This is an archive of past discussions about User:Yngvadottir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Probably, although they seem to have wanted to demonstrate how many china cups they had more than to invite that many people to partake with them :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Hills have a Chinese export blue and white tea service and bowls, with a Yixing clay teapot and a silver water jug; in the fireplace a large Chinese vase with a lion on the lid (maybe a Dog of Fo that has been misinterpreted by the artist). Above the fireplace handpainted wallpaper showing a European idea of a Chinese scene. On the mantelpiece a bound volume of menus from the Chinese takeaway Wok This Way. At a guess, she's got a silk work bag tied to her left arm, and is winding silk onto a bobbin. He's demonstrating that men are good at multitasking; picking belly lint with his right hand and playing pocket billiards with his left. Actually the whole setup is reminiscent of a photographer's studio rather than afternoon tea. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
HERE IT STARTS Aczel
Sigh - these art collectors are heavy dealing with. now we have complete description a la Sotheby... Listen, I found this article, György Aczél - and the thing is that it's rather more than the article say. He was Jew, was in prison and .. still managed somehow to reach high posts. This kind of article we should have more of ... Well, not the one we have now, but what we could have on him. Maybe The Portal of Jews could help .. to? It shows how these people lived behind the Iron curtain... Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Listen to this:
György Aczél grew up in an orphanage, worked in construction, and performed as an actor. He participated in the Ha-Shomer ha-Tsa‘ir youth movement and later joined the underground Communist Party in 1935. Arrested in 1942, he worked as a forced laborer. During the German occupation, he participated in the resistance movement and in rescuing Jews. After World War II, Aczél was associated with the Budapest administration of the Communist Party. He became party secretary of the counties of Zemplén (1946) and Baranya (1948), and also served in Hungary’s parliament. In 1948, he joined the party’s presidential board. Arrested in 1949 and condemned to life imprisonment, he was released in August 1954 and charges against him were dismissed. He then became the director of a state-owned construction company. After the Soviet invasion of Hungary in November 1956, Aczél joined the executive board of the reformed Communist Party. Though he represented a moderate political position, during the first meeting after the revolution (in mid-1957), he sharply criticized the party’s former chief ideologue, József Révai (1889–1959) for his orthodox views, significantly increasing his own political role.
There are one or two native English speaking editors who will check out the grammar and usage on an article by an editor with a user name starting with the three characters "Haf". My name is on that list. Ask me such questions any time. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatwillbesorry. Thanks Cullen - I have never forbid anyone from editing it, I'm just insecure about the topic. He is Jew - and I think that even there are some far away Jewish ascendencia in my family -it's rather distant and I don't know much of the related topics. Hafspajen (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It was pretty bad art, Hafs, and badly printed and not even Soviet Realism. Maybe work backwards; his activities as Cultural Supremo must have left a mark on the film industry. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey I'm Annoyingbot II. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia! Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viking , you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monday I'm just telling you that I was going to tell you something but then I don't know what. If I've made any errors, tell my Operator. Thanks Annoyingbot (Annoy) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that after a further 12 hours or so it's now FUBAR'd beyond my ability to make sense of it. If you can establish what name should be used for the city, then admins with better forensic skills and a better ability to keep things straight should merge to fix the copy-pastes. But a history merge is extremely difficult to undo once done, which is why I didn't try. If I were you I would focus first on establishing what name to use, with sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Israel one did indeed look spammy, and the Russian one might be better used as a reference, but I wrestled with pending changes and then just edited the previous version - keeping and fully identifying the Russia one and junking the Israel one. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, much better now. This way probably New York Times has to be removed to because they use ads, I have been watching this guy roaming around removing things that was not quite necessary. Hafspajen (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, an editor who we worked together a couple of times now reverted me fourth times on an article we were once working together. He reverts to a layout that is uneven and add one picture https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Baluschek&diff=prev&oldid=638924215 crashing the references. Lately tried to fix to something acceptable but he still reverts to same layout, this is breaking the three revert and editwar. Even if we were on friendly basis this is not very nice. Need a second oppinion and somebody who can explain rules. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw that after, in your and his edits, but didn't go look - however, it should be on the article talk page, esp. since you've been edit warring over it. I suspect you have been seeing different things because you have your computers set up differently. Sorry, that's all the advice I have really. I hope you can patch up the disagreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
How? This is not a discussion, this is careless and insulting. If you don't help, I will go and report it for 1) breaking the three revert rule. 2) Because SOMEBODY has to expllain that this is no way behaving. He is in this very moment blockable because he reverted me four times, right. Pluss, he asks me do this do that, and this is the thanks, just read this now deleted exchange. Help me please.. and two days after behaving like this.... I had enough problems in my private life and a whole lot other things. If no admin is at least explaining him that
I don't think this is fixable. Again somebody suddenly behaving like they were out of their mind. Read just User talk:Hafspajen#Hilfe bitte! Oh, than I was good to have. But now ... edir war! And it was MY work the layout, it was my work that blasted Winter article - and I don't usually go editwarring with people who are nice to me. No, if somebody from outside is not getting into this - explaing that it is not OK editwarring - I AM NOT interested. I am not here to help people just for getting kicked in the as as a thank. Hafspajen (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I am tired of Wikipedia, I am seriously thinking of stopping editing soon. Maybe in a short while.
This is not fun, people getting crazy like this.
.
I seriously think that this is not fixable if someone from the outside is not stepping in. Hafspajen (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Seasonal Greets!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!
Hello Yngvadottir, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Talking about Yule log, someome thinks this is doubtful
Steht schwarz und schweiget
Norway is the birthplace of the Yule log. Traditionally the Norwegians kept the season bright with a Yule log. It literally formed the center of the celebration since it was frequently an entire tree that could only partly fit into the fireplace and so extended well out into the middle of the living room. The ancient Norse used the Yule log in their celebration of the return of the sun at winter solstice. "Yule" came from the Norse word hweol, meaning wheel. The Norse believed that the sun was a great wheel of fire that rolled towards and then away from the earth This tradition dates back to the Norse Yule log. It is probably also responsible for the popularity of log-shaped cheese, cakes, and desserts during the holidays. As it burned it would be pushed farther into the fire to provide continuous light and warmth through the whole Christmas season. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/traditions/norway.htm|title=Yule log, traditions in Norway|publisher=|accessdate=25 September 2014}}</ref>
The derivation from hweol is a bit dubious to me; that would need a more scholarly reference. Also I'm not sure about the method of burning the log - longhouses had long firepits rather than fireplaces at one end. But yes, that is almost certainly the origin of the Yule log cakes, etc. And the Yule log is not exclusively Norwegian. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ad festivum ignem or Christblock in German. Paulus Stephanus Cassel thinks the tradition is based on a custom to allow a "Forstfrevel", meaning poor people could steal a christmas log without being punished, but just on Christms, so they didnt have the time to hack it to smaller pieces. The explanation with ancient Norse sounds like a James George Frazer continuity story, which is, as a rule of thumb, always and everywhere wrong ;) Serten II (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There's a massive amount of work on Norse Yule in various Scandinavian languages; the log was also a tradition in England, and fits well with the fact it's a 12-day festival. But I avoid editing such articles, so I won't dig for sources :-) Cassel's idea is interesting, but the forests were commons before they were hunting and agricultural preserves. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, the tragedy of the commons article was sort of climate change disaster for me. I could do some edits on Commons and forestry however, de:Deutscher Wald, de:Holznot were easy game. I am not sure wether Frazer applies on Yule, as I think it was not "covered as christian" as he claims for xmas or eastern. Serten II (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC) PS.: Just found that Yule is Rauhnacht, my ballpark antifrazer guess would be 12 for 12 apostles, but dont put me to court for that ;)
Rauhnächte, yes. I see from the discussion on the talk page that the article previously had citations from Hilda Ellis Davidson among others. Right now it's short on the Germanic/Norse scholarship and strong on the skeptics, but not unbalanced enough for me to wade in '-) No, it's definitely not the apostles. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the main issue here is that we have good old Ronald Hutton as the primary cited source rather than experts in the field like Hilda Ellis Davidson. I'll take a look at it later and rid it of its Huttonisms and bring out material from scholars in more appropriate fields. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Judging by your talk page comments way back in 2007 or 2008, there are references to her and others back in the history. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen, what u expect? Norway is a Frazer country: It came out of those small change countys, it ceized to exist after 1349 and Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson had to construct an anthem and a language to get it back 1905. But everybody and his neighbor will tell you about the vikings ;) Serten II (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That is of course a deep truth. Prince Serten II has told us that. My computer doesn't like Serten II - wants to have Petersen II instead... Hafspajen (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Club Tijunana
Hello!
I wanted to leave quick message about where you reverted[1] me in the article. It was the correct thing to do and I want to apologize for those grammatical changes getting lost in my revert. Somehow in the process of reverting User:Pagesclo's edit your got caught up in that. They are certainly improvements.
Again, I apologize. ♪Tstorm(talk)17:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you still have this article on your watchlist (don't even ask me why I do), but in case you don't, there is a new editor making many changes to the article. As I recall, you were far better able to navigate through the thicket of issues associated with the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear no, I had completely forgotten about that. I see our earlier friend added some stuff after I stopped looking, too. Thanks for the heads-up - I'll go through it when I have a clear block of time (am actually up after my bedtime). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this editor is a remover. the kind of editor who removes things and calls it spam when actualy it is not, you remember the Chistmas article, removing New Your Times, because of the adds? Same user. Just see the last comment on his talk. I also have a feeling that it might be a sock - no, not that kind of sock, but another one. Once upon a time there was an editor who had this behaviour, now blocked. Hafspajen (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I see your IP friend has made further personal attacks against me here [2], calling me stupid, as well as calling Phil Knight stupid. He also accuses me again of following him around, harrassing and stalking, when I have continued to make zero edits on articles he has edited. I assume you will continue to defend him and continue not sanctioning him for these attacks. When you agreed to monitor this guy, I did think you would uphold WP:NPA as admins are supposed to do. You do know that editors are not allowed to call each other stupid over and over again? You tell him to quit using attack words and what happens? He completely ignores you because he knows you are a soft touch. I am already unable to interact with this IP because he makes personal attacks against me which are ignored. Like the edit warring and the personal attacks and threats made to others. Even when I complain about him breaking the rules he abuses me. He will now come here and abuse me further, no doubt. I do wonder how long this has to continue, and how long my belief that this IP is, inexplicably, immune to all Wikipedia's rules and regulations will continue to be true. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for tipping me off, I seem to usually be the last to spot them. They did get blocked last time, but I apologise for their having come back swinging this time; I can probably only unblock them once. I've left a note that I hope will help. I do however hope you will judge their edits on the merits; Wikipedia has developed a lot of bias against IPs, and whatever this person's reasons for not registering are, that's their prerogative. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologise if I came across rudely above, and thanks for your reply. I haven't seen all his edits and I don't check on them because in general, his edits aren't the problem. Most of his edits are fine, but when anyone challenges his edits (for any reason) we get conflict. I don't think the years of conflict are worth his edits. I also have no problem with IPs in general, and I have (to the best of my memory) never called the guy a vandal as some have. But I do object to being insulted in a part of the internet where abuse is supposed to be disallowed. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, am about to add a bit more from ArtSlant. Blame Google - they increasingly only show you what they think you want to see. I haven't found newspaper articles yet - maybe Drmies will be able to. I have a very busy day ahead of me, as you may be able to tell from a glance upwards on this page, but I'm going to try to find the other articles you mentioned and see whether any are salvageable. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huis Marseille, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarkis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Yng. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Yngvadottir, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Sorry, am at work, things have been very busy and I haven't had a stretch of uninterrupted clear-headed time to do much - see above also. I'll look. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen and German-reading talk page stalkers: The best solution would be to turn Hohenburg Castle, which currently redirects to Lenggries, into an article. The thing is ... that would most naturally be de:Schloss Hohenburg (Lenggries), which is what the creator of the redirect must have intended; its use by Adolf I of Luxembourg is mentioned in the Lengries article, although it isn't bolded there as a redirected term should be. But that's less interesting (to me at least) than de:Hohenburg (Lenggries). We already have a Hohenburg DAB page, which of course mentions neither. Both have an adequate list of books about them to justify an article - although some of those listed at the Schloß article are actually about the ruined Burg! - so I guess I or somebody/bodies else will have to create both articles here. (By the way Hohenburg (Alsace) redirects to Château de Hohenbourg - that redirect was at the totally German Hohenburg (Elsass) but I moved it without leaving a redirect). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I know very little about this castle, its style and whereabouts. I looked though, but ... Most sources are in German, so I hoped Serten II could fix that ... Hafspajen (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont understand the whole formal approach about DABs and so on, so I wont't fix that. Sigh. I first thought the best approach to write an article here is to expand Lenggries, but not to have another boring Tower entry. But have a look on Sendling's Night of Murder, which is closely connected: A stub about a major topic for Austria/German and Bavarian sentiments and relations as well. Lets start with the important things first in the field. Happy New year! Serten II (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll cast an eye over the article, but I doubt it needs much more copyediting, unless you guys changed it a lot since I last brushed it up. From the DYK nomination, it looks to be more of a matter of this being a broad topic that is hard to present briefly while also explaining. Plus Serten II has been bitten at DYK and is being a bit impatient with the reviewer. But I'll take a look at the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I am affraid I was impatient too - before i realized he was actually quite nice. ... thus all contributing to the bad atmosphere at DYK. Sigh. It's like Kicking the cat. Whis I had one I could kick right now. Hafspajen (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Point is, I needed to reread the article as well, even after being bitten ;) I would prefer not just to call on Yngva again. We have postponed the DYK proposal, its not yet ready for the mainpage, and keep on working on the article. I think its a great topic and as said, a proof of my personal creed that WP is far from being finished or complete. Serten II (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Your possible interest in improving biography articles
