Koshelev by Ivan Kramskoi. Koshalev was very much a Christian painter. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that, and thanks!

Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

199.235.208/24

Maybe the IP block on User talk:199.235.208.139 should instead be an IP range block? See here: [17] Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Too late now I'm afraid - that IP's edits were on the 26th. Thanks for noting and reverting. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't own the articles that you create

Hi Yngvadottir. Just because you create an article, does not mean you know best about every single detail. You don't own it, you don't have final say over other editors' work. That is not how the project works, and there are WP principles and rules against that sort of behaviour. Now go and ahead and revert if you must. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you appreciate my point about its being the lede and needing to summarize the whole; or perhaps you are confusing promotion of family with promotion of marriage? In any event, I just amplified, with an edit summary addressing the latter issue. Is it better now? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have little appreciation of >>>>>>>> such as yourself whose edit tool of choice is the revert button. But seeing that you own the article, then at least use the right terms - "forgiven" is the wrong word. A loan or part thereof is "foregiven" at the discretiuon of the lender for any of a number of reasons in a number of situations. If such a reduction/ waiver/ compensation/ is an actual condition provided for in the terms of the loan agreement, it is NOT forgiven. Now go find other stuff to revert and have a nice life. Cheers. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

So long as the change helps :-) "Forgiven" comes from the sources; I'm afraid you'll have to excuse my lack of knowledge of financial terminology. Also, I'm sorry I don't meet your standards. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For pointing me to the correct reporting page. Your help is truly appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 21:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, THIS one is decidedly undeveloped

John Simmons (painter, born 1823), Yngvadottir, Xanthomelanoussprog, Phil... -- help. The painting is nominated at FP and that article is just .. 1 line. (not me) Hafspajen (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/20486/lot/52/

Citation:Born in 1823, John Simmons is listed in Bristol directories as a miniature painter, living in Clifton. Although primarily supporting himself through portraiture during the 1850s and 1860s, Simmons is most celebrated for his enchanting watercolours of ethereal fairyland scenes, and the present lot is one of the finest and most ambitious examples.Fairy painting was a genre which found a renewed popularity in the 19th century, these mystical worlds granting the viewer an escape from reality and solace from the hardships of Victorian life. As Jeremy Maas commented, 'no other type of painting concentrates so many of the opposing elements in the Victorian psyche: the desire to escape the dreary hardships of daily existence; the stirring of new attitudes towards sex, stifled by religious dogma; a passion for the unseen; psychological retreat from scientific discoveries; the birth of psychoanalysis; the latent revulsion against the exactitude of the new invention of photography.'1 Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream was a popular theme of the period, painted by artists such as Robert Huskisson, John Anster Fitzgerald, John Atkinson Grimshaw, Francis Danby and Richard Dadd. Simmons painted a number of works in the 1860s and 1870s which draw inspiration from Shakespeare's play. In the present lot, the artist captures a botanical dreamlike world filled with nymphs and sprites, showcasing his furtive imagination with incredible skill. Believed to capture Act II Scene II, the work depicts the sleeping Hermia (the central right figure) and Titania (central left), whom Oberon spikes with a love potion, sprinkling it onto his quarrelling fairy queen's eyes, ensuring that when she wakes she will fall in love with whomever she first sees.

What thou seest when thou dost wake,
Do it for thy true-love take, Love and languish for his sake: Be it ounce, or cat, or bear, Pard, or boar with bristled hair...
(Oberon, Act II Scene II)

Using the winding flowers and convolvulus as a decorative motif, Simmons romantically frames the central figures, creating a stage in which their narrative can play out. Blurring the boundaries between reality and dreams, he creates a poetical vision of Shakespeare's play. The complexity of the composition is unusual for Simmons, who usually depicts one or two figures framed by foliage, often capturing his heroine Titania. Painting her in a number of poses, Simmons depicts the fairy queen as a paradigm of Victorian female beauty, often painting her delicately veiled, as here, covered in minutely realistic flowers with wings, opal or agate. Works like his 1866 Titania (Bristol Museums and Art Gallery, featured in the 1997 Royal Academy exhibition Victorian Fairy Painting), and Titania sleeping in the moonlight protected by her fairies (sold in these rooms, 9 March 2004, lot 86) has led Simmons' fairy paintings to be singled out from his contemporaries for their eroticism, the light draperies barely covering the nude bodies beneath. Charlotte Gere notes that eroticism in fairy paintings was a common concept in the Victorian era, explaining, 'suggestiveness in fairy paintings is one of many parallels with Orientalism, the exotic setting exonerating the viewer from voyeurism'.2

As the present lot demonstrates, the soft charm of Simmons' sensual nudes and the delicacy of their painting elevates them above mere objects of carnal desire. Jeremy Maas defended Simmons, stating 'it could be said...that Simmons uses fairy trappings to mask the otherwise blatant exoticism of the paintings, but his evocation of fairyland is too successful for this to remain true.'3 Hafspajen (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Better? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fast live-saving-

Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's getting hit on like crazy, look here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hermia and Lysander. Hafspajen (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thumb

August Wilhelm Leu (* 24 March 1818 in Münster ; † 20 July 1897 in Seelisberg ( Canton Uri )) was a German painter.

Leu devoted himself from 1840 to 1844 in Dusseldorf , primarily under Johann Wilhelm Schirmer , landscape painting and toured in 1843 and 1847 Norway , later, Switzerland , Tyrol, Upper Bavaria, Styria and Italy. A short time he lived in Brussels, but returned to Dusseldorf, where he 1882 Berlin moved.

His landscapes are characterized by a great, romantic view of the Alps nature, masterly lecture, bright color and well-calculated lighting effect. Of his numerous paintings, which he carried out mostly on a larger scale, should be highlighted:

Norwegian Waterfall with fir forest (1848, Museum in Oslo ) Sognefjord at noon mood (Museum in Bremen) Lot near Berchtesgaden (Museum in Stuttgart) Norwegian plateau (Museum in Königsberg) Waterfall (Museum in Vienna) The watzmann The Dachstein The Upper Lake Sunset on the coast of Sorrento Oeschinensee in Kandersteg in the Canton of Bern (1876, National Gallery, Berlin) Lago Maggiore (1879) The Castle of Queen Joanna to Naples (1886) He was Regius Professor and had the large gold medal of the Berlin exhibition. On the Paris World's Fair in 1855 he received an honorable mention for a landscape painting.

Yeah yeah if I have time. Trying to decide whether to just collapse. He's also in Salmonsen - linked at the Danish. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Legobot has given you a turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! ~~~~

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Barbie

File:BluePlushBeanieBabies.png

What shall I do with the MUCH referenced nom? Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nooooo idea. I tend to agree with you, especially since I added some of Tokyogirl's refs (I originally had rather a lot of British media; she had things like the LA Times) and was intending to add more. And also for both the description and the complaints about the book, I conflated info from many different references. But I don't think it should be withdrawn, because Tokyogirl deserves the credit and because this should make the Main Page. And I can't post there - I can't go back to DYK unless they extract the GAs. Sorry, Prioryman, I have noooooo idea. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I have no idea either. Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks as if they've added to the rules, in which case it should probably be closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean, withdraw? Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted, but it's a ridiculous reason to close it. And I'm exhausted after a heavy work week. So on reflection - ignore them and leave it up to them. If they have instituted such a rule, well, tough, I'm not going to pull apart all the combining of sources I did. If they have not, someone will come along who realizes there is no such rule. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can leave a message saying that refs stay. And if they think that's a reason not to OK it, then thereby withdraw with deep sorrow. Hafspajen (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, just walk away. I looked again, and the person threatening to close it even admits it's not a DYK rule. Besides, I am now officially out of brain and must go to bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Too late, left a message. Not really a threat though, more like request. But I understand that you are tired and want the refs left where they are. I am not going to remove anything if you don't want that either. Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Eva and Abraham Beem

