User talk:Sindinero/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome to Wikipedia, Sindinero! I am Tnxman307 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! TN‑X-Man 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Glass bees sandbox

Hi there!

You just made a live article called "Glass bees sandbox".

My guess is, you intended to make a userspace draft page, so I have moved it to User:Sindinero/Glass bees sandbox.

You can edit that page, and develop an article.

If you need help, just put {{helpme}} on this page, with a question.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

oops, thanks for catching that. Sindinero (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How do the article sandboxes work?

{{help me}} Is creating an article sandbox, as a first draft of an article to be moved to article namespace once it's ready, only possible if the article namespace doesn't exist yet? In other words, can a sandbox article be moved to a namespace occupied by a stub, e.g. The Glass Bees? Sindinero (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is possible, but usually not worth the bother.

The history of two pages can be merged together - called a histmerge. That's what we use when, for example, someone 'moved' a page by copy/pasting, and it was subsequently edited.

However, if both pages have been edited then, when their histories are merged, the difference between edits makes no sense. And that's why it is avoided where possible.

Usually in the case of a replacement article developed in a user sandbox, most likely the user would be the only person editing it; therefore, if they 'copy/paste', they are only pasting their work, so the attribution of the 'paste' is valid.

A third option is to paste in the new work with a link to the previous location - ie the sandbox (typically a specific version of that sandbox) - in the edit summary, e.g. "This content comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chzz/test&oldid=422759749". You can also use {{Copied}} on a talk page to explain where something came from.

Sorry that is a bit long. The simple answer is, that if it is just you working in a sandbox, then it's fine to copy/paste over the article.

If it is confusing, please talk to me here, or ask again.  Chzz  ►  16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's really helpful, thanks! I'm collaborating with a sizeable group to write a full article for The Glass Bees, so we'll probably just do it in the article proper rather than in a sandbox. Sindinero (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Schulz not even B-class

I've noticed you nominated Bruno Schulz for GA review. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, the article is not even B-class (I've just failed it for WP:POLAND). You are welcome to expand and improve the article, and resubmit it for our B-class review. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback, and I'm now inclined to agree. I've withdrawn the GAN. Sindinero (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Glass Bees book cover

Thanks for uploading the book cover onto the article. However, I'm afraid that it might be taken down, as you posted it to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. If you read here, you might see what I'm getting at. I am pretty sure that we can use the picture, but it is almost certainly non-free content. Here claims that, for Germany, it's life+70 before a work goes into the public domain, and it hasn't even been 70 years since The Glass Bees was published. If you look at some other book covers (ex: Lord of the Flies), you'll see that they've got a spiffy "Non-free media use rationale" box and some other stuff for the cover image, and that the pictures are on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. Erm, yeah. Sorry for bothering you so much about this. --Dc552 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Marian Czapla Veraicon z Cyklu Ecce Homo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Marian Czapla Veraicon z Cyklu Ecce Homo.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Glass Bees

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Glass Bees you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 12 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article The Glass Bees you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Glass Bees for things which need to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My major concerns right now are cutting down the size of the plot section (try for half the current size) and sourcing or eliminating the perceived OR in the themes section. If the secondary sources already support this material, and my assumption of OR is wrong, make the sourcing explicit. I assume that the secondary sources do not, since the citations rely on primary sources. Minor concerns are on the GA review page. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How does two weeks sound? Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your time. Don't rush greatness! :) Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Person template question

Is it possible to give a writer template a background color, as it is for artist templates? How do I do this, if so, and why not, if not? Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely possible, however the {{Infobox writer}} template is widely used and doesn't currently allow for this on a per article basis. You should probably bring it up on the template's talk page and see if there is consensus to allow it. Specifically, you would want to ask for access to the "abovestyle" parameter for the purpose of adding a background color to the title. — Bility (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DDR Portal

Count me in. I'm mainly interested in DEFA's films, and expanding their articles is my top priority, but I will contribute on every field related to culture, and work on biographies as well. Bahavd Gita (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Template