Hello Yngvadottir; My interest in the last few months has been to expand the material in the biography for the Russian scientist Alexander Luria when I learned that you might have an occasional interest in enhancing/improving various Wikipedia pages to peer review status. The material which I expanded is all documented yet it seems to lack enough verve to refine it towards peer review. Is this a biography which might be of interest for you to consider for possible improvement either individually or jointly? Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: I'm honored, but I don't actually have much aptitude for or experience with the assessment systems for articles. Also, since my Russian is of a ludicrously low level, I wouldn't be able to help remedy what appears to be the biggest problem with the article, its heavy reliance on one source. (I also have extremely limited understanding of the fields in which he worked.) However, I went through it from an organizational and writing point of view and did a thorough job on the biographical sections and a much more limited job on the sections at the end summarizing his research. I added one hidden note on the date of a book, and I note that that book doesn't appear in the list of books at the end. I hope the edit and this note are helpful. I agree, it's a worthy article to aim for a higher standard with. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Yngvadottir; That was really quite a top re-write on Alexander Luria. You have put your finger on the main issue which is that there is only one biography about him even thirty years after his death. His research is, however, quoted repeatedly and repeatedly even in current research. For further development there are two paths open to me, which might center upon his close friendship with the famous Russian scientist Lev Vygotsky and the friendship which he developed with one his patients who also has a Wikipedia page about him. Luria wrote a well-known book about this patient with a brain defect. Vygotsky died in the thirties, and the book about his well-known patient only came out after WWII (Solomon Shereshevskii(The Mnemonist)). I am asking if you think, in the absence of more biographies on Luria, if integrating the information of these two well-known friends would move the article closer to peer review quality in your opinion. (Vygotsky by comparison has had 5 biographies written about him). With greeting of the New Year. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
As I say, I'm afraid I'm not a good guide on the article evaluation processes and standards. You'd be better off finding someone through the WikiProjects, asking Eric Corbett (although last I looked he wasn't helping with articles, he's still the best I know), or finding someone active at GA who has a Russian Babel box. But I'm very glad you liked my edit, because I was quite bold :-) I understand the problem with only having one published biography, but that or worse is quite common for academics. There were probably obituaries of him published in academic journals when he died, and there may be useful evaluations of individual books and of his research contained in such journals - reviews of the books or possibly even a survey of his work. Have you searched JSTOR? I would place a much higher priority on broadening the sources than on having more about his friendships. However, from the point of view of describing his research, the article could use some specifics on how that research fitted with Vygotsky; there is hardly anything in the article on that after the statement in the lede that he was a close associate. Remember, it's acceptable to use foreign-language sources, although it's nice to translate the key phrases. What I usually do is provide a translated quote in the article text and then quote the original in the footnote. And very often I support a point with one or more foreign-language sources in addition to an English-language one; the foreign-language ones are often better sources, but having the English source as well assists the reader who can't read that language - it is not necessary in such cases to cite only the English source. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That was really quite an effective comment. My edits today added the two short sections you suggested in the article. My writing aimed at thoroughness though I am not sure my narrative has as much verve as your own. Much appreciation. I shall try to refer the article to Eric as you suggest. Greetings of the New Year. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Yngvadottir. You have new messages at Talk:Tibetan culture. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
@Hafspajen: Just got home from work. I've had a look at his recent contributions and it's clear there is a language problem. It may be bigger than you realize - notice that he's said the article should be biased. I hope you can get him to choose pictures rather than removing them; you will also want to discuss his view that the main article should be shorter, which is presumably why he threw out referenced information? (I tend to disagree, but I have no idea what an article on Tibetan culture should look like.) I see someone else has joined in the discussion now - that's good too. Point out to him that being bold is fine, but after you get reverted, you are supposed to discuss. I also wonder whether he's edited under another name on other versions of Wikipedia - his contributions still show only en. Good luck :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.
Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs), Miyagawa (talk·contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Remember me? I am Erica Blatt Harkins. I finally figured out how to reach your talk page and talk to you. First I want to thank you for all your help and guidance in 2014. Now, what follows is problematic. I did post the bio I wrote in the sace provided through the search box. The title is "Nicolas Blatt". He was my father and he died 50 years ago. He was an important ophthalmologist during his life time. I received 2 messages saying that the publication of the bio is questionable because of the connection, and because I used flattering adjectives. Inadvertently I did and I edited the article to eliminate them. The article is objective, I am just narrating the facts in chronological order and everything is documented at the bottom with a complete list of references and publications. Below I explain the entire picture, and I would like, if you don't mind to have your opinion:
It explains a lot: I am 80 years old and luckily going on 50 (excuse my joke) and i am a very active teacher of European History in different colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Nicolas Blatt died exactly 50 years ago and he would be 125 years old now. He was my father. Regardless how I look at it and objectively, he was an important man during his times and he contributed a lot to the field of ophthalmology internationally and nationally. He also is an example of how scientist were treated in Eastern Europe during the 50s and 60s. What I wrote is objective and factual. I inadvertently used words which I should have not used because this is my style of writing: I am writing papers for my students and I am correcting their papers at test times. Since I saved in Wikipedia his bio, I edited it several times and I removed or changed all the no, no words. Everything i listed in the bio took place, nothing is invented or subjective, I just narrated the chronological facts. Everything that I said is 100% documented and at the bottom I added numerically all the references, inserting the numbers in the the text in the area where each belongs. I also listed in bullets his most important publications indicating where each was published and where each can be found. Everything I said is verifiable. I don't look back at him in a flattering manner because of my connection to him. I also intend to add links from the computer of different writings where his name is mentioned by other people. He was mentioned in many Journals in the USA, England, France, Germany, Hungary and Romania. Many of them are not in the computers because in those days computers almost did not exist, however, those Journals are still available today in their existing officers and different libraries. I am all mentioning them in my references (British Journal of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, American Archives of Ophthalmology, Archives dOfthalmologie (France), ‘Ophthalmologen Verzeichnis’ (Germany) and others. Also at the time of his death all this Journals wrote about it. Equally verifiable is the article written about him in 1949, in the "Romanian Review of Medical sciences" in which he was condemned for promoting Western Science instead of promoting only Soviet Science. His connection with the Royal Court of Romania and his work with Queen Helen of Romania in trying to save Jews from concentration camps are equally verifiable. In addition to the references I inserted in the text a few quotations from these different Journals and reviews. When he succeeded to leave Eastern Europe he was appointed Professor at the Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt Germany. That is also verifiable. I am not a wizard with computers, I work very well with computers for my classes, especially with Power Point, I had to learn a lot before I figured out how to edit articles in the Wikipedia pages, as such i made probably many mistakes in adding references and the format, but i am learning. Why nobody submitted until now his bio in Wikipedia, I don't know. In my writing I took the example of other similar bios in Wikipedia. There are also several people who are presently alive, and I believe that some have written their own story. This has nothing to do with me. I have pictures illustrating many of the facts I mention.
I also want to say that i love dogs!. 2 weeks ago i had tout down my 19 years old Parson Jack Russell. Regardless of his age it is very hard. Prior to him I had a Keasond.
@Erica Blatt Harkins: And a happy new year to you too! I'm glad my advice was of some use. I see the article has been moved to a better title - we don't use honorifics in the titles of articles - and is being actively edited by someone, or I would jump in and help out. If you recall, I told you that people would fix stuff :-) Sorry about the criticism about the wording - it's a common difficulty because few people have experience writing for encyclopedias, and as others have pointed out on your talk page, it's especially hard when writing about someone one is close to. But he does appear to be notable, I'm happy to see you removed a lot of the non-neutral wording when the problem was brought to your attention, and again, it's a collaborative effort so others will help.
It would be a good idea to collect together any of those mentions of him, on- or off-line; outside references are important for establishing notability, and we try to have articles be as much as possible based on what others have published about the subject. (That's also the main criterion for including his publications - the ones that were cited with comments, or reviewed, are the ones to include under "Selected works".) So any obituaries, published evaluations of his work, or newspaper mentions will be helpful. If they're offline, note the same information you would have your students give in a research paper - the idea is that the reader can find it using a library.
About those sandbox drafts: if you want them deleted, copy this at the top of the page: {{Db-author}}, then hit save. There's also a way to prevent search engines from indexing things like that, but you appear to have finished with them and want them gone.
I'm sorry you had difficulty finding my talk page. For future reference, we sign and date comments on both article and editor talk pages using "~~~~" - you can use the tilde key on a fullsize keyboard, or there should be a button or a drop-down menu option above the editing field with either a squiggle or a pencil symbol that can be clicked to insert it where the cursor is positioned. Those signatures contain a link to someone's talk page. Alternatively, you can do what I started this message with - registered editors have a "ping" system available. Type either [[User:Yngvadottir]] or --Yngvadottir (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Yngvadottir in a new comment and add your signature by the tildes method, and the next time I log on, or go to a new Wikipedia window, I'll see a red number at the top of the page informing me someone has called my name. When there's a new message on someone's talk page, that triggers an orange bar; you've probably been seeing both. I'm going to put a message on your talk page now, linking to this section, just in case you aren't sure what to do about the red numbers or are on a mobile device, where it's probably a bit different. And I'll look at the article later today (I'm at work right now, and as I say I want to let the other editor finish helping first). Thanks for writing it! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm done for today. After several hours I'm starting to lose objectivity myself. It's now at Nicolae Blatt rather than an anglicised (or French or German) version of his name. I'd like to do a proper ref to some of the books but worldcat is offline today. Bazj (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Yngvadottir. You have new messages at Talk:Tibetan culture. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
@OccultZone: You probably won't believe me but I thought that must have been your reason and looked through the article twice for that link. Now I see it in the preceding paragraph! Duh. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{Talkback|Yngvadottir}}Erica Blatt Harkins
Many apologies for responding so late to your very kind message. By mistake I misread one line and thought that somebody else sent me your message and I was going through an exercise in futility trying to explain sources. Sometimes it is hard but I understand all the reasons. I again have a few questions:
1. You mentioned that it would be nice to have the original of the Romanian article from The Revista Sttintelor Medicale (The Review of Medical Sciences): written about Blatt's Journal of Ophthalmology. I have it in my possession. In the previous version of the bio I translated a large section of it and inserted it as a quotation. It is not there anymore. Should I insert instead the same text in the bio in Romanian? Should I scan the text into the computer, or how do you suggest that I should proceed? 2. Regarding the French text that I also translated and you mentioned that it would help to have the original, I noticed a while ago that it figures in the bio under reference #12, 11. Is that enough for that or should I proceed otherwise? I do have the original. 3. A whole list of Blatt's papers that originally I listed at the end of the text disappeared; but again earlier I noticed that under "External Links" when I click on that, it takes me to a list of 35 papers written and published by Blatt. Somebody did that for me, I think it was you and I am grateful. Are those enough or should I translate some from German? (I am fluent in German). Should I add in the introduction of the bio, that Blatt wrote numerous papers? 4. Another reference could be certain articles from "The British Journal Journal of Ophthalmology" in which actually an American ophthalmologist called Gifford talks about Blatt's interesting work in the beginning of his career. Also the British Journal of Ophthalmology published several papers written by Blatt. All these articles are on Google: One is in the edition of August 1936 (important) #8, page 490-" Cercetari si studii de Ophthalmologie (Research and studies in Ophthalmology), Apparently the original can be found in "the Army Medical Library" in London. There are others published in October 18, 1948 #10 under "Notes ?" on pages 792-791. The last in the British Journal of Ophthalmology was published postmortem in 1965, #168. It was published in german - "Intraocular Knock Bildungen (Intraocular Ossification). Should these be entered as references or links. I must admit that I am not sure how to do it and I am afraid even though I read and you mentioned it before. Could you please explain? 5. In June 1994, a revived Romanian Newspaper called "Curierul Romines" published in its 6th year, #6, page 23, an article about Blatt, in which they have excerpts fromI "Romanian Review of Medical Sciences (1949), in which Blatt was accused of being a traitor to his country. I could not find it on line. but the original is in my possession. Should it go under references? 6. I have in my possession an original letter from Queen Helen to Blatt; Should I take a photograph of it and insert it in the text. 7. In regards to the efforts made by the international ophthalmologic community to help Blatt in leaving Romania, most of the people are dead, but i could procure a letter from a member of the family of his sister in law, a person who was very involved in the action, and who could explain, how everything happened. In 1966, the New York Times Review had an entire article, explaining in general how Romanians could eventually leave their country if they had family abroad who wanted to pay for their freedom. The price depended on the importance of the individual. 8. The Romanian Medical University, was and is called "Carol Davila"; It is on line should I use it as a reference? 9> Also please mention to me if I need further elimination from the text of words that could sound flattering? 10. At this point can I start inserting pictures, and if so should i insert them in WikuMedia or can I insert them directly into the text?