I guess I still have it in me. With the help of others of course. I wish have a nice weekend!--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

John Barbirolli

Thanks for your edit to TFA ... it's the article's wording I don't like, I'll ask Tim Riley about it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dank: I checked the article itself after seeing the note at Main Page/Errors and found this in the lede: "which he helped save from dissolution in 1943 and conducted for the rest of his life" - that looks perfectly ok to me, with both "helped save ..." and "conducted ..." following in parallel from "which he", but it didn't transfer to the Main Page blurb. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Main page blurb was done by Cirt, I believe, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It was an easy mistake to make while shrinking down the lede to make a blurb; unfortunately once it's on the Main Page, only an admin can fix it, and that's why we have WP:Main Page/Errors. I sometimes also wind up editing the article in question, but here I believe Dank's misread the parallelism. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Different problem ... he wasn't in fact the conductor for the rest of his life. Tim will take care of it ... see User_talk:Tim_riley#John Barbirolli tweak. Thanks for keeping up with WP:ERRORS, Yngvadottir. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Computer Engineer Barbie

YNGVADOTTIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you go and remove yourself - again... ech.

Hello! Your submission of Computer Engineer Barbie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arghhhhhhhhhh. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Idon't know if you agree with my answer,- on the nomination, it was your work, but I think those refs are fine. Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries. FUBAR goes DYK? Serten 06:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well at least SNAFU. There were negotiations with several reviewers, finally someone gave it a check mark, then someone else comes along and unreviews it? I suggest you cite the Heidi Klum mention but otherwise ping Johnbod to see whether he wants to repeat his check mark. I'm afraid I cannot resume participating at DYK. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been already been starting to loose interest to participate at DYK at all. Its however good to have you have a look on correct language. Serten 08:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is something that has few refs. Our articles are nowadays criticized for too many refs, hey, life is weird. Hafspajen (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bayume Mohamed Husen has few refs as well, the translation is rather weak. The sort of article FUBAR likes to see at DYK. Serten 16:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That article isn't too bad, though I haven't compared it with the German for accuracy. However, now I see you are using that as a code word. Please don't - but if I were still involved in DYK, I would be asking questions about that editor. In any case, the reviewer has now gutted the Barbie article so I can no longer be associated with that DYK, and it is clearly not just one person. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Youre right, I been to frustrated. Point is, aagainst some of the claims there was no special Nazi legislation against black people, weird as it may sound, and Husen never was explicitely called a Child soldier, respectively that term doesnt fit. The German article, a lesenswert rated one, is rather specific in that details. That said, the article sounds like a translation of someone not been to deep involved with the topic - no problem for DYK normally, but when the same editor is starting serial gutting, I feel sort of annoyed even more. Serten 17:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting history on that article, now that I look at it. I see it was basically Sandstein's work, and the other editor introduced "child" and I'm not sure what else. But I haven't seen that editor gutting. What I have seen them do is unaccept your Indianer article and announce unilaterally that they will have to close the DYK for the Barbie article after the reviewer raised a question. Which I stand by calling a threat. In other words, until you brought to my attention that they changed Sandstein's article by introducing at least one inaccuracy, I'd only seen them throwing their weight about at DYK. I'll leave it to you to correct the inaccuracies on Husen. As I understand it, the fact there were black citizens in Germany at the time of the Machtergreifung remains little known, especially in the Anglosphere, but I am also unaware of specific legislation against blacks - given the formulation of the racial laws, it would not have been necessary to single them out, and their numbers were small. But I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the Third Reich. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, now is my turn, this is not only some critics of refs but a complete rewrite - and and so completely WRONG rewrite that I insist on withdraw. Hafspajen (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Husen additions were most likely prompted by an article in the online Guardian newspaper on the documentary (which is where I came across him). I didn't get any impression from that article that he was a child soldier. Good job he didn't go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, clutching a Barbie doll. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry about the Church painting, I would have loved to see that on the Main Page and I'm terribly sorry about what was said there :-( I find the religion statement was stuck in by a different editor here. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I did meant that those changes were wrong - because they were wrong. That painting is a Romantic painting - that's one thing for sure.

See how the lead describe Romantic movement. The painter was part of the American Romantic art school, the Hudson River School, and that is a Romantic art movement.

And the DKY guy goes and replaces fully valid sentence: Emotions like awe – especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities – were new aesthetic categories, and very different from Realism and Classicism as a source of aesthetic experience with a weird new version of his own: Church was able to envisage the American natural environment as manifestly divine, considered representative of the importance of religion in american culture.

Whatever religion in American culture?? Nobody ever talked about religion here. Nobody ever said that the American nature was a manifestation of the DIVINE and this pictture had anything to do with the American religion (whatsoever that is) . No, it is about the natures forces and emotions, that 's what it is about. That sentence is just wrong, it has nothing to do with the picture.

Than there goes the other guy telling me that - it was removed because it wasn't directly relevant to the subject. It has just EVERYTHING to do with the subject, indeed. The other sentence, that replaced the original, is the one that is not directly relevant to the subject. And they call THAt DYK fix. Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are people review subjects they don't understand? Hafspajen (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And - what is even more sad - it is biting the newbies. Big time. Xanthomelanoussprog was the nominator, and if anybody would ever care for checking, it was under the first 5 nomination - WHY don't they have a warning or something - like a big green sign - warning, new nominator? I hate this, him immediately confronted with the worst sides of the DYK, Hafspajen (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I am very sorry about what happened at the Church nomination, too, including that unwarranted change to something about American religion. Luckily Xanthy is tough. A small part of it is the QPQ review system, which is abominable but nothing better has been found: when I was active at DYK I often reviewed articles on things I didn't know much about, and I once had to back out of a review because although I did know the basics on the topic, my geographic location made it impossible for me to verify any of the citations (topic was a D'Oyly Carte performer). But reviewers should not make wholesale changes in articles just because they are reviewing them - although I would encourage reviewers to fix grammar errors and bare links, for example, rather than simply putting a hold on the nomination because the article needs a copyedit and has bare links. I suspect the influence of GA - and the fact many of those who did not want GAs included, or were worried about how it would play out in practice - has left DYK with a lot of reviewers who think of it in terms of aggressive improvement to meet their personal standards, and it's particularly grating when as in your case it leads to rewriting the article to be inaccurate and contrary to the sources. As a separate thing - accusations of copyvio where there is no such thing are outrageous anywhere. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think making review based on the personal preferences of the reviewers or go on changing topics just because they think they look better if they don't understand the topic is wrong - because they might mess up things - thinking they are right. Actually most reviewers of the more unpleasant sort are often convinced they are right. But it doesn't necessarily has to be right. Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And I agree that accusations of copyvio where there is no such thing are outrageous anywhere. Hafspajen (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Islington

Hello there,

Thank you very much for the guidance .. I have inserted more references to the building. Please can you take a look at them for me and let me know what you think? Thanks, Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippy Muffin (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hippy Muffin: I fixed the formatting problem, but those are again bare URLs. I fear they will have the same problem as the references you already have, and those I found: they all just mention the place, but it is not notable just because it's mentioned as where an act performed. You should, however, post at the AfD. I see it's been relisted. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hamster

	Hamster
	Hamster in hand Hafspajen (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Aww, how cute :-) I am finishing copyediting something for Serten and then will have to go to bed. I miss Thomas.W - someone has revived an old issue and without him I'm the only one left to explain again and again. Sigh. Wikipedia is not much fun right now, is it. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Where did Thomas go? Hafspajen (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See his user talk - he retired after withdrawing from his RfA. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And look at the RfA. Every time I see a certain name pop up at an RfA I feel a chill. He ruined PumpkinSky's also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed and probably shouldn't look. All I know is I voted for both, and I don't often vote :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I voted for both as well, and told both that I miss them. (I guess it's not outing too much saying that I entertain regular email chatting with one of them.) - Talking about voting: I asked the arb candidates a simple question, and was pleasantly surprised by their answers. - Today, I might have asked: would you have voted to ban Kiefer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, this user is signing every contribution, since like 8 years back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dadofsam

Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Checking in...