You intend to put every single DEFA feature film in that one? there are about five hundred. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of East German films. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is already one director template for Frank Beyer (see the bottom of his page). At some point in the future, I'll make ones also for Kurt Maetzig and others. There are about 50-60 pictures that I would call notable - highly popular ones, those that are politically significant and so on. But there is no clear way of categorizing them. So I'd say we should focus on the director templates and maybe make one for the winners of the National Cinema Festival. I haven't really thought of it yet, I'm still expanding the one-line stubs on East German films to reasonably comprehensible articles. In two or three months, I will complete that job and move on to add ones about the actors and directors. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

question on wikilinking to categories

I'm wondering whether it's possible to add wikilinks to a category name so that clicking on the name will direct you to that category. Normally if you add double brackets to a category name, it simply adds the page to that category without linking to it. Is there a way to do this so that categories can be linked without using an 'external' link? The page I'm trying to do this for, if an example helps, is here. Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you add an extra ":" between the left brackets and the word "Category", it does the trick. For instance: [[:Category:Prime numbers]] produces Category:Prime numbers. Favonian (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Der-schweigende-stern-original.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Der-schweigende-stern-original.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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Glass Bees status?

Any plans to finish this? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. I was waiting for another source (Marcus Bullock's monograph) to come in, and now that it has, I'll be working on the lead and the themes section over the next few days. Thanks again for waiting. Sindinero (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to close this out by the end of July 1, 2011. Please make whatever edits you can make before July 2, and I will pass or fail accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Editorial Help

I see you managed to straighten out that horrible copy-and-paste job I put on the Science Fiction Talk page. I don't know what I did wrong that you did right. Maybe I copied from the black-on-white main article text instead of from the black-on-green edit text, or vice versa?

No problem. And you're right, when copying from the actual article, the Wiki markup gets lost in translation. To thread posts, use the appropriate number of colons at the beginning of each paragraph. One good trick, if you're not sure how to recreate a given effect (indentation, wikilinks, templates, etc.), is to click on the edit tab when you see the desired effect; this allows you to look behind the scenes to see the mechanics. Sindinero (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warlock.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warlock.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Off topic

Do you really speak 6 languages? Pass a Method talk 15:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I do, but in varying degrees of competence and/or rustiness. Some days, even English is a struggle.  :) Sindinero (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Berge Meere und Giganten, or Giganten

Hello, does this novel exist, to your knowledge, in any English translation? (even if out of print in translation)

Thanks, Poupartca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poupartca (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as far as I've been able to tell so far. Sindinero (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And as a token bribe (besides, I always wanted to make a barnstar)

File:GDR Karl-Marx-order rib.gif	Order of Karl Marx
	For your initiative to create the East Germany Portal, I hereby present thee with the Order of Karl Marx. May we one day have a full and exhaustive Wikipedia coverage of all topics related to the German Democratic Republic. Bahavd Gita (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops!

I have no idea why it appeared thrice. Bahavd Gita (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

fixed! Thanks again! Happy to be in the company of John Heartfield. (Much less so, of course, to be in that of Ceauşescu et al., but hey.) Sindinero (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SF Authors

I had used rollback on a non-notable change made before the one you made which reintroduced the change you had rolled back. When I realized it, I did a second edit to remove the one you had already removed. Net result was two non-notables removed in a very roundabout and unnecessary way.Shsilver (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Question on fair use

I'm working on the article on Alfred Döblin, and it could use more images than those already available on Wikimedia commons. I found this website, which has a number of great photos without, however, stating their origin. It says (in French) that commercial use is prohibited, but is use for WP acceptable? Thanks in advance for any help or advice here.
Sindinero (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since commercial use is prohibited, these images could only be used here by claiming fair use. But point 1 of Wikipedia's rules on fair use is that fair use can only be claimed if there is no free equivalent. In this case the article already has a public domain image. So the short answer is: no, you cannot add these extra images.

(For a faster response to copyright questions, try WP:MCQ next time) -- John of Reading (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:East German novels

Template:East German novels has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Roadside Picnic edit/undo

I changed the word "carrier" to "career", you undid it, skeptical that it was indeed a typo. I believe it is, for the following reason:

In the novel, Redrick works for a scientist who is studying "empties". The scientist has been studying them for years, without success, and is unhappy about his lack of progress. Redrick knows the location of a full "empty", and offers to show his boss the location, as well as help him retrieve it, in the hopes that by studying the full "empty" his boss will be able to learn more about them.

Therefore, I believe that Redrick wanted to help his boss's "career", rather than his "carrier".