Thank you very much in advance for all your patience and help
@Erica Blatt Harkins: You're very welcome. That's a lot of questions, so I'm making a quick response to say I'll answer them but it will take me a bit of time. I'm not sure you've noticed that every page on Wikipedia has a "History" tab at the top. If you click on that for the article, you can see that two or three of us have been working on the article, and the list of edit summaries for each change. Click on "diff" to see the change made in each individual edit. That should help you see both the formatting we've applied and the reasoning with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding pictures, Help:Introduction to uploading images/1 is where to start for the simplest introduction, but I will briefly summarize. If you are the owner of the picture (you were the photographer, or you inherited the rights to the picture), you can upload it either to Commons (create an account there under the same name by using the log in button, and they have an easy upload wizard) or to English Wikipedia ("upload file" appears in the sidebar on the left; upload wizard is here). Uploading to Commons allows the picture to be used on any Wikimedia project, such as foreign-language Wikipedias, or indeed by anyone anywhere. You need to read the licence information and choose how widely you want the image to be available for reuse. If on the other hand you are not the owner of an image - if it was taken by a newspaper photographer or is from a journal, for example - then there are copyright rules. The series of help pages leads you through that, but [use policy#Copyright and licensing|here] is another summary. After an image is uploaded to either place, how to insert it in the article is also explained in the help page sequence, but here is a tutorial. Briefly, you put this into the article where you want the image to appear: [[File:FILENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]. The word "thumb" tells the software not to insert the image full-page-sized. If you want the image on the left, put "left|" after "thumb|". Fancier stuff, like moving an image into the infobox, other editors will be happy to help with. It would be nice to have at least one picture of him. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response and for the info on photographies. I have a few pictures inherited that also show Blatt in his working places. Yes I am very aware that this is a group effort to help and I am grateful for it. Of course you need your time to answer. I don't mean to bombard anybody. It is just that suddenly I feel stuck. It is regarding my first 3 0r 4 questions in reference to the Journals where Blatt's name appeared: British Journal of Ophthalmology and about the Romanian Journal and Newspaper that talk about him being a traitor to his country. I don't know where to go from here, and do Ihave enough documentation? Please take all the time necessary. I really appreciate everybody's help and joined efforts. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC))
Sure you did, bad girl on the hunt and I put them back as well. I am happy you like the poacher entry, are you ok to be memtioned as coauthor on DYK? Btw @Sonja Brentjes: (WP rookie, Orientalism scholar) should have a look on your polymath userpage. Serten II (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear, I am sorry - that was an edit conflict that the software did not alert me to! On the DYK, I guess I don't mind ... but your hooks need copyediting. Most importantly: the bit about the cookbook is not very clear. Is it a scholarly book that he has titled "cookbook" or does he actually provide recipes? - and in the first hook, the past tense of "lead" is "led". Yngvadottir (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The only thing you have to be sorry for in ages is calling a tatort a documentary ;) I tried to translate "Wildererkochbuch mit Durchschuss". It combines some Volkskunde aspects and legends being told, but I haven't seen any hole (Durchschuss) on the amazon page. I have a look on the hooks however. Serten II (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
For the sources for Attalus I's happy domestic life ...
@Paul August: I saw that, but it states merely that his wife was happy and virtuous and that he managed to raise his sons so well that there was no strife over the succession. None of that actually = "happy domestic life". I would sum it up as "He and his wife famously raised their sons well." Yngvadottir (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pius Walder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ingvar Ambjørnsen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Since 1985 he has lived in [[Hamburg]] with his German wife and translator, [[Gabriele Haefs].
Hi! We have not interacted much, but I have seen your posts on Drmies page and elsewhere. I just wanted to say Hi and mention that I am a fellow train enthusiast. I have many friends and family that are famous in the scale modeling and model train community, plus I have a personal interest as well. Best regards, --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Scalhotrod: I doubt I really qualify as a train enthusiast, although I'm one of the 500+ who have edited LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado and find it frankly a bit hard to understand why anyone would not be enthusiastic about steam trains and steam ships :-) And station architecture is of course part of my architectural obsession :-) Pleased to meetcha, sorry about slow response - bad, bad week. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, no worries, as the son of a fairly intense model railroader (when I was a child, our family vacations were based on where the national model train convention was taking place) I can understand your viewpoint. That said, I appreciate station architecture as well. The one in Milan is quite beautiful and impressive and there are others I've visited that I appreciate as well. BTW, the Tornado is an interesting locomotive, I'm a fan of the Loewy designed streamliners, art deco mechanicals at their best. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I left you a message also this morning on the Nicolae Blatt talk page. I will leave the same message for Bazj. He worked a lot on the construction of the bio and this is all a team work.
Thank you
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
Pius Walder has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, Yngvadottir. Pius Walder, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A wikipedia article would quicken the spread of new art forms.
Art serves as a remedy, and not allowing a new art form to be posted immediately may result in unnecessary deaths; for example, suicide from people who may have been remedied if they were to see a new way to make art.
It may take a month for a new art form to be published enough to correspond with Wikipedia's guidelines, and during that month, many lives may have been saved via a new form of art. BennuRainbow (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: So I see! As I had mentioned to you before I think, someone appears to have uploaded the entire book about the house in pdf to Commons (which I hadn't thought was copyright-legal when I had the book on interlibrary loan). My bad scans of illustrations and plans are still here on en., I believe - the notion was that Giano was interested in making updated floor plans based on them. So you should probably ask him about that. Otherwise, Eric's the man for rewriting to FA level, and the positive comments at the review reflect his work on the article. I'll continue to stay away so as not to get in the way :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think both Drmies and Eric editing it mean that it will require less effort to promote, I've long thought it good enough. Yes, I spotted your scans, they just need cropping and some basic editing really.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice job there. The units could be put into {{convert}} but I bet you were quite worried about WP:OVERLINK, certainly the German version seems a bit overlinked.
The only question I have is your link that the rear wheel was powered by a universal joint. My German is not good but I don't see it saying so anywhere. I am not saying you're wrong, I am sure you are right: differential gear would probably be inappropriate, or elbow coupling is red. Can you tell me where it is in the German, my deutsche is not good enough to kinda back translate it - I don't see it in the German article being mentioned at all, but that is probably just my stupidity.
As you probably see, I did a tiny bit of tidying "removeable" -> "removable" and "sec-1" to "rpm". But it is pretty cool as it stood. Anything I did that you dislike, feel free to revert. Gesundheit and all that, Si Trew (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I know what jo napot means. (And it is jo reggelt, anyway!) if you are trying to talk to me, then en beszelek pici magyarul, nem jo, hanem pici és ertem, de nem ertem: Y vagy en? Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am probably an idiot, since "Y" does not really exist in Hungarian. "J" is pronounced like English Y. Digraphs for "gy", "ny" (for example where I live, Szőlősnyaroló) are not pronounced as english J (which is dzs, but only used on foreign words, such as "dzsem" I found the other day means "jam", but it's a transliteration, no native Hungarian would do that.)
{Talkback|Yngvadottir}}Erica Blatt Harkins
I don't know if you received my last message this evening on my talk page. Please let me know. When informed you about my message on your talk page, I apparently inadvertently forgot to sign it, and another Wikipedian appeared on the line of communication. The comments were peculiar and I am concerned that you did not receive my last message on my talk page. Please let me know. Thank you.
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
I am leaving you this message right here on your talk page. Thank you for what you have done. When I put my name in the Google box, the "Plantagenet Empire " disappeared but this appears instead: "User talk:Yngvadottir - Wikipedia Recent Change Post" Almost our entire communication is on line for anybody to look at. How come? Did I do something wrong? Can this be removed?
Should I start loading the pictures, directly into the article or into Wiki commons?
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bridgewater State University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Professional Indoor Football League. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Ah. That's what I get for editing in unfamiliar areas. Thanks for the tip-off, I see the IPs have just been blocked accordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pythagoreanism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Oh well! If your location is a secret, this is like having a friend out there in space! I guess this is part of the mysteries of Wikipedia! Does that mean that no volunteer knows the location of other volunteer? So be it! It is interesting and amusing! What regards the Babel Box, well it is good that it is not used, but maybe we should all learn Esperanto. talk to you soon again. Thank you!
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC))
Yes, that wasn't much of a discussion. But the article we now have uses the term "Werther effect" from the start and devotes substantial space to the term and how it came about - really, it includes everything that was in the original article - and doesn't appear on a quick reading to define another type of copycat suicide that is in contrast to it. So I think in this instance it wouldn't be worth unmerging. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flonja Kodheli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lambert. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Yngvadottir. Pius Walder, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to nominate one of my click for FP, if you don't mind, please have a look at this and confirm this photograph is meeting the criteria for promotion. It is having good EV and good quality but still lacking the courage to ask somebody or nominate directly. I hope you won't mind for giving a small support for promoting the photograph as FP. Blacknclick (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Blacknclick: I'm afraid I don't do GA, FA, or FP at all. (I also don't have the eyesight to judge the quality of digital images, but that's a lesser point.) You would be better off either just nominating it, or asking someone who participates at FA, like Hafspajen, about the nomination process if you're not sure how to. As to getting support for it, I wouldn't worry too much - not many votes are needed at FP, and there are people who watchlist it. But again, someone who participates in the process would knpow better than me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you and your friends for your help in writing the article about well-known scientist and human right activist Alexander Bolonkin. I am very gratefull for this.
I have only two small remarks:
1) You mentioned that Bolonkin was in Gorky in exile. He was in Siberia in exile (in small village Bagdarin).
2) If it is possible, could you please insert some of his well-known scientific monographies (books) and articles published in famous publishing houses and scientific journals, for example (some of the 250 published scientific articles and books):
@ABA888: I'm glad you like the rewrite; I'll have a look at what I can add about his publications. There are two problems. One is that an editor has said he has published with unreliable publishers; some of the above, such as Publish America, look as if they may be publish-on-demand. But I see at least one with a major publisher, Elsevier. The other is that it's obvious that a scientist will have published, so we prefer to list only books and articles that have been reviewed or much cited in peer-reviewed journals. So I will have a look on JSTOR and see whether I can find reviews of his books. If you know of any mentions of them in articles in the press, particularly in Russian, which I don't have the knowledge to search, that would be helpful; we would need the author (if any is listed), article title, newspaper name, and date of publication, but it could be in any language and does not have to be online. However, interviews and articles by him in the press are not nearly as useful as independent articles that evaluate or otherwise give a long mention to something he wrote. (I've redacted your e-mail address; we don't use those here and listing it may get you a lot of spam.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Precious again
help with translations
Thank you for helping us Germanic contributors to fluent idiomatic articles, with your detailed explanations and admirable patience in copy-editing dedicated to precision, and thanks for covering a broad range of German topics, DYK? - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Hello Yngvadottir, How are you? We did not communicate for a while. I have a question: What is the procedure if I would like to translate and post Blatt's bio that is on the English Wikipedia also on the Romanian Wikipedia? Please let me know if possible. Thank you
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
Hello, no problem, thanks very much! I was myself trying delete it, when I notice the mistake. I got a good translation from my fiancé, that was my first try (I used it here for mistake also in the incorrect wiki) before four people correct it, and he was the last one to transte it (He is German native). But When I tried associate it to section of legends there they said they do not want, because it is not scientific... blah blah blah... When I try explain it was in cultural section and I was trying link the file that was a translation from wikipedia, they said "you should not talk in English, if you do not speak german you have anything to contribute here", well I am volunteer, english is universal, if the reviewer is racist I have nothing to do with it, I speak three languages, and at moment am intermediate german level (4th language), so all I can do it is keeping working in the other three languages.