Hi Yngvadottir,

Just wanted to stop by & let you know that I came back. I'm mostly working on gnomish type things, and trying to keep myself out of trouble.

I'm sad to see that "74" seems to be no longer here; but pleased to see that you're still going strong.

Hope you are well, and thanks again for your support earlier this year.

Please feel free to move, delete or otherwise this comment - Ryk72 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, and thanks - we need you :-) I also hope you're having some fun with it. I do hope 74 also returns someday. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am enjoying it. Small victories may be small, but they are victories none the less. :)

I share your hope for a return. - Ryk72 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So do I, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He was encouraging, helpful and really good at handling article disputes. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He was indeed. - Ryk72 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of helpful, I have a small favour to ask. For prima facie non-controverstial articles, what's the proper (polite) convention for handling parts which either don't have supporting references, or which aren't supported by the references? Just deleting the sentence seems a little brusque. As does just adding a "citation needed". I'm thinking that I would put something in article Talk page as well as in the edit summary; but do we normally also leave a short message on the User_talk page of the editor who added the section? Thanks in advance for your insight & advice. - Ryk72 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends how bad (or important to the article) it seems to be. There are many, many unreferenced things in Wikipedia, and quite a few that are actually supported by references already in the article, but not footnoted. There's also undetected copyvio, which is in general worse. If it's a recent addition, you can either look for a source, add citation needed, or revert with an edit summary indicating that this really needs a ref before it can be added. I don't think a talk page section is required unless the editor reverts you without supplying a citation, although if it's a complicated situation (like if you suspect misinterpretation), it's nice to start one to explain immediately. But a lot of editors don't read talk pages. I wouldn't leave something on the editor's user talk unless they're very new and/or doing it in several articles (there is a special welcome template for new editors who add unreferenced information, and when the user talk page is still a redlink I often use that); it could be taken as overbearing. Often I find if I revert it out with an edit summary saying it requires a reference, they will supply one; but in some topics, one can find one pretty easily on Google and that way one gets to demonstrate how it's done, both choosing a RS and formatting it to match the other refs in the article. (And making the search also turns up the copyvio in many cases, so that one can fix that expeditiously.) I hope that makes sense. I sound awfully waffly. But outside of BLP, if it's not obviously wrong-headed or biased or already stated elsewhere in the article, I'm inclined to think it likely comes from expertise. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the incredibly quick response. I'm working through everything that you've mentioned; lots to think through. Really appreciate it. I'll have a look for another supporting source & then might try to ameliorate the bit that I think isn't supported.

Given that the piece that I currently have in mind is about fluffy Japanese mascot Kumamon, it's not really a big issue. :) But that it's "not important" is why it's important, for me, at this time. It's a good place to practice & learn, without causing too much if any "WikiAngst". Thanks again. - Ryk72 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

August Leu

Sorry about that. I thought "People from Munster" would resolve - didn't notice the umlaut hadn't shown up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem; side-effect of being truly global :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Magnificat

Would you please look into a so-called merge and help me understand?

24 Sep 2014: Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, moved from Magnificat (Bach) to distinguish from the earlier version in E-flat major, an article I wrote in memory of my late conductor. During the last years, several works by Bach were split from a combined article for one BWV number into separate articles for other versions, compare BWV 120, now also BWV 120a and BWV 120b

08 Oct 2014: expanded

09 Oct 2014: Francis Schonken starts moving sections from E-flat major to D major.

31 Oct Francis proposes merge

16 Nov 2014 merge tag removed from E-flat

18 Nov 2014 I remove merge tag from D-flat, talk pages, Francis is asked by RexxS and me to provide arguments for a merge, which we and Montanabw oppose.

21 Nov 2014 Francis merges, closing discussions.

I don't think this is a proper way to handle a merge, on top of believing that two articles would be better. Do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See also [18] - apparently Gerda had been going around changing links to the Magnificat article to her version of the article: that's precisely why we don't need content forks, not even WP:REDUNDANTFORKS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Francis. You are ignoring the input of editors on this issue. I find you reasonable on Prem Rawat but this doesn't seem so reasonable to me. This isn't about Gerda's preferred version and that's the invalid excuse you are using to merge; its about several editors asking you for reasons to merge. You still have not offered reasons for that merge. Did I miss that. And I like others cannot see why you insist on merging this content. Then you ignore the other editors (excluding Gerda and me) and merge anyway. It only makes sense that over time our articles on music will become more and more detailed and will require content split offs. And why are you closing discussions in which you clearly do not have a neutral position. Doesn't make sense to me at all, I'm afraid.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC))

(e.c., @ Littleolive oil:) I have given my reasons, don't just repeat what others say, please:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(after ec's) @Francis Schonken:: As an outsider - I am barely aware of these particular works and can't keep numbers straight - this does look unjustified. Your argument for merging appears to be (a) that you regard one or more articles as undesirable content forks (but you have not explained why) and (b) no one else discussed. Did you present your argument anywhere else? Same question as I asked Gerda, with this amplification: did you present a reason why you regard these as a content fork? (How other-language Wikipedias split up articles is immaterial.) I see two editors presenting reasoned objections and a third removing the merge tag, which also amounts to a "disagree" vote. (I also see Gerda proposing a compromise solution.) You in any case should not have closed the discussion yourself, having encountered disagreement. What am I missing? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(2x e.c., short, can elaborate when needed)

I argued WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is a particular kind of content fork.
This isn't about "vote" or "majority vote" --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, about having a discussion. You cannot simply present a link to a guidance page and expect everyone to agree that it applies in the particular case. Also I see people saying there has been no discussion - in fact you say so yourself. This looks procedurally invalid - and by "procedurally" I mean that it does not appear consensus was reached, and that matters. So again - is there any discussion other than the one at Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 that I should be looking at? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

yeah, yeah, sure, I explained the REDUNDANTFORK concept to Gerda, Montana, Rexxx, on their user talk pages.

