User:Lingzhi/archive

Proposed FAC mentoring scheme

Following discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage and with the agreement of the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have finalized a "page of instructions" relating to the proposed voluntary mentoring scheme for new FAC nominators. The final draft can be viewed here.

We hope to begin the scheme shortly, on a trial basis. However, I think it would be unwise to go live until we have around a dozen or so potential mentors signed up – I hope many more than that will sign eventually. As your contribution to the discusssion indicated that you generally favoured the idea of a voluntary mentoring scheme, I am now inviting you to add your name to the list of possible mentors on the instruction page. I emphasize that the extent to which you commit yourself to this scheme is entirely a matter for you; you incur no specific obligation by adding your name. If anything about the scheme is not clear to you, please drop me a note and I'll try to explain. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Others would be more helpful than I could. I can ce tolerably well (probably not the best, but very far from the worst) and am totally unafraid to dive into the thicket of references and notes. Also enjoy finding sources for information, including adding new info or verifying existing. But I know nothing about several other aspects, ESPECIALLY images. I have asked Nikkimaria for help once or twice and she has given me tips, but overall to be honest, if there were a mentor program, I'd almost rather be a mentee than a mentor. :-)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You underestimate yourself, Ling. When I was a novice editor oh, so long ago, you were most helpful to me. Mind you, you were called Ling Nut then. I still think you could help less experienced editors, so please be a good boy and reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

NoCiteBar

Many thanks for your helpful copy-editing on my essay. I don't expect you'll agree with all of the conclusions I come to, but it is gratifying that you've obviously taken the trouble to read it. Could I impose further on you by asking if you felt it might be useful enough to justify moving it into Wikipedia: namespace? Regards --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have essays that I never moved into Wikipedia space (three are linked in the poem beneath the picture on my user page). Whether you do or don't is honestly kinda a matter of personal preference. Having said that, I found several holes in your logic. To my mind at least, they seem to be large holes. I am kinda taken up by real-life things at this exact moment, but some time in the next day or two I will try to rebut some of your arguments. Would you prefer that I did it on the talk page of your essay, or on your talk page, or here?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll postpone any decision to move it until I've had a chance to consider your holes. There's really no rush, but I'd suggest doing your rebuttals at the essay talk page (mainly so that I can find them again at a later date), please. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Roman military history Graduating from the Incubator

I have gone through all the steps to graduate us from the incubator, and added a userbox for us, if you would like to add it to your user page, please do so.

This user is a member of the
Roman and Byzantine military history task force.

Iazyges (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Template editor

Hi Ling, as you're commenting on templates quite a bit, I've added the template-editor user right to your account in case it's helpful. Best, SarahSV ^(talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks SlimVirgin!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

MLA

Hi Lingzhi, I meant to get to this earlier in the week but there's been a minor emergency. Anyway, here's a link to information about MLA 8th ed (ironically one of their examples is to a Jane Austen source). I will get the new manual once things settle down and I have a little more time. I have, however, looked around at various library guides and read as much as I can about the changes.

From what I can tell the changes are quite positive (in my opinion). They've dropped the requirement for "web" or "print" and instead now want to see a url, i.,e a stable url to a Jstor article. They have changed how the spelling for volume/issue, i.,e dropped the bolding from two editions ago (I think off the top of my head), dropped the colons from the last edition (again off the top of my head but could be reversed) and now simply want to see vol. xx, no. 1,.

Another change, which is rather big but quite good is that they want to know where an article lives. For example, this book contains many essays published elsewhere. MLA would want author information, editor information, etc., so as to know where a specific piece of criticism comes from. Equally if I were to find and download any of these essays from a database such as Jstor or Ebscohost, then they would want to know that information. It's important information because paginations change according to formats, (and these days with online sources sometimes there is no pagination), but essentially the most important point is that the author is primary and what they call a "container", the book or database where the piece lives, is secondary.