I don't have a formal Wikipedia account yet, but I can be reached at andystockton2@gmail.com.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.89.169 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's logical, but I'm still a little doubtful. The sentence in question reads, "To help his boss's carrier whom he considers a friend..."—if it were indeed "career," then the sentence would be poorly written at best and gibberish at worst, since the relative clause "whom he considers a friend" would then have no clear antecedent. In any case, the current version is not very clear. I don't have a copy of the novel on me, but that would be the best place to check: is it in fact his boss whom Redrick is helping, or some other person who works for his boss? (I don't remember the boss being his friend, exactly, and have a very dim recollection of some other character between the two.) I'm happy to cede the point, if it is in fact his boss that was intended here, but the way that the sentence is written suggests this might not be the case. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sentence is not clearly written. You are also correct that there was a third person on the excursion named Tender, but he was not chosen until after Redrick had made his offer, so it doesn't seem like Redrick's motivation was to help the Tender. If I can find time, I will re-write that entire section to improve the grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.89.169 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation help

I found your name at the Germany Wiki-project. I'm hoping you might help me with a German/English problem. I'm trying to add/correct the coordinates on Eintrachthütte concentration camp and Zgoda labour camp. After some effort I've definitively located the camp gate shown here at these coordinates 50°16′46″N 18°54′03″E and inserted them, perhaps prematurely, in the Eintrachthütte concentration camp article. (Compare the building in the background of the photo here with the full zoomed-in view here, if you care to confirm that identification.) As explained in these articles, the WWII camp was reused as the Zgoda labor camp. The Zgoda labour camp article, however, already has different coordinates which according to the edit history were taken from the de-WP KZ Eintrachthütte article. I would ordinarily have merely taken that as an imprecise location for the camp (there's a lot of imprecise coordinates) and changed it to the current location of the camp gate, but I stumbled onto this 2003 article in German which, when I machine translated it through Google translate, has some language in it which makes me wonder if the gate may have been moved from its original location to a more easily-accessible location and, thus, makes me concerned that the camp may not have been located where the gate is located now. I was hoping you might read that article and see if there's anything in it that suggests that the gate may have been moved. (The language that most particularly worries me is, "Das erklärt die aufwendige Verlegung des Lagertors an die dicht befahrene Hauptstraße von Schwientochlowitz nach Friedenshütte." Google translates it as: "This explains the complex Relocation of the camp gate on the densely trafficked main road from Schwientochlowitz for peace hut."). Any help you can provide will be very much appreciated. (I first made this request to Barras here, but he/she doesn't seem to be around.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll try to look at it over the next couple days. Feel free to bug me about it if I haven't gotten back to you in a week or so. (For now, google translate is mostly right - it should be: "This explains the elaborate relocation of the camp gate to the heavily-trafficked main road [that led] from Schwientochlowitz to Friedenshütte." So yes, it seems as if the gate was moved. Sindinero (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I very much appreciate it. Just on what you've said so far, I've self-reverted the coords I added to the Eintrachthütte article pending the outcome of your work. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugging, as suggested. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)'

Thanks for bugging. Check that article link, though - I just looked at it for the first time and it doesn't seem to be the correct piece. Sindinero (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This is the correct issue. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the gate hadn't yet been moved in 2003 (when the article was written), but there were plans to do so. When discussing the plans for the memorial, the article says: "Dazu soll das noch bestehende Eingangstor rund zwanzig Meter zur Hauptstrasse versetzt werden" (For this purpose the entrance gate, which still exists, is to be moved approximately twenty meters towards the main road." That's the most detailed discussion of the plans for the gate's position in the article (it also mentions some architectural details of the planned monument). Does that help? Sindinero (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I was afraid that they were saying that it had been moved from another location entirely. The coordinates on the en-Wiki Zgoda labor camp article (which were taken from the de-Wiki article on the concentration camp) places the camp at these coordinates: 50°16′44″N 18°54′50″E, some 900-950 meters away from the place the gate is located. I was afraid that the gate might have been moved from there to where it is now, but it sounds like the proposed movement was just an adjustment of its location at the present place. That helps in determining whether the existing coordinates are wrong, which they now appear to be. I still have to get more documentation before definitively stating that the location of the gate is the camp location (in order to avoid OR), but this at least closes one impediment. I really appreciate the help. Thank you very, very much and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! Good luck with the article. Sindinero (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi Sindinera, Yes, I did forget to sign in once...and probably other times that I didn't notice. I didn't know what I should do to correct that. Can I go back in and edit a signature?Smm201`0 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I've also not signed when I didn't realize I had been timed out, and had to exit quickly to get to an appointment.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security

I've brought the discussion back here again. Since you recently editted OWS, I am extending an invite to you.Racingstripes (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible reliable source for Clover information

http://www.theaggie.org/2011/10/27/column-occupy-wall-street-the-uc-connection/.