The procedure as explained at WP:REDUNDANTFORK is: give benefit of doubt, then merge. I have given benefit of doubt, extensively, from the first sideways discussion at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. The problems never got solved, that's why a merge was needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that I would be in no way reluctant to give benefit of doubt again, and again, etc... No problem there. If an article can be made that is not a REDUNDANTFORK, or worse, a CONTENT FORK, I'm all in (of course the linking to the specific article where there should be a link to a general article has to be reverted. Dozens of pages: as long as that is not repaired there's no use in having an article on a subtopic claiming incoming links that should go to the general article.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The first part of my response got lost in the edit conflicts. Is the merge discussion this one: Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243? Or is there another that I did not find? @Francis Schonken: That's what I meant to ask you about too, sorry. Too much searching and cutting and pasting. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some prior discussion at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a

Further, there are the (extended) prior discussions as mentioned in the 2nd and 3rd line of Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion

And discussions on a handful of user talk pages (can provide links if needed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion - that's the one I eventually found. It's unfortunate that you argued your position on users' talk pages so much - it shuts out others who may want to participate. Notice that someone else has appeared here who has not been persuaded by your reasoning. What it looks to me has happened is that you have been overly hasty in interpreting WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It does not say "If you believe something to be a redundant fork, you must merge it. It refers to giving the benefit of the doubt because there needs to be a discussion. The discussion I see brought only disagreement. As such, you needed to explain your position more right there, in order to seek consensus for your view, and certainly should not have closed the discussion and implemented the merger. You were the only one asking for this action, it appears? In the earlier content dispute about Bach's Magnificat(s), you and Gerda appeared to have reached a compromise, but she did say here subsequently that you had moved the article and were requiring her to file at a noticeboard if she was unhappy with your action. That is not compromising. So what I think I should do is undo your merger(s), possibly including the initial removal of content to a different article, and then ask you to start a new merger discussion at which you should both make your case and respond to others' points, and that should be closed by an uninvolved admin. It is possible you are right and will be able to persuade others of that. Or that a compromise solution can be found and accepted by consensus. Or consensus may be to leave teh articles divided as they are/were. But I don't see an emergency requiring us not to go back to the previous situation and do the discussion right. Do you? If so, please explain. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243#Merge suggestion is what I typed. There is however also some prior discussion at Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a#WP:PRIMARY concerns, e.g. where Gerda says "I see two possibilities to proceed: merge the articles to Magnificat (Bach), or ..." [19] (emphasis added).

"It's unfortunate that you argued your position on users' talk pages so much", sorry that was something I was the victim of, not something I wanted: time and again I asked others to discuss at the article talk page, and they excused themselves with the most farfetchted reasons, like "the discussion is fragmented", "you didn't state your reasons" while I did, etc. etc. So no, I won't be victimized for that a second time.

Also, I'm not obliged to answer to ad hominems: I was more than prepared to explain further, only not in response to an ad hominem "you did not give any reasons" style.

With a slight excuse for the ad hominem (retraction of the lie suffises) I'll resume my explanations instantly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re "In the earlier content dispute about Bach's Magnificat(s), you and Gerda appeared to have reached a compromise, but she did say here subsequently that you had moved the article and were requiring her to file at a noticeboard if she was unhappy with your action. That is not compromising." — I think you're confusing, maybe you're reffering to Talk:Mass for the Dresden court (Bach)#Name where I proposed WP:RM after two page moves in about as many days (the first by Gerda — did she forget to mention? —, the second by me): as we weren't getting out of it, and Gerda was also not really proposing a single alternative, I suggested to follow the standard procedure, WP:RM. I've done dozens of WP:RMs, nothing comparing to WP:ANI style dramaboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal will again result in a WP:REDUNDANTFORK situation, with vague promises being made about improving content (well, that's the situation that has been dragging on since September, ultimately only leading from REDUNDANT FORK to content forking 1.0). No, give Gerda some time to prove she can build an article that makes a sensible split or subpage, I'd be happy to accept it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(After edit conflict; some of this is less relevant now, but the repeated question at the end is still the meat of it) I'm not seeing where I accused you of lying; looking again, and looking at the DYK nomination for the first time, I see several people writing that you did not give reasons. I also see Gerda giving what look like cogent reasons at the merger discussion. I cannot follow the argument about primary sources or judge why you dismiss Gerda's stated objections as invalid - I am not sufficiently competent in the subject matter. However, we operate by consensus here except in emergency cases. (This goes even if you feel slighted by others' arguments; it is possible that they did not understand your premises, and just as not accusing fellow editors of lying without extremely strong evidence is part of WP:CIVIL, so is assuming that they are not maligning you in order to shut you down.) The DYK nomination, for example, is once more on hold. So I ask again, can you show me any reason not to revert to the prior situation and have a proper discussion, closed by someone uninvolved? Even if you are right and there was undesirable content forking, was the prior situation of multiple articles so bad that we cannot revert to it while you persuade people? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) Re. "I don't see an emergency requiring us not to go back to the previous situation and do the discussion right. Do you?" — there is an *urgent* reason not to do so: make Gerda revert all the incoming links to the 243a article that for no reason go to that article, instead of to the Magnificat (Bach) article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would the DYK nomination be more "urgent" than the incoming mislinks problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that the article into which you have merged what she argues are better as separate articles? i.e., aren't you now merely saying "It's urgent because I don't like it this way?" Or am I confused over what all articles are under discussion? (Edited to add: I'm mentioning the DYK nomination because that's the only thing I can see here that has any element of urgency. And it's on hold.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See example I gave here [[20]] Peter Kooij is known best for singing an aria from the 243 version of the Magnificat, not the 243a version, as Gerda without a reference made it look like here --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) Re. "was the prior situation of multiple articles so bad that we cannot revert to it while you persuade people?", yes the prior situation (with the forking) was so bad, that it would be a bad idea. The same for the incoming mislinks. Without that being cleaned (and that's up to Gerda, she placed the misleading links) going back to the previous situation is not really an option imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why do you think multiple editors have disagreed with you, not just Gerda? Did distinguishing between versions in different keys and/or written at different times) mislead the reader? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no uninvolved editors disagreeing with me except Gerda. The other users are largely uninvolved in Bach-related editing, some of them even in music-related articles in general (didn't see them showing up before), however not uninvolved in all sorts of discussions Gerda is involved in. So maybe ask them how they showed up there, agreeing with Gerda without questioning what was said by her. I have no problem explaining to them what Bach is about. But if they only wheel in for repeating ad hominems, the discussions tend to be short.

"Did distinguishing between versions in different keys and/or written at different times) mislead the reader?" — not the distinguishing, but after distinguishing, the in a next step leading people to the 243a article, when the reference should be to the 243 article, is misleading. So the unified Magnificat (Bach) article is the best intermediate solution. Nobody gets misled in the intermediate time, until links are cleaned up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the urgency. I would ping everyone who participated in the previous discussions, but that would be to stage the needed discussion here, and this isn't the right place. Accordingly, I think I am going to start trying to take things back to their pre-merger state, and presumably you will then start a new merger discussion - that seems clearer than reopening the one you closed. If you can make a compelling enough case for urgency, you can then get another admin to speedy close the discussion on that basis. Warning to all: I am likely to muck this up at least once. Remembering numbers and letters is not my forte. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition to above: looking at your response to someone else above, I see you beginning to explain here, but this is in and of itself simply not valid. New daughter articles are created from sections of existing articles every day. It's one of the ways the encyclopedia grows. Two articles on the exact same topic, or forking for POV reasons, are always bad - but breaking up a topic into smaller sections is not bad. You should present your argument that the sources and the situation make it inadvisable in this case, in a new and full merger discussion. You may indeed achieve consensus for your view. I don't know who's right. But your job is to persuade people; you can't validly fall back on "It's a fork therefore it's bad" unless there is a compelling reason for urgency ... because people have opposed you on the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