In terms of short notes, their intext citations, they really are very forgiving, using language such as "typically", "generally" and so on without any "you must do such and such". Usually they want to see author and page number (they did way with p. or pp. in the previous edition (or maybe even the one before)). If there are two authors with the same surname, say Smith, John or Smith, Jane, then they'd like to see some type of differentiation. They suggest a title, but it's not written in stone. Usually I use dates and no one has come after me yet.

Anyway sorry for the long post. I hope it helps. I'll let you know when I have the 8th ed in hand. Victoria (tk) 22:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) @Victoriaearle: Sorry so late to reply, busy lately.... THanks!!!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay to finish Bibliography on Jane Austen?

Lingzhi After so much talk on Jane Austen talk page, is it okay to add the last few sources mentioned in the article but not yet included the Bibliography? I found them, and have been waiting for the moment to add them. Readers of the current article could then then link to all sources mentioned in the "short citations" that appear in the Reference list. The article is nearly finished as to clear connection from short citation to full citation issues. They are ready in my Sandbox User:Prairieplant/sandbox, for Mark Twain, Sir Walter Scott and one Southam essay. I make no predictions about the future of the article; it is the present article that concerns me as time rolls on and people keep coming to read about Jane Austen. I would be pleased to hear from you in any event, on my talk page or yours, or the Jane Austen talk page as you wish. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue

I like the blue colour but the message saddens me. I was about to ask you to look at my FAC, remembering valuable comments from you. - How do you like our music? (Click on "listen" on top of my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I wasn't involved in the Infobox debacle tha caused editors to quit, but your name was dropped in the falout. All I have to say about the Infobox Crusades is this: This. Shit. Must. Stop. Now.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

+ 1. But maybe the people crusading dont know they are crusading. Unlikely as that sounds...it seems probable. Ceoil (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

- There are no people crusading, and certainly not me. People who see a crusade see a phantom. I won't repeat that, said enough on my talk. Off until the 22nd, at least. There's life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So why do you maintain a checklist? Crying holiday is fine, but you are hurting other people. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I maintain a list of articles where infoboxes were reverted. What's wrong about that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We might take a closer look. While the list has only article, type of infobox with currently yes or no, date of addition, we might look at the reverts also.

Article	comment
Agrippina (opera) FA	added 8 Jan, reverted 6 August by principal editor, no discussion
Rinaldo (opera) FA	added 9 Jan, reverted 6 August by principal editor, no discussion
Pierre Boulez	added 5 Feb, reverted same day, discussion
Georges Bizet FA	added 8 Feb by so far unknown editor, reverted same day, no discussion
Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm FA	added 9 Feb by a different so far unknown editor in several steps, reverted same day by principal editor, discussion
Claudio Monteverdi	added 9 Feb by a third so far unknown editor, reverted 16 minutes later, no discussion
Fidelio	added 21 Feb, reverted same day by principal editor, no discussion
Pelléas et Mélisande (opera)	added 17 Jul, reverted less than an hour later by principal editor, no discussion
Orlando paladino	added 15 Jul, reverted 25 July, no discussion
Frankie Grande	added 30 Jul by a forth so far unknown editor, reverted same day, no discussion
Giulio Cesare	added 1 Aug, reverted same day by principal editor, discussion
Handel's lost Hamburg operas FA	added 2 Aug, reverted same day, discussion
Guerilla Cricket	added 3 Aug by a fifth so far unknown editor, reverted same day, no discussion
La princesse jaune	added 29 Aug, reverted 1 Sep, no discussion
Die Fledermaus	added 31 Aug, reverted 1 Sep, no discussion