It's an opinion piece, so it must be attributed to the author (well...you know how policy goes as far as what "must be' and "what is" attributed. LOL!) But appears to state pretty much what Clover was stating and not from anyone within the movement as Clover seems to be. (It is a college article and some have expressed dismay at the use of such, but there is precedence for it) Clover seems too connected to use as a reference on himself, even as a primary source, but that may not be a matter of policy or guidelines, just that the reference be considered RS for even opinion. This might work, but I hesitate to make the change myself for two reasons...my recent block being one, and the possibility that this isn't directly related to the New York protest...but if this is indeed a precursor to the actual NYC protest, it should be added! Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am just outside UC Davis and I am surprised I didn't hear about this.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll think about the best way to add that in, and take a stab at it over the next couple days. (If you're interested in seeing more on the California protests, this is one of the websites that was putting out information and essays about it - http://afterthefallcommuniques.info/ Definitely not RS to use on WP, but informative enough.) Sindinero (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Tieck

See for example the following quotes from the article:

• "admirable fairy-tale Der blonde Eckbert, which seamlessly blends exploration of the paranoiac mind with the realm of the supernatural, and the witty dramatic satire on Berlin literary taste, Der gestiefelte Kater."
• "These dramas, in which Tieck's poetic powers are to be seen at their best, are typical plays of the first Romantic school; although formless, and destitute of dramatic qualities, they show the influence of both Calderón and Shakespeare."
• "an excellent version of Don Quixote"
• "an excellent story written under the influence of Goethe's Wilhelm Meister"
• "Tieck's importance lay in the readiness with which he adapted himself to the emerging new ideas which arose at the close of the 18th century, as well as being a trailblazer in his own right with Romantic works such as Der blonde Eckbert."
• "In later years it was as the helpful friend and adviser of others, or as the well-read critic of wide sympathies, that Tieck distinguished himself."

These are some of the best examples of needless puffery and fluff in the article. Note that none of them are backed up with a reliable source. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Berlin RFC

You are in danger violating the procedures in the ongoing RFC at the Berlin article. As you might not know, although you have started the RFC, if contentious material is discussed in an RFC it cannot be included in the article in advance at the same time. Otherwise it would predetermine decisions. Artystarty (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, read the policy. Are you determined to avoid consensus at all costs? Sindinero (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich

Hi. Thanks for spotting the prob with the image caption; I see it's been fixed since. Be good. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Hello User:Sindinero. Some time ago I made a suggestion for this project.[1] A formal proposal has been made at the project council proposal page. If you are interested you may add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Expressionism

Many thanks. I had put the quotation marks in the wrong place! I still get confused with affect and effect, but I think 'affect' is what I wanted. Rwood128 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine

The article Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine for things which need to be addressed. Eisfbnore ^talk 12:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Occupy Wall Street

An article that you have been involved in editing, Occupy Wall Street , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

GA acknowledgment

	GA Award!
	Thank you for all the work you did in making PJ Harvey and Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine Good Articles; your work is much appreciated! All the best, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

N.B.

I appended a warning message next to the potentially dangerous/malicious weblink you restored to the OWS talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gasland

You cannot us a piece of propaganda that has been shown to have made false claims to promote a point of view without a response to that view. I used information from the Gasland article to provide a response, so don't give me that crap about unreliable source opinion. The whole Gasland film is opinion. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood how the article on hydraulic fracturing is representing the film. The Forbes opinion does not actually demonstrate that Gasland's claim is false, it merely claims that Gasland's claim is highly improbable. Please see the talk page for more detail, and keep things civil. Sindinero (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Are you sure about that category? Is that how it work? I thought that overarching categories were to be included....Smm201`0 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't yet found the specific policy on this, but this is generally how I've seen categories treated. I'll keep looking, though, and feel free to revert if you are pretty sure that including the overarching categories is in line with policy. Inclusion in the subcategory means that the article is also included in the category itself. Sindinero (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at what is listed under the hydraulic fracturing category. Categories help people locate info. That is my concern...Smm201`0 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I added the link to environmental impact of HF in US. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I'm going to add hf by country (if I can figure out how...). My point had been that it wasn't listed under hf.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) maybe I need to understand this category stuff better. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigurd

Thanks for taking the time to do this GA review. I've gone through the article and hopefully have addressed the issues you brought up. INeverCry 19:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It will still take me a little while to go through all the GA criteria, but I'll update the review page as I go. Sindinero (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was just wondering when you were going to continue with the review, as we haven't heard from you in a bit? Thx. INeverCry 02:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the delay, I've been busy. I'll keep chipping away at it, and will try to be done within the next week. Thanks for checking in. Sindinero (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks for the quick response. INeverCry 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigurd again

I'm hoping we can get this GA review finished soon. The article is worthy of it. I went through the refs and Antiquary has polished the critical section. INeverCry 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bugging me. I'll get it done in the next couple days; really sorry about the delay, but things have gotten unexpectedly busy for me in the off-screen world. Quick question - what is currently the accepted critical or authoritative edition? What edition do current scholars who discuss the book cite? This should be included, if available. Sindinero (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Antiquary has included the following about what edition is used by scholars in the "Editions" section of the article:

"In 1911 the same firm reprinted the original version as volume 12 of The Collected Works of William Morris, with an introduction by May Morris; in the absence of a critical edition this is the one generally cited by scholars" INeverCry 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I missed that when I looked over this morning. More soon. Sindinero (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. The last time I had to suffer thru a long review, it ended up going the other way. INeverCry 07:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks from me as well. It's the first time something I started has become a GA, but now I'm inspired to try and improve another to the same grade. --Antiquary (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have that effect! Great work on the article, and good luck on the next one! Sindinero (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi

Just so you know, Arzel followed me to another page and continued to delete my stuff, so I finally reported him/her. Another person added to my complaint. Not sure how this kind of thing works.Smm201`0 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's irritating of Arzel. Thanks for letting me know. Sindinero (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It turned out that the report had been archived because there was no discussion for 24 hours. I have now reposted it.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a new comment to a closed archive

Hello Sindinero. Please be aware that your recent edit to an archive of ANI will have no effect, and nobody will see it. In fact, your change should be undone. If you have a current issue that you want to discuss, open a new thread at WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - it didn't look like the discussion was closed, and it's my first time posting on ANI. Sindinero (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I came to leave you a message and saw the ANI post. In response to the ANI post I heard from a couple legit folks, but also a bunch of folks who sounded like meatpuppets. At this point I'm feeling like my responses on hf are not effective. Fear of 3RR is kinda merciful - I'm going to take a break and get some work done! I'm thinking some of the problems on HF (beyond A) may be a schill issue. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but I think it's unlikely and making accusations like that often backfires. The shills on HF are pretty recognizable (sometimes they even use their real names!); the people editing lately seem to be genuine, and with the exception of A, they're taking the time to engage. Don't take things too hard, and don't burn out (you're doing great work!); but more importantly, keep your cool and be fair to editors who are generous enough to engage. I think that A's comments and position are generally and obviously offensive and trivial enough to show the weakness of his/her position; I'm an optimist enough to believe that, in the long run, objectivity will win out. I think that if we want to make (and keep) the HF article good, we've got to keep our cool, stick to policy and reliable sources, and treat the various arguments as they come. (I think one of the things that makes A look the worst is the constant lumping of all disagreeing editors into one category - that's a gesture we should be careful to avoid). High ground, chin up, all that. Have a good break - "all this" will still be here when you get back. Sindinero (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent inclusion. I enjoy reading and then adding the material, but that reorganization stuff is real work. Although one's work can get deleted at any time, in this case it is more likely than others. Not sure it is worth it. I am also concerned that my involvement increases deletions in general, hence the thought to use another name on future pages. Also another chance to do the politics better. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good to be aware of how other editors react to you, but I don't think you need to back off from participation, you've done a lot of great work. With other names, though, be aware of wp's policy on sockpuppetry - as far as I know, when changing a user name, the old one needs to be noted somehow, or else an editor gets banned. Sindinero (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I reviewed the rules. I have the statement on my old user page so I'm not hiding the socking. I've seen other users do it for the same reason. I'm not using it to sway consensus or cause trouble. My concern is making sure I don't accidentally use 2 names on one page. I don't think I've used the other name yet. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of Alfred Döblin