[21] this is the content forking I was talking about. It is valid to say that was content forking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "New daughter articles are created from sections of existing articles every day." — Of course, I'm not contesting that. The description of the movements of both versions of the Magnificat is identical. There are some minor differences, but adding a description that is valid for both versions of the same music in one article, and not in the other is a content fork. Note "The description of the movements refers to both the E-flat major version (BWV 243a) and the D-major version (BWV 243), unless otherwise indicated." here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully expect you to make a new merger proposal once I've finished; make a good case and people will agree with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully expect you to stop reverting, this discussion isn't finished. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what the urgency is in starting to revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm typing as fast as I can. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You closed your own merger discussion and there was substantial opposition. A new discussion needs to happen; you have not persuaded me that the merger you performed was urgently needed. You may persuade others, but in the meantime, it's more important to do it right: to give consensus a chance to form. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerda agreed the main article should be at Magnificat (Bach), please stop your reverts immediately, while you're not even clear on what we're actually discussing here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose a new merger and discuss there. The old discussion was prematurely closed. I've done my best to restore the earlier situation. Now put up proposed merger templates and start a new discussion. This is not the place. If you can make a compelling case for urgency, an uninvolved admin will merge/move things in response. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(Back from rehearsal) Thank you, Yngvadottir. I didn't want any discussion here, just present the facts and see if an outsider - like you - can understand them. I am not familiar with merges, but would expect the following: The one who wants a merge has a defined place for a discussion and presents his reasons there. Previous discussions should not count, a person new to the discussion should be able to grasp it from the merge request and not be required to study other material. I would hope that the arguments are numbered, to facilitate comments. - I think that the merge tags here were not accompanied by such a declaration for weeks, and it was not helpful. I missed a notice to the most relevant project and did it myself, but was promptly called canvassing. (Nobody there seemed interested.) I think closing discussions is fine on your own talk page, but it takes someone independent for formal requests, no? - Late here, and I am busy this weekend. Have a good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Which language do you understand, Francis? I only said that I have no time for the next days, that doesn't mean others can't discuss, - how can they discuss a merge of articles they don't see? Consider to revert yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I know you're busy, but Francis has said you were ok with merging something to something. Has that changed or was that a misunderstanding? If either, please spell out for me which articles need separating or which edits need reverting so that the discussion can occur. @Francis Schonken: I take it you have started a new discussion. Good. If it turns out you misunderstood Gerda, or that she has changed her mind after consideration, please respect the consensus-forming process by not reverting me again. I am acting here as an admin, in case you hadn't quite realized that. A new discussion is needed. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I said that I am ok with the name (!) Magnificat (Bach) for the D major, but that says nothing about merging. - I would even have moved it myself if I could. As in the discussion: We have Ave Maria (Bruckner) for the best known one, but still separate articles for two others by the same composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to be very clear, I'm afraid. I am acting purely administratively here, all the more so because I cannot keep the names and numbers clear. Are you saying you have been misinterpreted and that this revert should be undone in order for the participants in the merger discussion to be able to judge the merits of the argument? I see that Francis Schonken has now reverted me in a series of other places too. Or are you happy with that revert? I don't require an immediate response, I know you are busy, but I need a clear road map on what you agree with and what you wish to be changed back so that the discussion can be clear and fair. I'd rather not post this at a noticeboard or run to another admin to help me because I think my lack of clue on the topic helps me stay demonstrably neutral, but it does have the disadvantage that you need to spell things out. It may require a list of diffs of reverts that need to be made to take us back to a situation where the issue(s) can be properly discussed. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit was by far not the last one ;) - Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 should be moved to Magnificat (Bach), - at present the discussion is on the talk of it. - Otherwise I am sorry that I can't give you a clear road, because changes happen faster than I can follow. - I am afraid that Wikipedia has greater problems then content appearing on two articles. I feel badly represented by all arbitrators but one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're confused, imagine how I am. Perhaps you should set out at the discussion what you would like restored to its place where, as well as why? Alternatively, post there a list of diffs showing the merging that you consider unjustified. But I take it that the one you just specified is the one you have both referred to as having agreed on? Is there any other edit that really should be reverted in order for people to know what they are discussing? We can wait until you have time on Tuesday, unless you consider something needs to be changed urgently in order for the discussion to happen. (I agree that there are many grave problems on Wikipedia. But this is this problem, getting this discussion to happen in an orderly fashion and reach consensus. We can't fix all the problems at once.) Now signing off for bed, sorry all. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, "I think there's no objection to revert this and this" as I wrote here

See also the {{copied multi}} template at Talk:Magnificat (Bach) which explains why a page move from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 is not necessary imho: the content I put at Magnificat (Bach) with this edit is as much coming from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 as it originated in Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. See Wikipedia:Merge page history#Parallel versions why and how this is the most correct procedure in this case.

Classic page move from Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 → Magnificat (Bach) (without the talk page!) would be a possibility too, but less correct, see previous paragraph.

When intervening in a discussion (which I'm thankful for Yngvadottir!) try to see the common ground too, which helps in deflating tensions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to specific diffs. However, having determined that there needs to be a new discussion, I am trying to ensure conditions for it are set up fairly and clearly, not to intervene in it. As such, it's not my business to determine what the common ground is, nor do I have the necessary knowledge. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Doing reverts is "intervening" whether you like the word or not.

Please don't "intervene" in the consensus part of the discussion (which is a part where the discussions are de facto concluded, so no longer a discussion)

I could be sharper on the fact that this was a no-consensus page move with a deceptive edit summary by Gerda which should be undone, but I choose not to... in order to deflate tensions. If you want to go back to "pre-discussion" state, then indeed that page move should be undone (but I prefer the "parallel versions" solution which is technically more correct).

So please undo this and this, and please also warn @BlueMoonset: not to engage in no-consensus reverts any further.

Cluelessness is a possible defense for such no-consensus interventions, but imho a weak defense.

Further, indeed the discussion regarding the content of the thing that needs to be sorted out is at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion as has already been pointed out above, this is what you set in motion, which I'm thankful for, and which is acknowledged by the other parties in the debate (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: OK, it's Tuesday, please take stock and tell me whether the articles are in a state that facilitates a fresh discussion, and if not, what is necessary for that to happen. I'm aware that there were further reverts after I had attempted to restore the prior situation, but if it's ok, it's ok. If it's not, please spell out the problem and remedy, remembering that the goal is for the new discussion to allow everyone to make their case so that a consensus can be reached. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's Tuesday, I said politely what I had to say at the merge discussion which is on the talk of a redirect. I was promptly accused of battleground behaviour, see my talk ;) - If I would tell others where that "discussion" is (of first copying content and then say it's redundant and needs to be merged) I bet I would would be accused of canvassing which happened yesterday already, for mentioning the image that I regard as the most constructive edit in a long time. I worked on Kafka, it helps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested

Hi Yngvadottir, may I ask your admin assistance for merging Draft:Magnificat (Bach) into Magnificat (Bach) with merging of page histories, using the procedure as described at Wikipedia:Merging page histories#Repair process (for admins)?

I'd like to continue updating the page on Bach's Magnificat in main space, like you said (in another context, but the same applies here): "There is no requirement for a rewrite to happen in draft space or on a talk page, and it's more transparent as well as procedurally easier to do it in main space, particularly since no one disputes the work merits its own article." [22]