What I see: there were not many reverts in 2016, only five of the few were a FA. The reverted infoboxes were added by six different editors. Most reverts were accepted without even a discussion. Asking once more: what's wrong about keeping the memory of where that happened? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gerda, I have a suggestion. As a conceptual twin to this table, please do make a second table which lists all editors who have quit because of infobox arguments, when they quit, and a comment section regarding their number of FAs, GAs, other contributions. I'm sure other editors will gladly help you add info. Then look at that second table carefully and ask yourself the much larger question: what's wrong with the first table?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I miss GFHandel who left over the Bach discussion of 2013. I like what Cassianto and SchroCat are doing. I miss Tim and have no idea why he didn't follow through on this. Please note that none of the articles is by one of the three, they also were none of the reverters. Where do you see any connection? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's nowhere near being the full list of editors who have left because of infobox arguments... And it does not matter whether or not I see a connection; it matters whether those editors saw a connection between falling afoul of Infobox Crusaders and their retirement (and I'll give you a spoiler alert: they certainly did).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Back to before: there are no crusaders. There were six independent editors adding infoboxes, they were reverted, and they took it. It seems to be unpopular to look at facts instead of opinions. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that another arb case will be opened regarding infoboxes at some point in the relatively near future. At that time you can try to marshal evidence to make the case that there has been a series of unfortunate and unrelated events rather than a running conflict. I wish you all the best of luck in your efforts to do so. While we wait for that expected case, perhaps you should ask yourself, "Why are so many people angry at me, personally? Is there something i can do differently to avoid stirring up so much animosity? Is a mere infobox worth all these consequences, the retirements, the arb cases, the animosity, and so on? Is it? Really? "  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to look at my talk and archives and see that most editors are not angry at me, If you follow the links above you will see that Cassianto and Gavin are not angry at me. I miss Dreadstar most, who blocked himself over Laurence Olivier which he had protected when edit warring happened over the hidden notice. I thought we learned since. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

ps: life is too short --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"will see that Cassianto and Gavin are not angry at me" eerrmmmm..... Perhaps it would be best if you don't try to double-guess what my thoughts are about other editors, particularly those involved in the ownership of the MoS or who aggressively push the point on IBs. I think you would be on much safer ground if you left my name out of your conversations: I am leaving for a reason, after all. - Gavin (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Ceoil, Lingzhi (nice to meet you); Gerda, is there a reason why you pinged me? Why are you bothering Lingzhi with this? I reverted a box on Dahl as I thought the box did some good; please don't think for a minute that I'm relenting against your silly crusade. I'm not. The moment Burke and Hare murders has passed FAC, I'm off to join Tim for a glass of sherry down at his local. And it's all thanks to the infobox henchmen who operate around here. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I expressed sadness about semi-retirement, no more. I was introduced to Lingzhi (Ling Nut) in 2012 and have good memories. Can we just stop mentioning the dividing topic, and work on content? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm semi-retired as I have an active FAC and I have no interest about doing anything else. The blue tag will soon turn to black, so don't worry. Secondly, it was you who opened this thread by saying: " I wasn't involved in the Infobox debacle tha[sic] caused editors to quit". So I'm confused why you think everyone else is mentioning it? Cassianto^Talk 22:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You may want to look a little closer who wrote and signed what. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this cryptic conundrum means; just stop with the constant references to infobox discussions. Cassianto^Talk 00:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Then I will spell it out for you: I didn't mention a certain word to be avoided, the next edit - not by me - brought it up. You (all) please stop thinking that I have only one topic, while my first topic is music, second praise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) @Gerda Arendt: And far, far more importantly: In my opinion, you would be doing Wikipedia as a whole an inestimably valuable favor, with a huge net benefit to the entire encyclopedia, if you forget that infoboxes even exist. Wipe them from your mind, completely, totally, and forever. They are no longer a productive or beneficial topic of conversation (except perhaps as required within an arb case). Never start or join or !vote in any discussion regarding infoboxes, on any page or forum. Never keep pages regarding infoboxes. Never try to add an infobox to any page... I very sincerely hope you will consider my words, spoken from the heart, and understand how beneficial that course of action would be. [As a small example from my own editing experience, many years ago I was foolish enough to get involved in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debates. When I suddenly realized the whole topic was a counterproductive fever swamp, I walked away and resolved to know it no more. To the best of my knowledge, and I would be prepared to take an oath although my memory is always poor, but to the best of my knowledge I have never touched the topic of AGW in all the years since then.]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Sorry for being impolite. Infoboxes are no topic for me, accessibility is, they are just one part of it, as taking care of colour contrasts and language templates, for example. I think my suggestions fairer as they don't single out one person but call all of us not to war. - I said that I would not mention the topic on article talk pages, - said that before you asked. Let's see what good it does: no suggestion, no perticipation in discussions. - Would you please also read this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Good work