I have completed the Good Article review at Talk:Alfred Döblin/GA1 and left comments there. maclean (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Döblin

Hi, just dropping in to say that I enjoyed reading the article on Alfred Döblin and am really glad it finally got the GA. I was close to reviewing it myself a few times, but didn't have the time to round up and properly check the sources. In any case, I didn't know about the Mr. Döblin, and now I do. Thanks for your work! Cheers,--Olegkagan (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article! Sindinero (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Polish Socialism

Mmm, I don't suppose you currently possess a combination of availability and willingness to help construct an article on Polish socialism? There's a start-class article on the Polish Socialist Party, but that only comes in from 1892 onwards, so that obviously leaves decades of interesting stuff and precursors completely unmentioned. Socialism does not even mention the words Polish or Poland.

I admit the topic is not exactly ever going to be a big hit, but I love Poland (my Polish is getting there!), and there are a few great names like Rosa Luxemburg along with more obscure ones like Jan Machajski. Regardless of the subject's lack of prominence or the fame of a few Polish socialists, it is a joy for me to look into. I am happy to do the donkey work, so if you only have the time to check over my lowly efforts at a later date and make criticisms it would be great. If the topic doesn't interest, or you don't have time, just ignore this. Fraternally yours...
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, and thanks for asking. It's not actually a subject I know anything about, so I'm not sure how much I could help, but I'd love to see what you come up with, and I'll try to help with nuts and bolts type things as I have the opportunity. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

You could barely articulate any rationale for that questionable and incredibly nitpicky revert, much less a coherent one, and you've got the nerve to accuse me of tendentious editing? Get thee to a mirror (and kindly step down from thy soapbox). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary was actually more detailed than the usual edit summary; and I'm sorry, but I don't think it was nitpicky at all. Given your views on anarchism within OWS, can you really be surprised that your edit might possibly have been taken as an attempt to discredit or qualify Graeber's claim by painting him as self-interested? I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. Also, I'm not interested in soapboxing. I've said numerous times that it doesn't matter what any of us think about various aspects of OWS, but what the sources say. You're the one grinding axes with your own uninformed and superficial analyses of OWS, and others have pointed this out as well. Sindinero (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:American cuisine

I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky peer review

hello,

I found your name here and I invite you to join this peer review. Any help appreciated! Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

image question

I'd like to replace this image of Alfred Döblin with one that I've just touched up in photoshop to remove the horizontal crease marks. What's the best way to do this? Ideally, I'd like to upload the retouched image to the image page, but I don't see that this is an option. Should I create a new image page and transfer all the information from the existing page? Thanks in advance, --Sindinero (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You will have to upload the image to a new image page. Mdann52 (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sindinero (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Poke

Hey; can you email me, please? :). Ironholds (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Sorry, my brother, Carter has no ideas about computers so he accidentally put it. It's because his a dork and doesn't study anything but Ancient Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadie Louise Kane (talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

I invite you to reevaluate your criticism on the talk page. The other editor exchanged the word retribution for condemnation because the other editor says the word was wrong. The other editor is clearly a sockpuppet who was banished from Wikipedia. I invite you to go back to 2,000 edits to Catherine's edits and compare the introductions from that time frame to now. They are word for word the same. That being said, for me, Wikipedia is about having fun and the last thing I want to do is hurt someone else's feelings, as my posts earlier today clearly showed. I missed your post until just now. But, I humbly suggest you should reevaluate. After 2,000 posts in that article, I believe I have a very good idea of what is happening. It's just not worth it for me to get emotionally involved. And you know what, maybe, let's say in 30 years, the article will be rewritten and put in its proper form.66.234.33.13 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what you're referring to - my recent comment was addressed to User:75.19.156.82. Could you clarify what you mean? Sindinero (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i screwed up. i thought you were rebuking me. as far as clarification is concerned, ip address 75.19.156.82, i humbly suggest is a sockpuppet of banished user Cathernine Huebescher: [2] I invite you to evaluate the Paul Robeson article of today with: [3]

As you can blatantly see, the introduction is almost word for word the same. You decided to jump into this fracas, now I humbly suggest you should finish the fight.