I'll notify at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Draft version (where I announced the draft) that I asked you to perform this administraive task. If in your opinion whatever procedure or whatever else needs to take place before performing the merge I suggested above I'd also ask you to post your suggestions at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Draft version (in order not to fragment discussions). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider that an administrative task but an acceptance of the merge you proposed on Talk:Magnificat (Bach) but that so far found no support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I have to agree with Gerda's note below yours, such a merger would be entirely inappropriate while the discussion is ongoing. Moreover, that discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved person, preferably another administrator, so in the event it is closed in favor of the merge that admin would be the logical one to do this. I will unarchive the section at WP:AN since you have yet to post there. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to have an administrative task done. As you probably know I am active for WP:QAI, and after the two main members left and #3 is little active, I do the work of four ;) - In that function, I wrote (after a discussion on Sparrow Mass, Easter 2013) the project's view on infoboxes as my story, and said in the beginning that I wrote it. Francis must have misunderstood that and moved it and it's talk to my user space. I asked Francis to revert, supported by two others, and waited. - A friend intervened, the project page was restored by Dreadstar, however the accompanying talk is still left behind there. Could you restore it, please, possibly the version before the move, possibly to the archive that was established (not by me)? I don't quite know what to do with the present talk, another invitation (linked on several pages) to a discussion nobody seems to need, and if it is about to happen should be on neutral ground. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's really a mess. I see a massive amount of stuff at the new Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox, and although Francis' procedure is extremely disturbing, I'm reluctant to wipe out numerous post-move posts by both him and others by restoring it to the pre-move state. I'm going to ping both Dreadstar and Drmies here and will shortly be going to bed. If neither of them moves and merges that talk page while I sleep, I'll hope for a discussion tomorrow about how to get the old talk page matched up with the restored location of the project page. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dreadstar ☥ 08:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The merge discussion, if that is what it was, is closed, and the "unified" version soundly rejected, so there is no need to move anything into mainspace. If anyone wants that draft in their own user space, then can ask a willing admin to userfy. Hey Dreadstar, fancy seeing you here--small world! Drmies (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Savoir-Faire is everywhere!. Good to see you too Drmies..! Dreadstar ☥ 02:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Although after reading the rest of Klondike Kat and looking for other Drmies Do-Right Canadian hero possibilities, I decided the best route would be Dread and Drmies Mckenzie, it has beer perks... :) Dreadstar ☥ 02:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Not that you're Canadian or even English, in case anyone thinks I'm outing you, well, heck, not that either...ok, I'll stop now... :) Dreadstar ☥ 02:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, that's funny (the mice in the beer bottle skit). My kids have been enjoying the Dead Parrot sketch, actually. And no, I'm not Canadian, though I am an honorary Tamil, if that helps anything. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks, Drmies. @Gerda Arendt: Are there any articles that need moving back over edited redirects? I am thoroughly and completely confused, so you would need to make a very clear list for me. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  - Gawd, I don't know--it's all too complicated. Yes, Gerda, make a list--a short, simple one please. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    - First: thank you! - No article needs to be moved. The present Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 could be named Magnificat (Bach) (again), as the first point of reference for readers, and easier to find when you don't know the key. If duplication of content is a problem, that article should be trimmed, linking to BWV 243a where it the content was taken from. This concerns mostly the composition history which could be summarized, and the details on the movements to which could be linked. Actually, every single movement in the table could link to the description in the other article, a way of doing it that works for Haydn's The Creation structure: you click on a work in the table, are in the other article, return when you read enough there. To may understanding, that is not more difficult for the reader than jumping back and forth within the same article, - I bet some don't even notice. Again thank you. I will return to improving/sourcing BWB 243a after two other projects, and would like to leave the decision what should stay in BWV 243 to others. - I have no idea how to sort out the mess of discussions on three article talk pages, perhaps archive under Magnificat waste of time? - Magnificat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    - A few hours later: may the readers enjoy it (the competition), I expanded BWV 243a, and Francis had practically made BWV 243 like the draft article Drmies deleted (had done so even before the closing). We have now under the title of D major everything! I don't mind, but wasn't there much complaining about repetition before? What I don't like is the giant combined table of three version, but I may be biased and lacking the intelligence needed to understand it. - I think a link from the later to the earlier work would also be a nice service to our readers. The other way round, there are several. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      - Gerda, the discussion was closed as a rejection of the merge. In view of that, any such changes should be reverted, and so should Francis' initial move of material from one article into the other. It will be an hour or two before things at my end are calm enough for me to do such picky work, but I need you to tell me what article should be moved (back) to what title, and you or someone else should then undo Francis' merge of material from your newer article into the other, as you say above should probably be done, and as you initially mentioned at the very start of this section. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Pinging Drmies after looking at Francis' contributions today; however, as I say, I have off-wiki things to attend to for a while and this will require concentration. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
        I will do nothing, feel involved, and also have other topics, with a deadline. I really don't care if material is duplicated, if it helps the reader. The table, however, is so confusing that I think it doesn't help the reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#RfC?, - no comment, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks for the notification, although Francis did ping me. You told me you hadn't wanted a revert before, and I understood that you and Francis were working together after Drmies closed the second merge discussion. And you know I can only find my way around this topic with a guide rope. I'm also very much not a part of that WikiProject. So I'm not going to respond to that RfC. I see there that you still want Francis to revert his adding material from one article to the other at the very beginning. My one piece of advice would be that it's pretty clear he doesn't want to do that, for whatever reason (including that it may now be complicated), and in view of the results of both merge discussions and since you appear to be most qualified, I suggest you go ahead and do it yourself rather than waiting for him to change his mind. Beyond that, I don't have any wisdom really; it may be appropriate to simply suggest that RfC be closed, since it looks to me like a third attempt to ask for the same merge, and the issue was in my opinion rightly decided at the level of a "local consensus" and that very recently. The Wikiproject was notified and I saw others participating in that second discussion who had not in the first, so far as I know - and it was very recent. But that's for you (and the other Wikiproject members) to decide. And it's for you (and other editors of the 2 articles) to decide what you want to do about the table, which I believe is a separate issue. I've pinged Drmies since he closed the merge discussion; he may or may not weigh in. I hope both of you will forgive me if you also notified him on his talk page; I've just got online at work and haven't looked at anything but my Echo notifications yet :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not clear, sorry. I see that Francis is still dreaming of a merge, and believe it's a waste of time, actually for everybody even looking at the amount of background writing.

I don't want Francis to revert anything in BWV 243, because I don't mind a certain duplication, but IF (!!) duplication is a problem, it's not BWV 243a that needs to change but the other one.
There is no RvC, so far it's only the question to have one.

No need for you to do anything, - I was just so surprised by the same soup reheated a third time. - I read in the meantime that Francis believes all on Magnificat has to be handled in one article because sources do it like that. However, those are book sources, and one great advantage of an online encyclopedia is that things can be kept separate but be linked. From Magnificat, we link to the composer, the text, to comparable works, - why not from one version to the other, ten years part and distinctly different??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for indefinitely blocking that SparkUpAFatOne (or whatever it is) person. I felt too involved to do so myself - was just wondering how best to proceed when I saw your action. Best wishes! Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted

This guy. New user, much good faith edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_spinning - but he made a list of the article. Hafspajen (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

..He needs cookies and a cute admin, but the article looked weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pen_spinning&diff=637284418&oldid=637284147 Hafspajen (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please if you have some time leave him a personal message, can't help feeling that he won't get a thing why I reverted him. Hafspajen (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Renaming?

Hi. I translated a short German article, Orthodoxe Heilig-Geist-Kirche (Vilnius), so Diliff could stick some photos on it, but alas I misnamed it Church of the Holy Spirit, Vilnius, whereas it should have been Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit, Vilnius to differentiate it from an RC church (in Vilnius) of the same name. Is there a way to change the name of the article? Or should I just create a new one? Thanks! Sca (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Move button. I went ahead and did it for you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Ya learn smth new every day. Thanks! Sca (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hello hope you are well Zafiraman Lets talk about it 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Palais Equitable

I don't feel strongly about the piped link, but it's easier to keep track of which pages have been checked and fixed (from "what links here") if it is downcased. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I figured you were coming from a list. However, I consider it does no harm to leave it alone in piped links, and it can be considered a signal that not everyone agrees with the MOS decision, which led to several expert editors leaving. If consensus is to change someday, such evidence is good to have. So, thanks for asking, but I see no compelling reason to change it and one to leave it. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kajaani

Do you speak Finnish at all? This article badly needs to be brought up to proper GA status. I can try to help out but I suspect most sources will be in Finnish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no I don't. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate this? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can, and it looks as if I'll be able to access at least one of the sources, but I have some stuff to do first in teh next few hours. Did you track down the Dolgorouky guy? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

-

Now there is the guy even I think puts too many pics into an article. Talk:Buddha's hand - and is not even responding on talk, jut adding even more......Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That does seem to have rather a lot of images, although he seems to be good with the syntax. I see he's been posting on talk pages on other topics, so you could try pinging him. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Syntax?