...on VvG. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC) @Kafka Liz: Thanks back atcha, for the kind words!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

VvG

		Vincent van Gogh
		You might not realise, but the final push was was down to you rolling up your sleeves and standardising the refs. The formatting might have changed slightly, but thats really not the point. You did huge work. Thank you man. Ceoil (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I am, at most, a member somewhere in the back of the chorus, and you are a lead character! Cheers!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, whatever Ling. Did you get that holiday? We went north this year, as if the cold here in IRL wasnt enough! Ceoil (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding TWL mailing list subscription

Hi, thank you for your invaluable contributions to The Wikipedia Library as a coordinator. As you might know, it currently is a tough job to keep every coordinator updated on announcements, and to get in touch with fellow coordinators. We are beefing things up a notch for better communication among the coordinators of TWL. Flawless means of communication is crucial for the success of any team. Hence, we've decided it is essential for all coordinators (existing and new) to be subscribed to our mailing list wikipedia-librarylists.wikimedia.org. I've added your email ID (the one used for correspondence with TWL) to the subscription list of the mailing list. You are of course welcome to use a email ID of your preference unsubscribing this one. When subscribing, please make sure you include your Wikipedia username in the field "Your name (optional):" to help us keep track of subscriptions. Either way it is crucial that you are subscribed to the list.

You can change your preferences by logging into the interface here. You should have received a welcome mail which contains the password to access your account in the mailing list.

Please contact me (User:UY Scuti), or Jake (User:Ocaasi) or Nikkimaria (User:Nikkimaria) if you have any questions/concerns/issues. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Sorry to bother. But how long would the Questia request take? I am currently trying to expand an article and need all the resources I can get. Thank you so much!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussions

Hi. When you proposed Refugee and Internally displaced person for merges with Displaced person, the discussion link on the template pointed to Talk:Displaced person, whereas you started discussions at Talk:Refugee and Talk:Internally displaced person. I had already commented at Talk:Refugee when I realised this, so I have tried to centralise the discussion there, although Talk:Displaced person would have been more logical. See WP:MERGEPROP for advice on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have a firm grasp of the situation. To me at least, these merges are a no-brainer. But if you wanna discuss with others then have at it!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Back

I am back. You may not have noticed but due to real life, I probably edited less during the last weeks than you did, - nice work in your sandbox! Real life: I was involved in something major (won't disclose more) that kept me busy all summer. It would have taken supernatural powers to additionally drive some alleged conspiracy. - I was told that I reap what I sow, true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone who is allegedly all about praise should value editors over infoboxes.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Makes me sad, really, that some think I don't, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we agree on the following: I try to follow your advice of self brain wash and try to forget a certain accessibility feature, and you help me by not rubbing it back in my system? - What do you think about my translation attempt here, - I am especially unsure about the line "Lächelnd die Spur des Lebens ziehen." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Much depends on the mood of the two interlocutors. Are they chatting airily or discussing ruefully? Are they ever being ironic? Etc.: Note I have changed three of four lines

Robert: Warum plagt man sich so und lernt die halbe Welt auswendig?
Anna: Damit man genügend Vorrat zum Vergessen hat.
R: Immer von neuem?
A: Immer von neuem.
R: Was soll ich tun?
A: Lächelnd die Spur des Lebens ziehen.
R: Und dein Amt?
A: Die Wirklichkeit zu verwandeln.
R: In den Traum?
A: In das Gesetz des Daseins.
R: Sage mir nur noch eins: warum lebt man?
A: Damit man zu sterben lernt.