Thank you for improving this article. I noticed you moved information about the country of the origin and the history of standardization to the reference section. Normally that would be the proper place. However, the situation with Sharplaninac is specific because the relationship with Karst Shepherd and Illyrian Shepherd. Not every Illyrian Shepherd was type A (Sharplaninac). Also, for over 50 years Sharplaninac was mixed with Karst Shepherd and the offsprings were classified as type A or B based on their appearance. Dogs from the very same litter were classified differently. Do you think that should be part of introduction, or it would be more appropriate for that information to go to the separate section (History)?--N Jordan (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey there! I noticed you edited the opening of Hurricane Keith. I understand why you changed the first sentence, but there was a reason it was styled differently. If you were to look up any random hurricane, you could get the same generic opening. In my opinion, it's more useful to say what the storm did in general than say it was the 11th named storm of the season. That doesn't help anyone. It could've been the first storm of the season, but it would still have an article due to the damage, which is why the effects are more important. Does that make sense? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You have a point, and I'm not as adamant about it as the IP, but I do disagree. We have established a house style on the encyclopedia of almost always starting with what it was. Although we are told not to tiue ourselves in knots to create such an opening, that makes it a bit disorienting to instead read "Hurricane Keith caused X amount of damage ..." at the very start of the article, and only thereafter, "this is what it was." "Hurricane Keith" as the title does establish that it was a hurricane. But it's still slightly clearer to the reader to say "It was a hurricane in 2000" before saying "It impacted these countries and caused this dollar amount of damage", and it's that that causes me to prefer having the "nth storm of year X" material first, not the ordinal number in itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I still slightly disagree. The fact it was in 2000 is kind of inconsequential. For instance- hurricane names are repeated every six years, and Hurricane Ana has been used seven times since 1979. To differentiate them, it's more useful saying the area affected, especially as there was one in 2014 and will be one in 2015. Regarding Keith, it was a retired storm, so I think what it should did should be emphasized first, not some generic "nth storm of year X". But this does affect every storm article, all 1245 of them (or so). The standard is to describe the storm first, and later mention its place in the season. See Hurricane Sandy or Hurricane Andrew. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
But both of those do begin with what it was: "Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy") was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season." "Hurricane Andrew was, at the time of its occurrence in August 1992, the costliest hurricane in United States history." It isn't the number within the season, per se, that I think should come first, but some statement that it was a hurricane and what year it occurred in. An alternative solution at Hurricane Keith would be: Hurricane Keith was a storm in October 2000 that caused extensive damage in Central America, especially in Mexico and Belize. It was the fifteenth tropical cyclone, eleventh named storm, and seventh hurricane of that year's Atlantic hurricane season." Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The intro as now written is good in my opinion. Generic openings are a feature of encyclopaedias and it seems very strange to argue against them. If a biography of an actor, for example, started by saying what productions they appeared in before it said when they were born, that would be weird and surprising to the reader, and that's exactly equivalent to how Hurricane Keith was written. I am interested to note that an anonymous editor gets reverted and criticised for making a change in accordance with encyclopaedic style, while an editor with an account gets thanked for their feedback when making the same change. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi again! I don't think you got enough credit for making the initial change, but as you see above, Hink didn't understand what we wanted; so I shook it up. A matter of explaining and looking at examples, apparently. Hopefully if there are any others this will serve as a model. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Source #1 is so jargonish I'm not sure the article is correct; I can only hope I and the article authors interpreted it correctly :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh that lily is gorgeous. Gerda, I would love to celebrate spring in Germany. Can you invent a conference or something like that so I can get my boss to pay for it? Drmies (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to, but I have a few plates already in the air, so I'll be slower than you would wish, thus no promises of being useful, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Neither was bad, and apart from mining the cited refs for more biographical information on her, including her year of birth, you seem to have done pretty much all that's needed at the Annbe Rudloe article. (You may have finished that one while I wasn't looking.) I did a basic run-through at Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory. It could use ISBNs and there may still be some wording that could be improved, but it was already not bad. This, on the other hand, was bad, but hopefully I've done enough to save it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd say what's worth looking at is whether "forgetting" a 0RR agreement[6][7] 1 week after a block for "forgetting" a 0RR agreement is likely. Whether or not you agree with the edit and revert and whether or not the IP has a point are separate issues. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That's great, Summer. Run for admin and block them. I'm a volunteer here and am under no compulsion to block anyone. I don't even like blocking, and I don't care much for this entire issue anymore, nor do I think that the project should be declared a failure if the IP isn't blocked soon. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@SummerPhD: I think events have moved on from the agreement I brokered and from the one Drmies put in place with 0RR. The IP editor has subsequently been blocked and rapidly unblocked by two other admins, and in this latest dispute is discussing at the talk page rather than continuing to revert. I wouldn't block anyone for doing what they're doing now, although along the way they provided a textbook example of WP:POINT with one Tosca edit and both Drmies and I have said so. We got the clock reset we wanted, the IP has improved his/her behaviour, I've agreed with his/her edits in a preponderance of cases and disagreed in some (and currently differ with them at Tosca and to some extent at the Russian town article). I think we're in a new stage now and that the old agreement has been superseded by a normal situation (including an apparently over-hasty block for different issue). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
So, to sum up: He agreed to 0RR. He broke 0RR. He was blocked for a week for breaking 0RR. He went an entire week without breaking it again, so now the 0RR doesn't apply. Is that about right?
I am certain " Please do not revert to name calling, like "such an idiot" in the future" will ensure a quick end to that particular problem.
Now that you've both told him not to disruptively edit to make a point (somewhere...?), I'm sure that won't happen again.
No, of course admins are not required to block anyone ever. In fact, they are expected to defend highly disruptive, edit warring, block evading, personal attackers from having their good names smeared by anyone daring to imply their behavior is "vandalism". That is what the mop is for. Thank you for your tireless efforts protecting this poor, defenseless, misunderstood champion of all that is good and right. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I put my quarter in the sarcasm jar a long time ago, Summer. You could have left that abusive vandal sockpuppeteer etc. alone a long time ago, but you chose not to, so boohoo. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a competing summary. This editor fixed Wikipedia's prose for many years, but for reasons known only to them, didn't register an account. When they got reverted, they edit warred and slung insults. They took unpopular hard-line positions on things like "best known for". Because of this and a bias against unregistered editors that I am sure we can both agree exists - and because unregistered editors on dynamic IPs are only recognizable by their editing/commenting traits - they got blocked a sufficient number of times to acquire a long-term abuse page. They were both taken to and went to AN/I a number of times. (They also hit a really raw nerve with you in particular over their use of insults, including one particular one that I've thought of writing an essay on.) I tried something new and got them to agree not to edit war, but to take the issue to talk pages - and user talk pages - instead, and to stop with the personal attacks. And we reset the clock on all the heap of blocks. It was rocky but they improved steadily. They got blocked again a couple of times, and unblocked again. The most recent block was made in complete ignorance of the past history and was overturned in I think 5 minutes. The block before that, they sat out. At present they are discussing on an article talk page after making no more reverts than any other common-or-garden editor, are slinging no insults I consider grave (calling something the silliest argument they have seen in 12 years editing Wikipedia doesn't trip my personal attack circuit-breaker, but I grant you mine may have a thicker fuse in it than others') ... and yesterday did make a textbook pointy edit, so there's that. Other than that, I think what we now have, as demonstrated by the block and the equally fast unblock, is an editor among editors, not an abuse case. I can't tell you not to follow them about; there are several editors I check on from time to time. And by the nature of it, someone on a dynamic IP who doesn't register an account will get extra scrutiny because a significant number of registered editors don't like our policy of allowing editing without registration. But this person has decided to stop pinging me and Drmies, and I kind of agree, I don't consider they need my special attention any more. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: By breaking 0RR then avoiding 0RR for one whole entire week before breaking 0RR again, they have now "moved past" their agreed upon 0RR and are no longer under 0RR. Right?
Yes, they were blocked again for a personal attack and the block was lifted by someone unaware that the editor has a solid decade of warnings and blocks for personal attacks. How that demonstrates that they are "an editor among editors" is beyond me. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
When are you going to stop your stalking and harassment? If the answer is never, then, as I've said before, eventually you'll get what's coming to you. Even the anti-IP bias that pervades wikipedia doesn't allow indefinite harassment of anonymous editors.
And when is someone going to delete that ridiculous attack page which contravenes policy and is only used by people who want to harass me? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So, really, so this is what it was all about? Jolly good to know. I have to say, he was quick to go back to his previous ways. Today's edit war issue is proving something very different. I thing you are all AGF him a bit too quickly. Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for clarification from Yngvadottir. The editor agreed to ORR, violated that, was blocked for one week and one week later violated 0RR (and 3RR). As a result, they are no longer subject to 0RR. What am I missing? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
They were unblocked under a 0RR condition by Drmies but were subsequently blocked by another admin and served out the block. So the condition has been superseded. That's how I see it anyway. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Manzur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Constructivism and Guggenheim Foundation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I see you have stated on his current talk page that he is no longer under any restriction. Please explain that and point the way to the discussion that concluded such. I would link to the numerous times you've asked him to stop edit warring and calling people names and he's promised to do so, and the times he has broken that promise, but I'm fairly sure you're content for him to do whatever he likes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The explanation is in the section further up this page. He's since been treated like any other editor, including serving a block placed by another admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not an explanation; that's you saying "I think everything's fine now" when the guy broke a 0RR and showed no sign of changing his behaviour, so he got blocked for it. Apparently that now means he will no longer be disruptive. The fact that someone of your obvious intelligence considers that this editor has changed his behaviour is astonishing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it's me saying it's out of my hands now. He (or of course possibly she) decided at the time of that block no longer to ping me or Drmies; they're on their own, and are being treated like other unregistered editors. I'm now primarily someone who knows their history. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
They're not exactly being treated like other unregistered editors though, as the continued hostility indicates. Bretonbanquet, your comment toward Yngvadottir is a personal attack and shows only that you lack good faith and proper reading skills. Y, I was going to stay off-wiki for a while; now I think I might just throw my bit down here, since if it's people like this we're working for, then I really don't care much for the job. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: I'm clearly too thick-skinned when it comes to discerning attacks ... please don't retire from adminship, I believe the whole point is to try to serve the editing community (and try to hold it together). And we've lost a lot of good admins (far better than me, at least); please don't let's lose you. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, if you think that's a personal attack then I don't know what to say. The editor in question bandies naked insults around like sweets yet you see this as a personal attack. My apologies if Yngvadottir took it as a PA, but I maintain that I have always found the support of this guy to be surprising, given his history and total lack of interest in co-operating pleasantly. That's my point. My reading skills are not what's in question here. Do I lack good faith in either of you? No. Do I lack good faith in the IP? You bet. That said, neither this editor, nor I, nor any other editor, are worth stepping down for. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, congratulations! I did very little, though it was fun slamming in stuff alternately with Drmies; Eric did oodles and so did Giano IIRC. And we also had contributions from an estate agent :-) That was a fun collaboration, all told, though seeing what the cops did to the poor house made me sad. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That was fun. Thanks Ernst (and your colleagues, and the FA reviewers of course) for taking it to the next level. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As you know, I am a terrible judge of such things. There is a lot about the family rather than the house, but it's the description that I would further research, not the history. For example, what are mathematical tiles? And what's special about the carved window surrounds that merits quoting? Maybe I'm showing the shallowness of my architectural knowledge. My general impression is that it's an excellent article. But that and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee until they raise the price again. Go for it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is certainly a very comprehensive and resourceful one. View it on wikiwand with white text on dark, that's how wikipedia should look IMO! Much classier. Yes, that was my main concern with the history. The knowledge about the actual house at an earlier stage is sketchy and in parts it's bloated out with too much on the family I think to try to compensate. From the architecture down though I think it's approaching FA quality although the description in parts might need some work for clarity. The prose in places may need a bit of polishing... I think we'd probably be better trimming the history down a bit and not worrying too much about the coverage. The Tower House I think is the best bet next, I've opened a PR on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark(pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
I have noticed you have been editing the Wikipedia articles on Colombian artist, David Manzur. I'm the artist assistant and coworker, he is very important in colombia and recently many foreign people have been interested in his work and I (with huge help from a friend) have been trying to create Wikipedia articles on him in different languages. I created a small text in spanish using references and citing my sources and it has been translated to many other languages. I studied political science and my life is only about Art, I´m not really an expert on using Wikipedia, for what i have seen you are interested in art and you know how to handle Wikipedia, I would be eternally helpful if you could help me , and specially my friend whose task is to post information on Wikipedia, to create proper Wikipedia articles on Manzur having in mind that in my country he is widely recognized along artists such as Alejandro Obregón, Edgar Negret and Botero. I'm truly sorry to bother you, and I do sincerely hope that could help us to create something acceptable and proper for him. Thank you. Do excuse my English, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeatx (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for answering my message so soon. Yes, I did write the article in spanish trying to be neutral and using correctly all my references. Since David and I work so much everyday, I asked my friend Marcela Franco to create an account to help us upload some information to Wikipedia. She did a wonderful job in spanish and I asked her to use the same text in english, french and portuguese with minor variations. I imagine she did not have much idea about copyright policies on Wikipedia, I will send to her the message you left me on my page. And also, I will tell her to make a small statement or her page that she is affiliated with the artist, and from now on, all the editing and the uploading of pictures will be through her account and not anyone else´s. I created this account to be able to message you and to ask you for advise personally, but it is her job to create the wikipedia pages on David.
According to the reference of MOMA, it's the Museum of Modern Art of Bogotá and not the one in New York.
I have a final question if you don't mind. Before Marcela altered the Wikipedia articles on David, when we searched for him in Google we could see the knowledge graph on him on the right with some personal information from wikipedia and some related searches. It doesn't appear anymore in Spanish or in any other language, why do you think that is?
Thank you for all your help, I'm sure your advise will be of much use to my friend Pipeatx 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeatx (talk • contribs)
Thnak you again
You are always so kind for answering my questions. I do appreciate that very much. Pipeatx 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeatx (talk • contribs)
Måns
Please take a look at the article about Måns Zelmerlöw. I have done several edits to improve the article ahead of his likely Melodifestivalen winning next weekend. Any further improvements are appreciated. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Esin Eden
Hi,
You have deleted my article about Esin Eden on 28th of January.