You jumped into a fight between editors, finish this fight, or escalate it to someone who can. User Cathernine Huebescher who was previously banished by Wikipedia is now sockpuppeting (is that a phrase?) Wikipedia. She was banished here: [4] for editing the Paul Robeson article, and as you can see, she is most assuredly back and reediting an article she was banished from Wikipedia in the first place. I hope this makes sense.

I looked at your user page, you are an extremely new editor. I suggest, you bump this up to someone else or not get involved at all and just ignore this.66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I humbly suggest you should not get involved w fights between editors until you maybe have a lil' more experience editing. Everyone gets way too emotional :) . 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't rebuking you, like I said. And I haven't jumped into any fight, I was merely reminding the other IP that mocking other editors isn't the best way to proceed. I don't think that requires any special experience (although I have been doing this for four years).

Could I ask whether there's any particular reason you don't want to register a user name? It took me awhile to wrap my head around what's actually going on at the Robeson page, and I'm still not sure what your position is. Often, your edit summaries and talk page missives seem aggressively directed at, well, your other edits, so that for awhile I got the impression that multiple people were using the same computer to make competing edits. I don't think that's actually the case, but the impression of a schizophrenic style is hard to shake -- perhaps a user name would give your persona here the continuity and stability that would make it easier for other editors to tell what's going on..? Just a suggestion. Sindinero (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, "Often, your edit summaries and talk page missives seem aggressively directed at, well, your other edits," - that's the most dead on analysis I have ever seen of me. What's going on is there is a sockpuppet that is personally intimate w Paul Robeson in the article and, after thinking about it for a few days, the person is unhappy that I mentioned he attempted suicide in the introduction. And from an editorial perspective, um, she is right, it does not belong in the introduction. It is enough to say his "health brokedown", that's all you need for the intro. As far as schizophrenic style, what do you want me to say, I write 1500 edits and I have trouble writing a grammatically correct sentence.

I edit from multiple libraries in New York City. You have to google "who is" and type in the ip address. Then you can see it is the Lincoln Center Library, the Schomburg Center, or the Main Public Library in Manhattan. I can't really edit for probably 2 months or so. Each citation takes well about 2-4 hours to research. Maybe someday I will register a name. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your call, of course. In any case, keep up the solid work on the Robeson article! Sindinero (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Marian Czapla Veraicon z Cyklu Ecce Homo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Marian Czapla Veraicon z Cyklu Ecce Homo.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Marian Czapla Ecce Homo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Marian Czapla Ecce Homo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Czechia

Sir, i found this your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:85.70.152.192, together with your announcement of changes you did in various articles. I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that "Czechia" is the offical geographic and settlement-historical name of the Czech Republic, registered in UN list of counties since the beginning of contemporary Czech state, thus, since 1993. In addition, it is historical name with the origin in 1634 in Latin and in English since 1925. However not commonly used in general, the name "Czechia" is commonmly used in geography and all geographical sources of articles about places there work in Wikipedia with this term, as you can become convinced on every page about locations in Czechia.

I found your message during searching for the name, because some admin here completely erased opening of my article "Music of Czechia" (however i am professional musicologist) only for that reason i did not use "Czech Republic". I hope you can understand, that i cannot describe 1000 years long history of Czech music by the article "Music of the Czech Republic". That title can be used only for music, created in the period between 1993 and today, thus, during existence of that political regime in Czechia. Simply, it seems to be obvious, that (e.g.) music of renaissance period cannot be presented under that title. Please, don´t block using this name. All problem is not about not using Czechia because of rare incidence, but when to use this form and when to use political name. Other languages has for "Česko" (in Czech) and Czechia its equivalent (Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chéquia, Tsjechie, Tjeckien, etc., etc.), so, i don´t understand the reason why "lingua franca" of today cannot use it. Using only political name of the country is impractical, because it limits the country only to the period of contemporary political formation and cannot be used for all, more than 1100 years long history od Czech state. It brings many confusing problems. There is necessary to use common (one-word) name, (however it is not commonly used in general, thanks to unwillingness of political representation of CR to spread it, because it is from all points of view neutral, therefore applicable at all events. Thank you. All necessary information you can find on www.czechia-initiative.com page. Jan Blanický 18:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

Ahoj Jan. I'm aware that 'Czechia' is one name for the contemporary Czech Republic. My point is that, in contemporary English usage, it's a very uncommon one, and per Wikipedia policy, the more widely used variants are preferred. Furthermore, in English, 'Czechia' never refers to the historic region: the geographic regions Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia are generally referred to as such, and where the political entity was concerned, it was called the Kingdom of Bohemia. I am aware that other languages use versions of Czechia, but on the English-language Wikipedia we go by English usage. A google scholar search (one of Wikipedia's recommended tools for assessing usage) for "Czech Republic" turns up many, many more hits than "Czechia."