Robert: Why even go to the trouble of learning half the world by heart?
Anna: To store up enough to forget.
R: Again and again?
A: Again and again?
R: What should I do?
A: [Didactic] Follow the course of your life with a smile.
    [Didactic but less formal] Walk the path of life with a smile.
    [Informal, very slightly rueful] Smile and walk the path of life.
    [A little dismissive, trivial, suggests not thinking about things] Smile your way through life.
    [This quote reminds me of Wisdom by Guggenheim Grotto
R: And your duty?
A: To transform reality.
R: To a dream?
A: To the law of existence.
R: Tell me one one more thing: why do we live?
A: To learn how to die.

Thank you, good thoughts! It's from Die Stadt hinter dem Strom, a novel written to get over the horrors of Nazi Germany and the war, by someone who stayed there. The two were lovers once, but met again after death in a surreal city with surreal people and procedures. It's their final dialogue. - "Spur ziehen" is something like plowing, an activity, not only following. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I smiled! I smiled so much when read User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 15. Again and again ;) - "Again and again" is a good translation of "Immer wieder", but "Immer von neuem" has an additional aspect of when you forgot (as I had forgotten I wrote that four years ago) its no repetition, but something that seems new. If you look at my user page now, you see that I changed the red cat created back then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I smiled again, this time about what I wrote 3 years ago, mentioning my template ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Pleased that my biography of the memorable conductor, printed in full length in the program of "his concert" (with my name as the author, + the chorale "Come, O death, brother of sleep" that we all sang together then) is now on the German Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reformation Day. Reformation is the first link on my user page (below the image), to spell out RIP (Peace was first until two female editors died in 2014). 31 October is a tricky day for my, Rlevse (later PumpkinSky) left in 2010, Br'er Rabbit (before Alarbus) in 2012. Pumpkins remind me of the sadness that still causes. On that background: User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris#Precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't understand what any of that means, Gerda. But no matter. The only thing that is important is that we value editors more than we value infoboxes. And that is all.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing editors who left in 2010 and 2012 means that I do the same. I didn't even know what an infobox was in 2010, and when I met it in 2012 I found it redundant. - Look at Impact, for a change (and then I'll leave you alone): all recipients got it for some impact for humanity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: I've been trying for days to find a way to respond, while toiling through an infinite sea of idiots babbling about poems they do not understand. And I have come back from all this empty-handed. So all I can say is, thank you for saying nice things to people, and please do not turn a quest for trivial consistency into an internecine crusade.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

The Nightmare

What would you advise with the quotes here. I am inclined to absorbe into the text, or use quote boxes; as is they take up too much space. Please edit directly if you have a solution. Rgs. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to run out the door now; I'll have time to look closer later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation

I tried to translate (in OREYA) "Der Chor beeindruckt mit sanfter Nachhaltigkeit und eindringlicher Schärfe. Verblüffend ist die klangliche Homogenität, die auch bei scheinbar chaotischer Choraufstellung beibehalten wird. Die einzelnen Stimmgruppen glänzen durch eigenständige Klangfarben, die sich immer wieder neu zusammenmischen lassen." Improvements welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK ... that the journalist and author Carolin Emcke was awarded the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade in 2016? She delivered a speech "on translation", wrote "mute force" and "how we desire", and moderates "streitraum", - couldn't believe she had no article in English! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, all these appeared on DYK. I smiled today, reading again thoughts of three years ago, regarding good faith --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lingzhi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ceylon

The initial paragraph of the Prelude section of the Indian Ocean raid article was composed by an earlier editor, (a move indicated as a deletion from the latter portion of the change) and not part of the paragraph summarizing Churchill's assessment. I do not know what the original editor's source may have been, but the strategic value of Ceylon is covered on page 661 of the United States Naval Academy textbook Sea Power by E.B. Potter and Chester Nimitz. The political situation between Japan and the Sinhalese population is not discussed by Potter & Nimitz, however. Thewellman (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Eight million thanks! I was cobbling something together from Google Books; will now go to Sea Power. Tks again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Highbeam renewal procedure