First of all she is my mother. There is no better reference than this I guess.
Can you please create it agian? Or should I do so?
Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimbaud72 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
How are you? Just keeping you posted--. The bio of Nicolae Blatt is now available also on the Romanian Wikipedia. The only thing I need to do now is to add the pictures and i am in the process of finding out if the syntax and procedure are similar as on our English Wikipedia. Thank you for helping me carrying all this through.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited René Lalique, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musée des Arts Décoratifs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please don't edit war as you are doing at Lulu Wang. The way to change an article is not to try to force your preference on it by repeatedly making the same edit, but by discussing on the talk page and seeking a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: I have removed that excresence twice, the second time after noting that the article creator didn't like it either. I'd left it alone after it was rudely edit-warred back in, but enough's enough. The status quo was no infobox. It's incumbent on those who automatically add one to justify it; tehre was an ArbCom case affirming that this is true of infoboxes as it is of any other challenged addition. However, I have now expanded on my reasoning on the talk page. I trust that makes you happier. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong. The article was created as a stub by an IP on 27 August 2005 on the Dutch Wikipedia:
By April 2008, it had expanded to include an infobox and one has remained on that article in the seven years since. That gives the lie to your claim that it's "not useful" as the Dutch obviously find it so.
Drmies, bless him, faithfully translated the Dutch article in January and complied with the CC-BY-SA licence; but you are no more right to call him the "creator" than you would be to call Fitzgerald the author of Omar Kyaam.
The major contributors to the article did like an infobox, over a period of seven years. The status quo for seven years has been to have an infobox. So that exposes the nonsense of your argument: it is ludicrous to defer to a "creator's wishes" - that's OWNership, pure and simple and only gets used as an reason by those who can't debate the actual advantages and disadvantages of having an infobox in an article. The real "unattractive feature" is the making up of rules that contradict BRD just for when it suits your personal preference. Nobody should feel it incumbent to seek prior permission to make any edit that they judge to improve the article. If you challenge the edit, then it is indeed incumbent on you to provide reasons and discuss on the talk page. The editor who added the infobox, Editør opened a discussion immediately after you reverted him. I see that you have only now deigned to comment, after edit-warring against two others to align the article with your personal preferences. I'll comment further there. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: No, I am not. Our article is not the Dutch Wikipedia article. Drmies chose not to have an infobox when he translated it, and he subsequently further improved the article; so did at least one other editor. The editor who likes infoboxes added it while the article was on the Main Page in the DYK section. I looked at his edits after noticing that my small improvement was no longer the latest edit, and saw that among helpful edits he had added an infobox. I removed it with an explanatory edit summary. He readded it with a demand that I discuss before reverting him. I decided not to edit war and left it. However, I noticed today that Drmies had politely objected to that revert. ArbCom has ruled that infoboxes are neither required nor preferred in general, and that editors should defer to the creators and maintainers of the article when tehre is a dispute over them. So I commented at the editor's talk page and re-reverted, again with an explanatory edit summary. The editor only started the talk page section after responding to me at his talk. I am not sure why you see this as opening a discussion immediately, or why you consider I am demanding the editor get prior permission to make an edit - having been reverted, especially after it was noted by another editor as an unwelcome change, it was incumbent on him to give reasons. And he still has not done so, other than his personal preference. Whereas I noted my reason for removing it in both my edit summaries and have now given a full statement at the article talk page. Hence my opening statement - you are wrong, I am not. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, and in addition: Editør added the infobox - I removed it - Editør reverted me - some days later I re-removed it - another editor has reverted me - I am unaware of any intervening addition of it, but I would in any case not be the one who removed it that second time, and I have not removed it again since being reverted the second time. How does that add up to my edit warring against two people? Apologies if you see a different version of the history from the one I do - I would not put that past the WMF. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No, my apologies, I hadn't spotted that Editør had restored the infobox among all the edits he made, but I did see that Olive had re-added the infobox. My confusion, sorry.
Nevertheless, I think you are completely wrong in saying that "ArbCom has ruled ... that editors should defer to the creators and maintainers of the article when tehre is a dispute over them." I've examined the rulings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and can find only "It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight in such discussions". Please enlighten me on which ruling you are basing your claim. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I'm afraid that under the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence, our article was the article on the Dutch Wikipedia when the page was created here by Drmies. Translation is insufficient to break the link to the original work. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't care much for infoboxes; I can see some use for it here since it has the subject's native name and thus it lightens the load of the first sentence. My real beef was with the rather cursory "take it to the talk page", which is typically uttered only pejoratively. I do think that the spirit of the 2013 case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, where for instance Gerda was allowed to "include infoboxes in new articles which they create") suggest the creator have some sort of say in it. Whether I, as a translator, technically count as a creator, I don't know; I like to think I improved on it if only by adding references; the real work was done by Rosiestep, of course. I do wish that Editor had shown a bit more of a sense of decorum. But let's not fight over this, please. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
When I see an editor revert for reasons that are personal as in "not needed" rather than based on policy, I tend to ask them to take that to the talk page. I have never seen that as pejorative and for me it means just what it implies, discuss please. We should move on, but I wanted to correct the notion that my comment was something other than what I meant.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC))
The suggestion that "where for instance Gerda was allowed to 'include infoboxes in new articles which they create' suggest[s] the creator have some sort of say in it." is utterly bogus; the point of that criterion is that at the point of such an article being created with an infobox, there can, logically, be no existing dispute about the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy, "at the point of such an article being created with an infobox, there can, logically, be no existing dispute about the infobox" doesn't mean anything at all. If someone creates an article with an infobox, there is no logical reason why there couldn't be an "existing" dispute. Personally, I like existing disputes much better than unexisting disputes; the latter are too much like unknown unknowns to me. Don't make ArbCom say nonsense, please. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I am more concerned about Editors canvassing of others on this (here and here). I've put the article back to the status quo while the conversation takes place (those who favour IBs are always terribly keen to ensure that the status quo is kept if it involves the removal of an extant box, although a little more shaky when it's t' other way round...) - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I never thought my last article would be on a Greek painter.
I am obviously addicted to this project, and I care deeply about it, but I think it's best if I don't return to it.
I have been subjected to multiple assumptions of bad faith, not just the one unfounded accusation of lying and the accusation within it of contributing to driving off new editors, but also the upholding of an editor's demand that before undoing one of their contributions among many to the same article, I should obtain consensus, the accusation that I only belatedly "deigned" to join a talk page discussion that was opened anything but "immediately" (and where I and others had already discussed with the editor) and the dismissal of my reasoning as mere preference on grounds of ... mere preference. I have tried to hold to my nuanced view on infoboxes, but it has become clear that nothing satisfies editors who believe they should be universal other than bowing to their wishes.
Stewardship is not ownership. It is basic to the way we work that we evaluate the usefulness of changes to articles: we collaborate by correcting the spelling, grammar, word choice, formatting, and organization of what others have put into articles, and we remove things others have added for any number of reasons, not merely undoing vandalism and jokes such as name checks and shout-outs to friends, but removing unnecessary detail, repetitions, unencyclopedic trivia, unreferenced contentious material about BLPs, promotion and link cruft ... and sometimes replacing it with something that is either longer or shorter. All of these involve evaluation, and in none of these should the overriding issue be, "Am I undoing someone's work". It has to be "What do I judge best for the article (and the encyclopedia)", or we are merely a writing club. In many, many cases there will be disagreement: people have different styles, different preferences about the amount of linking that is desirable (let alone about red links), different views on how a lead section should be written and how much overlap there should be between it and the body, different views on how many references to use and where ... let alone national differences in English usage, which can extend to matters of style and organisation. People also differ in how they collaborate; engaged editors with a vision for the structure of the whole article sometimes thrash out a compromise version by making a series of alternating rewrites, with comments in the edit summary and sometimes also on talk pages. That can get heated, but in many cases a compromise is reached that works for the article and is in many respects better than if one editor had worked on it alone, because the other(s) have brought up and worked on issues that one alone had not seen, or found solutions that one alone would not have thought of. That is collaboration.
Yet it's defined as edit warring: policy was rewritten a few years ago to define any revert, partial or complete, as edit warring.
We have a guideline page, WP:EXPERTS, that while I assume it makes the important point that experts are one of Wikipedia's strengths, and that one of the reasons they are so is that they can be expected to have good references at their fingertips—I haven't looked at it in a while—spends considerable space on denigrating experts for being aware of the nuances of their field. A few years ago, an RfC rejected correct capitalization in the area of bird names; many editors got their edit counts inflated by moving a large number of articles and changing a large number of links, and several expert and productive editors left the project.
Earlier still, someone thought too many newly created articles were being marked for speedy deletion. Rather than the admin corps performing a study on whether speedy deletion tags were being acted on too hastily and unquestioningly, and whether certain admins needed to be reminded to be patient and inquisitive before deleting, or trying any other approach (such as relaxing the conditions for granting the autopatrolled flag, which have risen beyond the reach of slow and steady article creators), it was decided to lay a trap for the new page patrollers, which was done with a breaching experiment involving false identities and deliberate creation of test case articles. As a result most of the experienced new page patrollers walked out, either after being censured or in disgust. Unreviewed new pages piled up—and spilled off the back of the queue—and the perception of a vacuum drew in over-eager volunteers who created a shooting gallery environment that has driven off new editors who join us to create an article in an abstruse area, and is a constant source of worry about articles being tagged almost immediately after creation.
Our much-touted slogan is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". In principle that has to include experts, and people creating their first article. It also has to include unregistered editors. Most of us made our first edits before registering. Almost all of us occasionally get logged out without our realising it (for one thing, Mediawiki requires a separate log-in and when returning to Wikipedia, one finds oneself logged-out.) But a large proportion of editors believe IP editing should not be allowed, and an even larger proportion is biased against IP edits. This prejudice may be unavoidable, but it undermines our mission. In particular it is driving off new editors, as well as that unknown number who prefer for whatever reason to continue editing without registering. I tried as an administrator to help the site by reducing the problem of the "Best known for IP". It proved intractable not just because the editor eventually returned to edit warring, but because they were held to be unreformable because they are an unregistered editor who has had a long-term abuse page created about them, and thus no improvement in their behavior outweighed their having been abusive in the past. They have stated that they will probably be unable to resist making improvements in the future, and as the blocking admin has noted, this will be socking. They will be (mostly) good edits of which we seek to deprive ourselves on bureaucratic grounds and because of a prejudice against IP editors.
We have indeed become a massive bureaucracy. In addition to the redefinition of edit warring that lays open all give-and-take collaboration to punishment as edit warring, the methods of discussion are more and more byzantine. Both the Witiquette noticeboard and Requests for Comment have been closed down, leaving AN/I, a dreadful gauntlet where reporting editors are likely to be set upon and censured, or alternatively the complaint languishes unnoticed until it's archived, with or without first generating long discussions between the editors involved in the dispute and/or more or less hasty and sarcastic commentary from gadflies and more or less clueful admin wannabees. There's a regrettable amount of failure to read the complaint carefully, or the diffs. I used to read AN/I to learn about policy and practice. Now I see Social Darwinism. Meanwhile, WP:BRD is fine and dandy as a theory, but works very messily in practice: many go to each others' talk pages instead of the article talk page; many flat out refuse to discuss, or simply use "talk page!" as a club, as that editor did to me, and we're seeing the rise of flying pressure groups of editors who overwhelm article talk page discussions, on issues such as WP:ENGVAR, naming conventions, nationalist POV, WP:FRINGE ... and infoboxes. Increasingly the labyrinth channels people to ArbCom, which more and more functions as a law court, with use of impenetrable legal terminology, inscrutable rules (I never did figure out whether I was allowed to weigh in on, for example, the case of a fellow administrator whom I only know as a colleague, and if so, how) and decisions that are both hard to interpret (no, I should not need to say, I was not lying about the infobox ruling; that's what I believe it means; and I believe there is a case at AN/I right now about what's included under "gender, broadly construed") and hard to reconcile with the encyclopedic mission (the last few rulings against Eric Corbett).
In fact we have a serious problem with our whole model of consensus. First of all, the word means "agreement", not "winning an argument by more effective appeal to policy". We call it consensus because it makes us feel good and papers over the underlying bureaucracy. Secondly, we have at best uneven application of the principle, especially in the increasing number of non-admin closures (in effect, the rule that non-admins should not make a contentious close has been suspended for lack of admins and because voters at RfA have decided that candidates need to have already been doing admin stuff; see also, AN/I) but also by admins. At my RfA, I deliberately flubbed the consensus question; I had an AfD in my past that I had started, and where the article creator, a wikifriend of mine, had agreed with me that the subject was not notable; but the AfD was closed as "keep" on a blatant supervote by an admin applying a personal, non-policy criterion. Enforcement of the rules against canvassing is highly uneven (the infoboxes wikiproject is not going to be a neutral venue to advertise an infobox dispute, and one of the primary functions of many wikiprojects is to enforce their definitions of notability and MOS rules), and always will be: off-wiki canvassing of fellow editors and others is increasingly trivial and socially normal at this point in the development of the internet. In practice, because we are not prepared to take a hard look at what we mean by "consensus" and whether that's what we are actually doing, we have mob rule leavened by an increasingly deprecated expertise and sense of stewardship.