Oh, he edited that page like 12 times since ... He just prefer not to notice it. Hafspajen (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking regarding that link - I can follow until "legal", which is presumably the wrong word :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just that he say he is no good at syntax. Hafspajen (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Three musicians

Just created this - The Three Musicians and found this - without realizing it was a draft. Used some sentences - here draft. But I can't credit a draft, now can I? Also wonder why is that a draft since June this year. (Some of the article text is based on common knowledge about artist, if you don't happen to find it exactly in some ref) Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should credit the draft. I would do so on the talk page, saying "Some sentences in this article are based on the following draft: [link]". If you took references from there, or whatever, say so. By the way, the Brown book is surely available in English? I will now go and look. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You can use the following template on the talk page:

{{translated page | de | Benutzer:Philip Schmalfeldt/Die Drei Musikanten | version=133131845}}

which will render to {{translated page | de | Benutzer:Philip Schmalfeldt/Die Drei Musikanten |version=133131845 |category=no}}

De728631 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but he's only drawing on it in part - he based it mostly on the es. article, and already has a template for that. De, since you're here, this is a bit strange - Philip Schmalfeldt doesn't appear to have done anything else except create that nice draft, which never went live. I was about to drop him a note on his talk page over there thanking him for it, mentioning that the new English article is drawing on it, and asking whether he would mind if we mainspaced it; could you greet him instead on our behalf, since you can actually write German (!), and what do you think about taking it live? I know they are picky over there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The full-size version of this template is more precise. You can add |small=no to the string above and get

{{translated page | de | Benutzer:Philip Schmalfeldt/Die Drei Musikanten | version=133131845 |small=no |category=no}}

which hints at a partial translation.

As to Schmalfeldt, I'm going to contact him and will have a look at his draft and how it could be proceeded. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Philip Schmalfeldt has been inactive since 2012 so I'm not very confident to get any feedback from him. I have however asked another user who last edited that page what they think of it. Imo the latter parts of the German draft contain a lot of OR and so we should focus on getting only the first few sections live. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good deal :-) (I hope we can lure him back) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Karl Friedrich Schinkel Allegorie auf Beuth, - what is Beuth

Here he is on the ground wearing a winter coat (left)

Another great art article that is not going to be nominated at DYK. I got really mad at them because of that Barbie thing. Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still furious about that, and I can understand your response to that and the Church Niagara Falls. It's a shame, because DYK needs nice articles to survive, and I strongly disagree that reducing the number is a good thing. And you and friends have contributed some interesting stuff. It's a damned shame. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if DYK want to survive, they might reconsider their ways. How come Serten is now Serten II- se his talk-. Maybe you can help him. Hafspajen (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Serten's had some sort of technical problem, unfortunately I can't help with that. DYK's situation is ... a big fat wikipolitical mess. As to Beuth, I found this (pp. 91-92), so presumably Christian Peter Wilhelm Beuth. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is he the one guy on the horse? Hafspajen (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know if you can see that GoogleBooks link? He's apparently looking down on a vision of industrialised Germany. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Hafspajen (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't look like someone riding naked on a Pegasus to me.

Hafspajen (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, of all stupid things... indeed it IS him. Hafspajen (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you imagine this -> guy doing ->THAT?

Hafspajen (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently in 16 years he grew up and found some clothes :-) I hadn't realised Schinkel could be so whimsical, but it does fit. (And I also hadn't looked at our English article until just now. Good gods, what a miserable stub.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Clothes suit's him. Hafspajen (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

well, yes, Schinkel is much LONGER in German. Hafspajen (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

HOWEVER -I have to point it out that our article is MUCH better illustrated.

Hafspajen (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I daresay '-) But I meant our article on Beuth. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes our article is a miserable little stub considering who he was. Hafspajen (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Any page - watchers, the guy is one of the most prominent architects of Germany. So that's the way it is. Hafspajen (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm yes, the Schinkel article is underdeveloped. But he has loads of fans, so I'll leave him to them. Beuth on the other hand ... goes on my list. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm Schnitzler

Dear Friend, dear Yngvadottir, Please help me to translate the article Friedrich Wilhelm Schnitzler. You are very professionel translate. Thank you very much and i wish you mery christmas. Best Regards Rahel25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahel25 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All Oxonians alert

Humboldtian education ideal. Serten's II. Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC) By the way, we should start a campanj. every week leave messages to 74 like:COME BACK!! Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, good for you two. I will eventually copyedit :-) I have a draft started for poor Urlaub. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning"Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia!
13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit ? Hafspajen (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough - they are indeed commonly called "fairy lights" in some places.

And happy Lussidag to you too :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

One has the tendency to drink too much glögg on a day like this...

Albert Edelfelt, Finnish painter ^{^{^{^{has not one ref}}}}Hafspajen (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Urlaub has no other works that are much useful, bad scans and difficult to use. Hafspajen (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Check this. Hafspajen (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a small Ingres! (Although I think those dimensions should be cm not mm). He's taking the colors from portraits of the period, right? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Man, pastel-box - no article.

Georg Anton Urlaub (1713–1759).. give me an article, please... can't you notice how talented I am... - Sorry, laddo, you'll have to wait, first the evil doctor needed me to finish off a Swedish ensign, and ol' Beuth is still naked up there Yngvadottir (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

His luck was bad, and it continues so - both the pages on his life referenced at the bottom of the de. article have vanished, and neither was saved at the Wayback Machine, leaving just the newspaper article. So if I do him it will have to be a brief summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

..he has a nice pastel box...Hafspajen (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And Thüngersheim has a new website. Click here for the lecture on G A Urlaub. De728631 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Good ol' Beuth will be still naked, he is not easy to put any cloth on... like the Indians. (so I read in Serten's novels....) Hafspajen (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to let you know, sadly but most seriously - Sweden has no culture to talk about. Culture of Sweden - the worst article. Hafspajen (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- That could be a lot worse. I note that all the sections link to more detailed articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Georg Anton Urlaub is now in main space. I have left the gallery as it is in the German article. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

to check them all

Northeaster (painting). Can't access the MET, so it didn't came out so well. [the link is broken] - to Metropolitan Museum of Art site. Hafspajen (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

Well, I fiddled around with it. I was able to access the Met's site, so I added the accession number and a provenance section. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Yngvadottir. What do you think about this edit? Hafspajen (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted that and the following one. I notice we have no redirect Lussi - I would have put it in, pointing to the section on the Nordic countries (I believe they all use that version of the name), only the article has a very strange earlier #Lussi section with a not very good reference, saying some stuff that I believe is not entirely correct. I suggest you make the redirect and point it to where makes sense to you, and consider rewriting that earlier section more briefly, or incorporating it entirely into the section on the Lussi observance. The runic calendars that marked December 13 (the old solstice) with a candle image should also be mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Aj. Hafspajen (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