Hi Lingzhi, may I point you to my moan here, as that page receives little traffic: Noyster (talk), 10:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Antioch (218) - Just wondering if I'm heading in the right direction

Hiya, I thought I'd leave you a short note about my recent clean up edits. Before I go through the whole article I was wondering if these clean-up edits are headed on the right track. I have copy-edited "Battle" and less extensively "Aftermath". If you're satisfied that I'm heading in the right direction I'll punch through the remainder of the article over the next couple of days and then let you review the whole set of changes when you get the chance. No rush of course - I have a GA to handle as well. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hey thanks for the ping. It takes time to look at something like that, and I only have small blocks of time at the moment... Will look as soon as I can...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: All the best of the Holiday Season to you!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PeoplesWar Sept1944.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PeoplesWar Sept1944.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Statesman j.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Statesman j.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2017 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Modernist: All the best of the Holiday Season to you! And congrats on your new-found fame and fortune re Vincent, Mr. I'm-in-the-international-news guy!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Questia registration issue

Thanks for the approval. When I enter the ID and code together as instructed, I get the message "The promotion code has already been used". Perhaps I got a duplicate of an email already sent to another user? Eperoton (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I gotta run; I'll check in a couple hours... sorry for the inconvenience.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. No problem! Eperoton (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Resources

Please let me know when you have downloaded the papers and I'll delete the file. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Lingzhi!

Happy New Year!

Hello Lingzhi:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Lingzhi}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 3 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy new year, motto: sing peace! - I was asked by a coordinator to ping people to my stalled FAC, and thought of you also. - The (by far) best day for it to appear is 2 February, and scheduling is advanced to Jan 27, - I'm getting nervous. It's part of Reformation year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, I wish I could help with your FAC nom, but I'm currently pulling back from even my own projects, due to being a teensy bit overwhelmed by work. And then I have travel plans after that. I might be able to squeeze in a little burst or two of work on my own project – maybe, but maybe not! So I'm afraid I have to pass on this (and on all other things as well, for while). Good luck!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Understand, good luck with all that, - got two supports now, and if it won't make it, there are more to expand in the year of the reformation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A question!

Dear Lingzhi, I would like to inform you, after my request for access to Questia , I received an alert which was shown I have message in my talk page.I checked my page and it was only welcome template of Twinkle gadget that was signed by you who are Questia's account Coordinator. it concern me to know; have I done any steps incorrect during applying for Questia's access procedure ?!

Any way its my pleasure to see you are first writer in my talk page at en-wiki :) kind regards Farid69 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New Mailing List

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Roman and Byzantine Milhist Project. This is the first such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages, please remove yourself from here. 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

cherry crashing
... you were recipient no. 1337 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

I read our conversation then again, smiling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you read it also, including that I archived all stuff related to a certain unmentionable topic, end of 2015? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not a prophet or a mind-reader, and I do not discuss this issue (or almost any other issue these days, actually) offline with other Wikipedians. However, I suspect that if from now on until forever you completely avoid participating in any discussions regarding infoboxes (on any article talk pages or content review forums), then slowly your reputation among those upset will heal itself. That's my guess; I do not speak from any inside knowledge.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

When an RfC is open, I comment, I have done so twice in 2016, and twice in 2017. I honestly don't know what made people upset in 2016. I know that life is much easier without arguments on that topic. - I could have made a better box for the one you deleted, but wrote an article instead ;) - Will go write another article next, it's Luther's day of death, DYK? The title is hard to translate, help wanted, has to with mercy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss infoboxes further. I don't think you are the only one whose reputation suffered due to the infobox wars, but you may have been the most visible... My German is actually quite poor; for your translations, I Googled many different books then considered and compared their translations.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"Es - woll - uns - Gott - genädig - sein", the problem is that it's old German, and nobody would say that today. Extremely literary: It - may want - to us - God - merciful - be, - "May God want to be merciful to us", is close to the intended meaning (as I understand it) , but we are missing the leading "Es - It", as in Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, - is there any phrase in (Old) English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article started, including several possible translations, and more in the refs. Singing today, to be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)