This bureaucratic drift away from the purpose and principles of the project hamstrings admins, too. The principle that admins don't make content decisions is fine and dandy, but as I said above, all editing is evaluative: we determine what is vandalism by evaluating it and inferring its intent. There is no clear border between content decisions - what's best for the article - and decisions about editor behavior - which rest in large part on evaluating what the editor has been doing in articles. In the discussion about the latest clamp-down against the "Best known for IP", after I had bowed to consensus, it also became apparent that the "involved" rule can be interpreted very strictly and would in effect prevent an admin from semi-protecting an article they have edited, or blocking an editor who has edited that article. This would rule out one of the two main reasons I (and I presume many other admins) have articles on our watchlists: because they have drawn vandalism or POV editing. It would mean the admin could only intervene with tools after seeing a noticeboard posting or getting a message, and that not if they were familiar with the article from editing it. That's a recipe for inept administration based on hasty, uninformed judgements that rest entirely on a guess as to the editor's intent, without context, and it encourages admins not to be stewards of articles. Having a Chinese wall between administrative actions and content decisions may seem good theoretically, but in practice it just makes admins cops and discourages them from being what they were in theory chosen for being: editors whose judgement is trusted.
In any event, I didn't so much run for adminship as get pushed. I didn't have any desire to be an admin: I stepped up after others decided it was a good idea. I have almost no ambition—very hard for ambitious people to understand, I know, and I keep forgetting that a lot of people are motivated by ambition—and I hate being a cop. I have worked hard to be worthy of the trust placed in me, and it changed my activities on the project a lot. Some of those who opposed at that time did so because it would curtail my writing for the project, and they were right, although there have been other factors, including the other way in which I use my watchlist: most of the articles I create or substantially change, I keep an eye on. That's what the list on my user page was originally for: I go by to see whether they need updating or whether I now see something I could have said better, and I also keep an eye on them for vandalism and other unfortunate changes. I regard it as my duty, having added them to the encyclopedia, but my watch list has become rather large.
As I say, after I became an admin I tried to be useful. I don't think it worked out very well. I made a number of mistakes, as I was afraid I would. And I kept rigidly away from determining consensus, which ruled out helping with many of the worst backlogs. I realized early on that a lot of adminship, done right, is deciding which tool to use: I have remained partial to discussing with editors in preference to blocking, protecting, or even making threats, and I've tried to explain at Talk:RfA that I don't see how the tools can be further separated. I have stayed away from AfC because I don't trust myself to decide whether a draft is ready; my instinct has always been to try to make it ready myself. But I registered on IRC and helped a few people that way, and responded to a few of the talk page requests for help that the bot reports there. I stayed away from the speedy deletion requests category for a similar reason, but I found I could add to my work at Pages needing translation into English by speedy deleting the inappropriate pages that got reported there. I saw and quietly deleted some awful things in languages I can read. I deleted some A2s, and conversely I talked to people who were wrongly nominating articles for speedy deletion that were simply created in a foreign language and didn't already exist on the other project. I always told the article creator what I had done and why. I tried to step up at the admin noticeboards, but it was just too horrible. I did do a couple of stints at user names for administrator attention, but it was soul destroying. So many people have no idea we forbid names of organizations/companies as user names; there is nothing telling them this when they create their accounts. And we have a real problem with promotional article creation; not only companies trying to use us for promotion, but people thinking we're LinkedIn. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of our problems with new editors and new articles, at this point, stem from an increasing number of people not knowing what an encyclopedia is. That plus all the stupid joke and name-check/shoutout edits mean we are drowning in good-faith or at worst idiotic edits that hurt the encyclopedia. Graffiti and illegal bill-posting are not always vandalism, in my view, but they deface what so many people have worked hard to build. However, I didn't feel good blocking these people, and I noticed that the official guidelines, to ask people to change their names first and to move them to holding pens if their edits are mixed or they haven't yet edited, are not followed: another admin would block someone after I'd left a message on their talk page. That made me feel even worse.
In the interests of community peace and not tugging on that fragile fabric of the acceptance of consensus that enables us to work together—making the wiki method continue to work despite the bureaucracy that works like hardening of the arteries, hampering discussion and making it harder to work out disputes—I've shut up and walked away in many cases. One was that AfD. Another was over the use of the "death dagger" in battle infoboxes, imposed by the military wikiproject. That symbol is inscrutable to the vast majority of English-speaking readers—I had to guess its meaning when I started meeting it in books written in other European languages—and it's fundamentally a Christian symbol, meaning "pray for his soul"—whatever it may be called, it's a cross (and I came across a reference to that effect, over a year later). As such it's a major violation of neutral point of view as well as an incumbrance for the average reader. (And neither commander in that battle was even Christian.) But I walked away. I've also walked away in at least one case when drive-by editors have dumped infoboxes in articles I created or saved. Those articles are off my watch list. I hope those who insisted they were right have adopted them onto theirs and watched for vandalism. But I have no doubt they failed to understand why I walked away: it was for the greater good of the project.
Actually, I will say now that I believe the kind of tin-eared unexamined bias that is behind the insistence on the "death dagger" is more harmful to the encyclopedia than many threats people focus on. More than vandalism, for example, given the number of vandalism hunters we have, both the eager beaver zappers and the many experienced and thoughtful editors who make that part of their work here—and a superb anti-vandalism bot. Our coverage is even more uneven than our crowdsourced, almost entirely volunteer mode of creation would suggest. It reflects a terrible recentism (I found that a moderately long article had been created on someone who published in the last few years fairy tales that had been in an archive, forgotten, since a 19th-century folklore collector's death; that person also co-founded a society to research and revive the collector's work; but no one had thought to write an article on the collector himself, or even to red link him), perhaps understandable bias against anything "unscientific" or definable as "fringe" such as alternative medicine, spiritualism, or neopaganism, but our policy actually says to cover such things providing there are sources and we make clear they are not universally accepted—and where do we expect the reader to look them up if we don't cover them because we don't like them, Britannica?—even within popular culture and sports, which we cover out of all proportion, there are yawning gaps: non-English-speaking TV series and films, athletes in less popular sports and from more than about 20 years ago, even, as I recently discovered, Barbie dolls. (There are also of course vast tracts of the encyclopedia that are just one-line stubs, maybe plus an infobox: look for example at all but the largest settlements in non-English-speaking countries, and at non-films from countries where English is not one of the official languages, in general).
And yet most of us assume all's right with the wiki. In fact there's a meme, promulgated by the WMF, that the encyclopedia is nearing completion; that most of the topics have been written up; that we should now focus on improving existing articles to Good Article or Featured Article status. This is massively wrongheaded. First of all, I find it hard to understand how anyone can have such a limited frame of reference as to think we don't have a vast number of articles left to write. Perhaps a contributing cause is that some editors mistakenly remove red links (I initially thought they indicated the article had been deleted). But for the most part it has to be lack of imagination—and unconscious bias. And promulgating this view discourages new editors. If the project is approaching completion and what is left are improvement tasks and the writing of harder articles, then there's less opening for newbies to make themselves useful; plus many potentially useful editors first approach us because they want to write a new article. Not all of these are promotional articles, things we already have by another name, or otherwise not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. If we say most of the articles have been written, we're implying we assume they are. Some of them are things that we didn't know about yet. I also believe the focus on improvement is a mistake. It provides content for the Main Page, and some of the community do their best work with that kind of challenge. But it rests on assumptions about quality being objectively measurable that are another kind of entrenched bias. Ultimately, the GA and FA criteria are arbitrary, self-determined, and self-measured. There are GAs and even FAs that don't cover their subject completely, and there are GAs and FAs where reasonable people can disagree about both content and presentation. I'm positive that there are also articles with no bling that are at least at GA standard in someone's view. Focusing on GAs and FAs also undermines the wiki philosophy; these articles are explicitly held up as better than other volunteers' work. The bad effect of that is shown by the DYK project, now struggling to survive. That project had multiple aims: to provide interesting snippets for readers of the Main Page; to demonstrate to readers that we are continuing to build the encyclopedia, and possibly even encourage them to help fix up one of these articles, since they are new and more likely to still contain obvious problems (certainly more than the other Main Page items, which are all vetted for being close to perfect before being featured); and to encourage people creating and improving articles, including ... and this used to be important ... offering them workshop-style help in fixing up their articles after they were nominated, by themselves or others. I like multi-objective things like that, particularly in a volunteer context, but DYK stuck out by not requiring near-perfection, so those who volunteered there have been constantly assailed, and I myself left after it was diluted with GAs.
I see the decision to require references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability as the original cause of our decline in new editor numbers. In particular this impacted purely online areas of interest. (It speaks volumes that I was the first to get an article on Techno Viking to stick, and how hard I and a friend had to work to find the sources, since the lawsuit had not yet happened.) It also made us inhospitable to pagan topics and to most topics in the Developing World, no matter how often we affirm that we will trust references to books and newspapers not available online. We raised the bar and we made the project significantly more bureaucratic. That tagline "that anyone can edit" became a little less true. It may have been necessary, but we should be aware of that and see whether anything can be done to ameliorate its effects in terms of entrenched bias. Not assume that it's beyond discussion.
Part of entrenched bias of course is the underrepresentation of women and "women's topics" in the encyclopedia. Here, our insistence on reliable sources exacerbates the problem already presented by historical (and continuing) gender bias - there are online projects to document the lives and achievements of unsung women that in some cases don't pass our litmus test, and the sources for things like Barbie dolls, traditional knitting and quilting patterns, and so on are often unimpressive even when in print. I wrote up a toy manufacturer (founded by a woman and using local women for labor) that I had seen news articles on in the late 1970s, but what had been put online was patchy.
However, on the woman issue, the WMF's approach does more harm than good. Their research on the percentage of female editors is fatally flawed, and they have used those bogus numbers to negate the existence of those of us who are female editors, to condescend, and to divide the community. Seeing pop-up ads inviting people to apply for grants to fix the problem that I don't exist alienates me. Being told in a blog post by the past head of the WMF that half a dozen of her friends know better than me about what turns off women from editing Wikipedia—about the fact the lady assumes I don't exist—alienates me. (Most of these turn-offs don't matter to me at all, by the way.) The constant advertising of editathons on women's issues, for women, is divisive. The demonizing of editors who dare to question the statistics while being male-identified is divisive and counterproductive ... as well as condescending. I left the Gender Gap Task Force alone because hey, each to her own, but it does not speak for me and the WMF's promotion of this political effort and lionization of those women who spend their time yacking there instead of actually writing the encyclopedia chaps my butt.
Moreover, underlying the WMF's promotion of panic about an undemonstrated gender gap and divisive tactics to remedy it is a push by the WMF to encourage editors to reveal their real names. They use the carrot of funding and of course that of the supposed fun of face-to-face events, particularly the big convention whose name escapes me (I don't do cons) to get people to reveal who they are, they make it mandatory for certain positions, and they more or less quietly encourage us to give up our internet identities and use our actual names. This is potentially dangerous—at least one editor has recently been threatened with harm for their editing—there is a long trail of women's, gays, and trans* people's lives ruined and ended because their identities became known on the internet; and I would have thought that since GamerGate started, anybody active on-line would realize women have to consider the danger before revealing their identities. This project was founded on anonymity, anonymity is part of its strength, it is a volunteer project, and for women especially, probing identity is a privacy violation. The WMF is not just being controlling here, it's expressing contempt for the volunteers it says it wants.
I also have it on good authority that the WMF wants to get rid of "old timers" and replace them with new editors. That's certainly the impression I get from the constant mucking about with the editing interface, which requires us all to unlearn everything and try to adapt to whatever brokenness they shove at us. And a conflict between old-timer and newbie is implicit in the metaphor of the "wikidragon" who makes big bold edits and from whom the "wikiknight" rescues the innocent victim. But it may not be quite that calculated on the WMF's part: the demolition of the Toolserver and its replacement by labs, which requires different programming skills and malfunctions more than half the time, suggests the more important motivation is the insatiable need to control. Of course, the answer to both the oldtimers vs. newbies and the techies vs. non-techies split is that the project needs us all. It's insane both to drive away new volunteers and to drive away experienced editors who are needed to show them how to do things, in addition to whatever else they may choose to do, and asserting that volunteership has a "natural cycle" whereby people will inevitably choose to retire is, again, condescending—it's entirely up to volunteers what they choose to do. Speaking of newbies, we are indeed turning them off in many ways. For one thing, we (or the WMF) assume they are all young and tech-savvy, whereas it's the nature of the project that we attract a lot of retired people and academics; newbies have told me they find templates and the citation help video more baffling than helpful—much like me. For another, see above about first articles. Furthermore, the Teahouse has in my view been a disaster, well intentioned though it was. The Teahouse seeks to avoid linking to policy pages, which leaves the new editor ignorant of where to look up the rules and guidelines, and especially defenseless if they get a templated warning. At its inception it turned away experienced editors, including me, so it's continued to be an isolated culture, and initially we were told not to welcome people to it, because that would be done by the Teahouse hosts; the result of that was that editors stopped putting welcome templates on newbies' talk pages, and the Teahouse has since gone over to a welcome bot—which initially they wanted to avoid—so I have repeatedly found a user talk page has several templated warnings, but no welcome of any kind, or a "We have a Teahouse for new editors!" placed by the bot after a string of warnings and maybe a confused response by the new editor. How is anyone to be expected to understand the rules and guidelines of this project if they are never told where they reside on the site? How is it either welcoming or useful to give a new editor templated warnings and no welcome, no matter how wonderful the metaphorical teahouse may be? What we had worked better: a significant number of editors welcomed newbies as part of their normal editing, and they and others followed up with help if it was asked for, we had and had a variety of welcome templates to suit different tastes and needs, and we had a special help desk for new editors (I asked a couple of questions there and got patient help, possibly from the same people who now patiently staff the Teahouse). It dovetailed with our warning templates, it gave a person a chance to read the manual, so to speak, or to get personal assistance if they preferred, and it didn't come off as condescending.