Where 'Czech Republic' would be incorrect or too limiting (as in the article about music), other forms can easily be found that are more precise (Music of Bohemia, Czech Music, etc.). After all, since 'Czechia' in English -- like 'the Czech Republic' -- refers to the contemporary state and not to Bohemia etc., 'Music of Czechia' would also be incorrect to describe that musical tradition. Moreover, while I'm not an expert I do feel that it's incorrect to state that the Czech state has a 1100-year history. This is false, as it was ruled under several different states, polities, etc, as I'm sure you know - the independent Czech kingdom, the Hapsburg Empire, the first republic of Czechoslovakia between the world wars, etc.

Finally, thanks for the link. However, since it is openly a promotional page, it does not provide a useful guideline for which term is better on Wikipedia; only contemporary English usage does that. And until "Czechia" becomes much more widely spread as geographic designation for places and things within the borders of the Czech Republic, we'll have to stick with using the latter. Sindinero (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I don´t see anything false on 1100 years old Czech history, however many political changes has happened in the country during centuries (brief history of Czech state: http://www.czechia-initiative.com/czechia_articles.html). I assure you, that common respondent does not care about many political changes in the territory during the history and needs some simplification, that can be included only in standard unpolitical name. If I know, Germany as unified subject has been known since second half of 19th century and "Music of Germany" here includes also music from the previous times as well as in case of all other countries. I also don´t know anything about some "consensus" about NOT using the name Czechia in Wikipedia. It is necessary to identify a country by its geographical name, capable to define a settlement-historical unit, which is independent of actual political regime, thus, to be from this point of view neutral. The name Czechia meets these requirements.

As I convince now, all articles about problematics of using the name "Czechia" were completely erased by admins of Wikipedia. Using your sentence ...until "Czechia" becomes much more widely spread as geographic designation for places and things within the borders of the Czech Republic, we'll have to stick with using the latter., it is difficult to spread something, that is purposefully concealed. I am sorry, but your stance seems to be interchanging of the cause and consequence. Jan Blanický 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky (talk • contribs)

I didn't say that there wasn't an 1100-year Czech history, but you were talking about the Czech "state"; this is a much newer phenomenon. "Czechia" does not refer to the geographic region, period. Even the website you mention above doesn't make that claim, but rather says that "Czechia is the official English short-form and geographical name of the Czech Republic;" that is, it's synonymous with "Czech Republic." The case of Germany is different, because the word was used in English to refer to German-speaking lands before it also came to refer to the modern republic. Nobody is purposefully concealing anything, but using Wikipedia to promote a given linguistic usage is not what the encyclopedia is for. If "Czechia" ever catches on and becomes the common term, then the term can be changed here; until then, we need to sit tight. Sindinero (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As an afterthought, you should know that it's better on Wikipedia (and in general..?) not to make assumptions about people's gender (e.g., "Sir,..."). Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Czechia

To Sindinero: Do you realize that this country NEEDS a short geographical name, a counterpart to its official political name "Czech Republic"?

Do you believe that the one-word name Česko/Czechia (in English) would have easily been adopted worldwide in 1993 if the leading Czech politicians had done their duty and taken care of the country´s image?

Do you think that the geographical name(such as Česko/Czechia, similar to, e.g., Germany, Spain, France...) should be preferred in describing the history of the country in general, irrespective of the variety of its changing political structures (kingdom, republic, federation...)?

When a speaker says "Česko" and the interpreter translates "Czech Republic",do you feel the error, the shift of meaning, which is caused by a gap in the system?

If your answers are YES, you are a wise and responsible administrator of Wikipedia. If not, then the very opposite is true.DaisyXL (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an administrator. Second of all, as I've spelled out in detail, it's not up to us on Wikipedia to try and alter common usage, but to follow it. Sindinero (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)