St Lucy's Day# Lussi? Hafspajen (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, St Lucy's Day#Lussi - the one reference is even marked with "can we find a better one" and then the word is not used again in the sections on the Lussi ceremony and song, which is where I believe the redirect should point to. I'm also not at all sure of the validity of that material about demons and Lussi as some female demon; but people will be searching for Lussi and expecting to find the Nordic celebration (especially as done in Sweden), and its association with the old date of solstice and with the calendars needs to be made clear ... however, that is not an article I should edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why a redirect? Why not article? Hafspajen (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of these edits? Hafspajen (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That first one was good until they changed the name of the country :-) I see SergeWoodzing fixed that. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Lussi

Lussinatta inträffade den 13 december och det var då som Lussi, eller Lussekäringen, en kvinnovarelse med onda egenskaper likt en kvinnlig demon eller häxa, kom ridande genom luften med sina följeslagare som kallades för lussiferda. I vissa trakter, särskilt i Västergötland, handlade i stället om en man, Lussegubben. Lucialegenden var känd i Norden först på 1200-talet, och först på 1300-talet var namnet allmänt känt som namn på dagen. Lussi är med all sannolikhet en personifikation av dagen, utan koppling till helgonet. Under tiden mellan lussinatta och julen trodde man att troll och onda andar var särskilt aktiva utomhus. Det var synnerligen farligt att vara ute under själva lussinatta. Barn som hade begått illdåd behövde akta sig extra noga, då Lussi kunde komma ner för skorstenen och röva bort dem. Och om vissa av julens förberedelser inte blev klara, kunde Lussi straffa gården i fråga.<noinclude><ref>''Lussi, Tomas og Tollak: tre kalendariske julefigurar'', Brynjulf Alver, 1976</ref></noinclude>

Olof Rudbeck d.ä. gjorde i sin Atlantica ett försök att koppla föreställningen mellan en Lussi och den grekiska mytologins Demeter. Denna identifikation upprepades senare av Erland Hofsten i början av 1700-talet, men anses idag som ett utslag av Göticism. Tyvärr ger Rudbeck inte någon beskrivning av Lussitraditionen såsom den såg ut i slutet av 1600-talet.<ref name="ReferenceA">''Lucia och lussebrud i Värmland'', ur ''Svenska kulturbilder'' Ny följd, häfte 5, Hilding Celander, 1936</ref>

Liknande traditioner har funnits även i andra länder, bland annat Böhmen.<ref name="SU693" />

I Värmland uppstod en något annan tradition. Erland Hofsten berättade i sin otryckta Beskrifning öfwer Wermeland i början av 1700-talet om vad han uppfattade som ett Warimanniens ålder til upbruk och beboande, i dy thet kan gifwa wid handen thenna fäst här hafwa satt sig förrän någon annan ort av Swea och Giöta, emädan the ther om eij enss hört, men the emot then sedan af hedenhöös här warit brukat. Tyvärr ges ingen utförligare beskrivning av vad festen gick ut på. Hofstens teorier om festens hedniska ursprung är dock med all förmodan överdriven.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

I den första tryckta Värmlandsbeskrivningen, E. Fernows Beskrifning öfwer Wärmeland 1773, ges dock en fylligare beskrivning av Lussetraditionen i Värmland: Man skall den dagen wara uppe at äta bittida om ottan, hos somlige tör ock et litet rus slinka med på köpet. Sedan lägger man sig at sofwa, och därpå ätes ny frukost. Hos Bönderne kallas detta 'äta Lussebete', men hos de förnämare 'fira Luciäottan'. Medan Hofsten beskrev seden som endast förekommande hos allmogen, säger Fernow att den förekom även på herrgårdarna.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> En annan, äldre folklig tradition som levde på landsbygden var lussebruden. Det kunde en ogift kvinna i trakten eller på gården utnämnas till och därmed bli huvudperson i den lokala varianten av lussefirandet. Den verkar även ha spridit sig utanför Värmland. 1791 firades Lucia vid den Värmländska nationen i Lund. Prosten C. Fr. Nyman berättare i den otryckta Märkvärdigheter uti Ingelstads härad från en resa i Västergötland 1764, hur han då stötte på den för honom helt okända luciatraditionen: Rätt som jag låg i min bästa sömn, hördes en Vocalmusique utan för min dörr, hvaraf jag väcktes. Strax derpå inträdde först ett hvit-klädt fruntimmer med gördel om lifvet, liksom en vinge på hvardera axeln, stora itända ljus i hwar sin stora silfversljusstake, som sattes på bordet, och strax derpå kom en annan med ett litet dukadt bord, försedt med allehanda kräseliga, äteliga och våtvaror, som nedsattes mitt för sängarna... det är Lussebete. Det är första kända dokumentationen av något som kan liknas vid en Lucia. 1791 firades Luciadagen på Åkerö slott enligt hävdvunnen sed. Ebba Sparre har beskrivit i ett brev till sin syster hur hon väcktes av fiolspel, och då hon öppnade ögonen fick se två av tjänsteflickorna med förvaltarens dotter och en hushållerska komma in i kammaren, helt vitklädda med blomstergirlanger på huvudena och bärande mellan sig ett slags altare, med en korg i guldpapper och med 16 brinnande ljus.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

Den första gången en lucia med ljus på huvudet finns dokumentariskt belagd är från 1820, och det handlade då om en manlig lucia. En bruksinspektor i Skinnskatteberg berättar: ... då sex rätter voro förtärde och endast den sjunde, kakan, återstod, öfverraskades gästerna af en egendomlig syn. Dubbeldörrarna till förstugan uppslogos, och in trädde en dräng klädd i hvitt lakan, med en krans af ljus på hufvudet och bärande en väldig bål med glöggus. Egentligen borde det varit en tjenstflicka, ty han skulle föreställa Sancta Lucia, men, förmodligen för bördans skull, hade därtill i senare tider tagits en karl.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

Hmm, so that's the source of the spook stuff. I had only briefly checked the Swedish article. I don't think it merits a separate article, but now I see why that section is in the English. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Morgenstern: Fisches Nachtgesang

The Night Song of the Fish

ˉ
˘ ˘
ˉ ˉ ˉ
˘ ˘ ˘ ˘
ˉ ˉ ˉ
˘ ˘ ˘ ˘
ˉ ˉ ˉ
˘ ˘ ˘ ˘
ˉ ˉ ˉ
˘ ˘ ˘ ˘
ˉ ˉ ˉ
˘ ˘
ˉ

by Christian Morgenstern

.

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.com/Morgenstern-Fiches-Nachtgesang-Night-Song/dp/9638278234|title=|publisher=|accessdate=}}</ref>Hafspajen (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Fidelity , depicted from the series Five Cardinal Virtues, c. 1767, by Suzuki Harunobu

ROFL. Edelfelt will have to wait a bit - I need to re-proofread Humboldtian education, and User:Yngvadottir/Georg Anton Urlaub needs a bit more work before it can go live. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

lichtung (poem) ;) Serten II (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For Maryat Lee and aaaallll those other articles you have written, improved, rescued. You put me to shame. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Eeeek! I haven't even got the lesbianism into it yet! Yngvadottir (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It don't matter. I already nominated at DYK and did a review. I found some more material in JSTOR. Fascinating woman--I wonder if LadyofShalott knows about her. I got material to write up some individual plays as well: French made her his cottage industry, it appears. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and there should be quite a bit more newspaper coverage out there, including a front-page article in Variety. I'd say Dope! definitely merits an article of its own. Thanks for the DYK nom, though if the reviewer guts it, I'll take my name off again. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you saw A Double-Threaded Life. What we really need, though, is Ecotheater. And I need to finish grading, and Alabama needs my support against Wichita State, so I'm closing the netbook for a bit. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping us to fight vandalism. Thanks once again. BelieveinHardwork (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maryat Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Theological Seminary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)