In terms of being welcoming, I think we've effectively gone backwards. And I don't think it's because we maintain stewardship over the encyclopedia—except in the areas of over-zealous vandal fighting and speedy deletion of new articles. Fundamentally, I think the WMF has lost sight of the aims of the project, and that they have so divided the community that many of us are working at purposes that don't suit it well.
So. Rather than writing essays or otherwise becoming active in wiki-politics, I wrote and improved articles and tried to help people. All the more so because I'd been entrusted with adminship. But it's reached a point where I'm being accused of harming the project, as well as of being dishonorable, and I was already questioning whether I should continue to volunteer here after what happened to the "best known for IP". As you see, I perceive dangerous problems with the project. If I stay, I would have to fight for it. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground, and it's apparent that my views are not shared by most. So instead, I'm leaving. I'd like to say I'll come back, but I doubt I would be welcomed given what I have finally said here. And I had already been facing the likelihood of leaving when WP:FLOW is instituted—incidentally, one of the few indications that there are few of us women editors is that there has not been a big reaction to that name, which to me as a woman (maybe of my time and place), says "The WMF wants to put us all on the rag" in big neon letters. That will fatally impair our ability to talk to each other. So ... I'm leaving earlier than I expected and it won't be "us" any longer when that happens. Goodbye. I loved this project. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Miss you -- now who will be the beacon? As for your remarks on Flow, I'm glad to learn that at least one other editor was off-put by its name for the very same reason (every time I hear it mentioned -- including at Sunday's edit-a-thon in SF -- I wince). --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Noooo, I can't believe you've gone!! Come back Yngie!! Took me about an hour to read it :-) but I agree with most of what you said. The WMF is flawed, and it doesn't do enough to promote growth of the encyclopedia and attract the editors we really need. The admin system needs to be overhauled and people given different tools on an individual basis who actually deserve them. I also think that this bureaucratic system really doesn't work for what is essentially a charity project. The WMF really need to starting seriously thinking about changing the set up and taking more responsibility and we've undoubtedly lost thousands of editors, especially newbies, because of it. It is people like us Yngie that the WMF need to employ to set us in the right direction, and who are knowledgeable about content and building this. I will miss you greatly, I hope given time you will see beyond the site's shortcomings and see the wider picture again, what brought you to the project in the first place.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to see this. Even if you decide not to return, you've left the place immeasurably better off. But like everyone else above and below, I hope you eventually decide to come back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Miss you more
This image served first to miss editors who died (a year ago), then also those who left, like you. Today I think also of a subject, Maria Radner, subject of an article that should have had your copy-editing. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen your choice of images at times is just so lovely and heart warming, especially knowing Yngie's love of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld14:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I just saw your farewell message, and I was sorry to see it. I hope you will just take a short wiki-break and return to editing. Your contributions have been invaluable and, if you come back, will continue to be. You will get past this rough patch. There are so many editors and articles on WP that you will find articles you enjoy editing and editors with whom you enjoy working. I, for one, will miss you if you don't come back. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey wait just a minute. Buster alerted me to this editor's talk page, I read her farewell note, and she is spot on. If we continue to lose this sort of editor we continue to lose the very life blood of Wikipedia, as the site becomes more robotic every day. Reading her words I wanted to give her a hug and kiss her, what did she call it? chapped?, ass. There is unrest about about what some of us see as a growing problem of giving our time and effort to a project that no longer represents our expectations, but what can we do? We need really smart people like this--just now I learned that the Tea House, which I thought was just wonderful and the answer to all of our prayers--may not be all that I thought it was. What can we do? Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think we've met, although maybe I'm wrong in that. I read your statement above, and, although I think we may have a few disagreements on some issues, and, possibly, that I might have access to some perhaps slightly privileged relevant information on one issue which you might not have, I have to say that over the years I think I have probably agreed with you on pretty much every point you raised at least half the time. If by chance you want to contact me regarding some things I in all honesty can't disclose here, my e-mail is enabled, so drop me a mail and I can tell you.
I agree with pretty much everyone else who has posted here about the fact that the total loss of your input would be an extremely regrettable loss. Particularly noticeable, at least to me, is the loss of a good and competent translator. I know I've looked for English language sources on a lot of topics and found damn near nothing on several of them.
Actually, that gives me a bit of an idea. I know some of the other WMF entities, including wikisource, where I am somewhat active, permit original translations of non-English language published sources. I'm not sure how seriously to take the userbox with the Mjolnir image on your userpage, but I at least seem to remember that a huge number of old Norse stories are still not readily available in English. Having access to them would be invaluable to a lot of us. I am occasionally doing some work over there myself. If you would have any interest in increasing the availability of some material from such sources to some of us linguistically-challenged editors, like me, drop me a note and I can see what I can do to help.
In any event, given the amount of time you have been an editor, I hope and pray that this current retirement winds up being seen in the future as just an extremely well-earned break. If you do however choose to remain retired, I wish you the best of fortune in your other endeavors, and thank you for all you have done here. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
I've watched you work silently and diligently for years. I hope you don't go. You will be missed. There will be a whole hole in the water in the bucket when you are gone. 7&6=thirteen (☎)22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course you would be welcomed back...and...you would be surprised at how many editors share you views. Having been involved with WikiProject WER from the beginning I have been collecting soliloquies for a few years: much truth and solutions are shared as editors walk out the door. Yours is the most thoughtful and heartfelt one I have ever read. Not too much "Woe is me"...more maternal and caring about the place you love and are forced to leave. Forced in order to keep peace with yourself, to not feel hounded and put upon, to maintain your sense of self worth. If you are anything like me, what happens and what is said on WP rattles around in my brain throughout the day. I stay away from contentious articles and situations because they take over my thoughts and cause imbalance and stress in my RL...and that's not good! Any artist will tell you, "We give our critics too much of our time and our mind. We should just nod at them and move on. We don't need to be loved by everyone. LOVE. You are loved. Too often, We turn away from the LOVE that surrounds us and pay attention only to the UN-Love and it gains power over us and we abandon the thing we love...and that loves us back. . Buster Seven Talk12:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Arrr
I never thought there were corners in time, 'Til I was made to stand in one. One straight line head on into the other. Maybe standing in a corner looks like where it's got to come.
Hey Yngvadottir, I think most all editors who genuinely care about Wikipedia get fed up with it at some point and more or less throw in the towel after being confronted with an overwhelming number of injustices or unfairnesses. Wikipedia is unfair, or can be unfair -- but then again, life is unfair. What brings us back to Wikipedia is knowing the good that we can do, in our own little corner, amid the rest of the zoo that is Wikipedia.
I'm sure being an admin is also frustrating -- I don't know, but I imagine it is, and adds to the perception of Wikipedia's problems. However again, I think it important to focus on the good that is accomplished, and on the friends and community one can establish here, and the goodwill of positive editors -- rather than the problematic edits/editors/decisions/policies that can sometimes win the day.
I hope you will take a breather and take care of yourself and nurture yourself. And then, as all of your friends have expressed on this page (and others unaware of the situation similarly feel), I hope you come back. Please be well, and best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence
The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence
Yngvadottir, I have awarded this MBE to you in recognition of your exemplary service to Wikipedia. You are truly one of the people I most admire and respect around here. Your contributions have done so much to improve the encyclopedia! Your long list of article creations and improvements is impressive. You always seem willing to help out, and do so skillfully and without judgment. Your talk page comments are always intelligent and logical. This is an award which I've been meaning to present you with for a long time, and I apologize for my slothfulness in not getting it to you sooner. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM06:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
A sad day
It's a sad day that when any good editor goes, but I'm especially sorry you were hounded out by an increasingly militant, co-ordinated and disruptive faction who are prepared to sink to any depth to force their view onto articles, regardless off the outcome. Sadly I see little remedy in that direction, and I think the matter, and the disruption they cause, will worsen, with an increasing number of people walking away.
I do hope that your break will not be permanent, and that you will return to us, refreshed, after avoiding the toxic clouds for a while! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of the articles Yng has translated from various wikis over the years when asked have been staggering, amazing what she has done overall I think. Very sad.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Schade, schade, äußerst schade, that one of English Wiki's ablest, most knowledgeable and energetic admins – with amazing language skills – has become so embittered by negative factors as to decamp. I hope that, like our friend Hafspajen, you'll find that a Wikibreak refreshes you sufficiently to return.
Maidle, schad isch wenn so jemer wie Du net blaibe ko! Dein Brief kann i aus vollem herzen zustemma, des fasst älles zsamme, was mi an dem Projekt au nervt. Its completely crazy to assume that WP is complete. We will miss you, but the projects goes mit dem hinterteil voran - backwards and leaves us out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjY-cQS0xdUSerten II (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to write such extensive and thoughtful comments. We don't do nearly enough here to recognize and appreciate the volunteers who have written this encyclopedia! Djembayz (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The Chinese calligraphers used to change their names mid career so they could start over as someone else.
They would change their signature, their identity, so they could remain free to evolve artistically...
Unconfined by the public's expectation for them to continue with a certain style or subject matter they had previously been known for
— David Mack, Kabuki - The Alchemy
The encyclopedia is nowhere near complete; there are many millions more of everything to create and curate. I hope you'll regularly consider the phoenix, and return to this sometimes-all-too-human but oh-so-wonder-filled, eternally-needed project, eventually or soon, in one of your many previous roles or another, in this guise or another. Perhaps trim or purge your watchlist; start afresh however works best. Best wishes, Quiddity (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Your disdain for viewing Wikipedia is good/bad, black/white terms is exactly the perspective needed for being a good admin. I understand your frustration and you make many insightful points in your farewell that I fully agree with. That only indicates to me how much WP needs admins like you. I hope you will take a generous WikiBreak and come back, if not as an admin, then as an editor. Peace. LizRead!Talk!15:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I like your presence
and I enjoy pagewatching, reading your cool insights, and just you being around. Please, please do not do a 74 on me. Do return, you are not alone, either in your frustrations and pleasures of this odd place. Do come back Y. Kind regards. Simon, or Irondome (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC) (depending on my mood)
We again did not talk for a long time, I hope everything is OK with you; I am immersed in preparing for my classes, it seems to never end! Of course I again need your advice and help. I probably mentioned before that by now the bio of Blatt is available on the Romanian Wikipedia. However, it still has no pictures. I am being advised, that instead inserting the pictures that have been already accepted by myself as I did in the past, I should wait until they are transferred into Wikipedia Commons (if that is indeed correct) and after that I should insert them into the Romanian text, in order to avoid confusions. However, that seems to never happen. Out of all the pictures, ironically, it seems that only the picture of Marta Blatt is now on Wikimedia Commons.. My question is: is it any manner to expedite the transfer of licensed accepted pictures into Wikimedia Commons? or should I just insert them myself as I did in the past on the English Wikipedia?
I am sending the questions to PC-XT because sometimes in the past you worked simultaneously on my issues . Looking forward to hearing from you, and thank you very much.
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC))
I shocked and I can't believe it!
I hope you can read this. Yes indeed I am shocked and can't believe it. Your message is so real and poignant! I understand every single of your reasons and it rings a bell regarding life, about the reality of life and people. I am already cynical and this adds to it! But this is not about me, it is about you. Yngvadottir, your presence and contributions have been and continue to be unique and wonderful!. Your dedication and the way in which you are throwing yourself into helping people is rare. I feel that Wikipedia loses a fantastic volunteer and asset. I will be always grateful for the way you helped me and carried me through the entire process, for your patience, knowledge and kindness. Iearned a great deal from you and you made it also possible for me to act independently. Now, I don't know if I should say "come back"?! Yes, I would greatly appreciate if you still would be part of Wikipedia, I would appreciate your enthusiasm in helping people, your continuous support and participation. But in all fairness do i have the right to ask you to return and submit yourself to the same treatments that made you leave? Yngvadottir, everybody who had the opportunity to work with you, I am sure admired you appreciated your work and loved you. If you are still up to it please return-----Very sincerely,
(Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC))
What the hey?!
It took me this long to discover that you've left us, which speaks volumes about my misguided focus in this place, I guess. Can't add much to the eloquence displayed by others on this occasion, but please do reconsider. The way things are going, it'll just be Jimbo, me and the usual socks of banned pests left to haunt the place. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
You are especially helpful, knowledgeable, and understanding. Many would welcome your return, but in the meantime, have a treat. Best wishes and respect —PC-XT+09:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs·email), Miyagawa (talk·contribs·email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey, you're back! Yay! Well I'm now an admin as well and I completely agree with your positions on blocking, and that we should attempt to guide people in the right direction first, rather than smack them with a banhammer. So far, I've not blocked anybody (though I came close by turning the talk page off for an obvious vandalism only account on unblock request #4) and I hope that long term the number of unblocks vastly outnumbers the number of blocks. I'm not intending to block the Best known for IP as I'm WP:INVOLVED, though I really hope there was some resolution to that, as things seems to be getting worse. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, things are worse and worse. Inexplicably I just keep on working to improve the encyclopaedia, despite the strenuous efforts of the likes of Ritchie333 to put a stop to that kind of thing. What is a hater of quality to do? Anyway it's great to see you back, Yngvadottir, I hope it's not a brief return and that you'll continue to benefit Wikipedia with your thoughtfulness. 186.9.134.120 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sweet Jesus IP you sound like a broken record. If you have a life partner, do they have to listen to this all the damn time? Yeah your edits are good but holy moly you wear me out. And put a $20 in the sarcasm jar on your way out please. Yngvadottir, my dear, I am SO tired of everyone on both sides of the dispute. Good thing I'm officially on vacation. Ha, Y, the sun is out! Let's go get some vitamin D--we'll meet at the kids' little playground by the school. Drmies (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got bad news - kids these days don't understand what being like a broken record is. They aren't even familiar with stuck CDs. Enjoy the holidays Drmies, over this side of the pond it's pissing it down. Cast na'er a clout 'til May is out, as the saying goes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You know how much I'd like to never mention all this ridiculous shit ever again? If people would only stop reverting edits for no reason, falsely accusing me of vandalism, and maintaining their idiotic attack pages. If it's tiresome for me to complain about people doing these things, you'd better hope they stop doing them because I'm not going to stop complaining I'm afraid. 186.9.135.184 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Holknekt
Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I recently created. I am planning to nominate it for DYK in the next few days so any help or improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Since you complained about my actions on this article last time round, here's notice I've nominated it G4 (AfD discussion) and reported the author as a puppet. Aren't spammers great, you get the chance to revisit your previous choices time and time again? Hopefully this time you'll be happier. Regards, Bazj (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added photographs to Ear and Toothbrush but unfortunately the edit was reverted by another user but would you please have a look at both the articles and the photographs, if any chance, please help me to keep the photographs. Both the photos are very good and high quality and I feel suitable for the articles, please have a look. Blacknclick (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
I did not know about the thread. Not a website I monitor. It's very amusing, though, particularly if I were to play Wagner in the background. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye. Hello.
Forgive the mutilation of the Vonnegut reference but I've just read your 5-month old departure statement and note that you're back doing a little editing. What can I do but give you a barnstar for that essay? Nice!
The Original Barnstar
Nobody has said it better: "...On the woman issue, the WMF's approach does more harm than good. their research on the percentage of female editors is fatally flawed, and they have used those bogus numbers to negate the existence of those of us who are female editors, to condescend, and to divide the community. Seeing pop-up ads inviting people to apply for grants to fix the problem that I don't exist alienates me. Being told in a blog post by the past head of the WMF that half a dozen of her friends know better than me about what turns off women from editing Wikipedia—about the fact the lady assumes I don't exist—alienates me. (Most of these turn-offs don't matter to me at all, by the way.) The constant advertising of editathons on women's issues, for women, is divisive. The demonizing of editors who dare to question the statistics while being male-identified is divisive and counterproductive ... as well as condescending. I left the Gender Gap Task Force alone because hey, each to her own, but it does not speak for me and the WMF's promotion of this political effort and lionization of those women who spend their time yacking there instead of actually writing the encyclopedia chaps my butt."Carrite (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I also think that was nicely put. And it's good (for us) to see you at work again here--hope you're getting some work done in real life as well. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kenneth Lerer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constance Leathart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glider. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey, just to let you know I semi-protected your userpage for 3 days. Feel free to lift it, shorten it, or lengthen it, but you weren't around, so ...--Bbb23 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello, Yngvadottir. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This action seems as pointy as it gets. You'll put your tools on the line to unblock an editor who has a block log longer than my arm? Not for an indefinite block either but for a month-long block (like his recent past blocks) which Corbett said he would not appeal. I don't think this was the wisest course of action. LizRead!Talk!19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Liz, Corbett has been blocked 5 times now this year alone. Yes he has the right to defend himself but didn't you read why Kirill made the block? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: And I personally don't think your comments at Wikipediocracy and elsewhere are appropriate but whatever. @Knowledgekid87: I'm sure in light of Ddstretch's warning to you less than 10 days ago, he will be interested to note your recent contributions. Thank you, Yngvadottir, with apologies for my intrusion. SagaciousPhil - Chat19:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I issued no threats; this talk page has been on my watch list for a long time, likely from long before when you and Liz were around. I have no intention of entering in further debate here with either of you but again offer my apologies to Yngvadottir. SagaciousPhil - Chat19:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Translation: Liz and KK87 have no business questioning anything to do with EC, as that right is reserved exclusively for SP and her associates. Because it's not like SP shows up whenever theses dramas unfold. Oh no, definitely not. RO(talk)20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Phil, if you have an issue with my comments on WO, I think it is appropriate to bring up the matter there, not here. I don't mind continuing whatever discussion you have issues with on that forum. LizRead!Talk!20:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You're going to get yourself in trouble with this unblock, which I'm sure you realised anyway. I thank you for it nonetheless, but I was quite prepared to sit out a one-month block. It's only a few days after all. EricCorbett20:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If a note that "Floq thinks highly of you" does any good...
I can't say that a unilateral unblock of an AE block was necessarily wise, or even particularly helpful (and I know something about unwise and not particularly helpful), but it was honest and heartfelt and clearly intended to, in your words, "benefit the project". I hope you can somehow avoid or minimize the heartache coming your way. I respect your work as an admin, and I'll continue to respect your work as a mere mortal (if you stick around, which, if you believe in "for the benefit the project", you pretty much have to). You might even find mortality ain't half bad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Particularly depending on the outcome of the existing request, I hope you realize that there is a very good chance that there might be a rather large number of people who might consider your action out of process, but not necessarilyunreasonable, and that there is a very real chance that you might get very strong support should you ever try for RfA again. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that you would be re-elected, by a big margin of support. The background of this incident is quite grotesque. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe that is in fact Level VII Evil one, which is multi-choice. Burning, beheading, hanging or the Garrote for real thrill seekers. Levels III-VI are the usual minor tortures. There may be an essay on it. Irondome (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I am astounded at the speed at which ArbCom desysopped you, Yngvadottir. So unfair that you were rapidly desysopped despite this being the only (in my observations of you) controversial admin action you've ever made - yet everything else you've done has been unquestionably stellar. I hope this won't cause you to leave Wikipedia and I hope you'll be an admin again. Acalamari23:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. There is a degree of irony that it was a female that was bit stripped while preserving Eric's right to defend himself against misogyny claims. And this block and your bitstripping were done in the interest of "improving the encyclopedia", somehow. Oddly, he wasn't reblocked even though you were bit stripped in an flash, your punishment for making the right decision. That seems to be the new norm in this super polite social networking platform (formerly encyclopedia) called Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you'll be needing one soon. Can I be the first to offer to nominate you? (Although if anyone else with more experience of the process would rather offer, please do.) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
For IMHO making the right decision in unblocking Eric, It's a shame you've lost your bit over it but if you ever run for admin again I'd whole heartedly support you!, Thank you for your years of service here. –Davey2010Talk00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish computer would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Rubbish computer to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yngvadottir2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I would support in a flash. Y acted in the finest traditions of a true admin. Acting for the good of the project by boldly WP:IAR. This if Y would accept of course. I just sense that this has struck a nerve in the "true" community. Anyone else feel this way? Irondome (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if the timing is so great, but obviously I would nom you as well. Actually, you wouldn't really need a nom, but the offer stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Although it isn't stated in today's motion, the temporary desysopping procedures also contemplate that the ex-admin can request further consideration by the Committee. I don't know if that would be of any interest to you, but unless it's been deliberately excluded as an option in your case for some reason, it would be another alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a great pity that Yngvadottir has been desysopped over this. She has become collateral damage in the feud stoked off-wiki by the sloppy article in The Atlantic. It is also ironic that one of the best female admins has been desysopped for rightly reversing the poor decision by Kirill Lokshin to block Eric Corbett in the first place. If Yngvadottir applies to become an admin again, she will have my support.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Consider running for ArbCom. The election's soon, if I recall correctly the discussions, a non-admin who successfully ran for ArbCom would have to be sysoped in order to function in the job. I suspect you'd get a lot of votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
To look at the "Moon Shadow" of this, this should put a stopper, or at least provide very effective rebuttal, to those who say that votes against a RfA candidate who does not have much by the way of content contributions are somehow wrong or unfair. The administration of this project should be in the hands of those who have the big picture regarding content. Right now, we have too many anti-content administrators and board members, including the figurehead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
So sorry to hear you've upset Kyril Loshkin, Jimbo's arbcom and various maggoty sheep. I've always found that keeping one of these helps to keep those with inflated ideas of their own value at bay. Giano(talk)11:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it isn't wise to say anything, but I will say, I'm really quite upset how this has all turned out, and I'm not sure me thinking "man the way we set up the remedies led to some big problems and the desysoping of an editor I highly respect" really makes me a maggoty sheep or someone with an inflated ego. NativeForeignerTalk12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom statement
Feel free to call me an insensitive bastard for saying this, particularly in light of recent events, but those events are being addressed at the request for arbitration linked to above. I really think it would be useful if you added a statement there, and, honestly, taking advantage of the opportunity to perhaps politely vent there a little might not be bad for you either.
Thanks for your courageous action in the latest Corbett dustup and welcome back to the ranks of "ordinary editors." I've already barnstarred ya above for the brilliant "goodbye" essay so just consider this a +1 barnstar-wise. Please do find your content niche and stick it out with The Project, which remains far more important than ambitious bureaucrats and petty yackers would have it to be.
Sometimes I think my first year at WP was the happiest, before I was really familiar with life "behind the curtain." It's sort of a Pandora's Box that can't be restuffed and closed, once seen. Still, all the petty politics are ultimately nothing but a distraction from the real task at hand — turning a pretty okay conglomeration of general knowledge into a really good one. Take as much time as you need to get your head right and come back strong in whatever content area fires you up. That's the important thing — it always was. best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA //// Carrite (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd leave some flowers at your doorstep. I'm not sure I agree with what you did, but I respect the integrity and bravery you showed. I hope these virtual flowers help brighten your day. ~Awilley (talk)20:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Editing and All
Yngvadottir, while I strongly disagree with your actions regarding Corbett (and I agree strongly with the Atlantic article), I hope this won't be the end of your editing here. We need users with specialized knowledge and your abilities here. You're also a rare active user who abides by civility. Please consider returning to the regular editing fold and leaving the admin time sink behind. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The initial errors of the article have since been corrected. Wikimedia's failure to reign in a lot of behavior from trolls like Corbett (and those within his circle) is a serious problem and definitely needs more attention from the outside.
Some people live on this site but the site wasn't designed to be a social network. With no enforcement of civility and no Wikimedia permabanning of resident trolls, expect more articles like the Atlantic piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Believe it or not, there was in fact once a time when schoolyard name-calling on Wikipedia meant consequences for said user's schoolyard child-like behavior. I personally think that was also for the better. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
How did that help the reader? During the construction of Notre Dame, do you think they judged fairly between the chief stone mason and the guy who emptied the chamber pots (or the equivalent then)? Do you think they should have?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
In the long run, whatever helps Wikipedia helps the reader. The reputation of Wikipedia is terrible, and that's a retention and recruiting factor. RO(talk)21:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, a wiki isn't much like a modern (nor ancient) construction project for any number of reasons. For one, professional construction projects are necessarily organized and no-nonsense to maintain a level of administration. This administration holds laborers accountable for their actions and removes them when necessary. Now that you've mentioned it, we should probably be aspiring for something closer to that than what we currently have.
Any way you slice it, call someone a name here and you should be blocked for it, no question asked, imo. A boiling pot of incivility and childish pettiness likely costs the reader the contributions of more level-headed users who aren't here for behavior like that. Gumming up the works doesn't help anyone but the troll in the end. :bloodofox: (talk)
Huh? Please re-read the text. As for Wikipedia, wiki or not, contributors contribute under the decisions of Wikimedia (the actual administrators for the project). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Re "name-calling": Do you refer to "toxic personalities" in "This user learned that the flowers of kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion do not grow well on a soil of people thinking of other people as toxic personalities"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, please either be direct with your comments or don't expect me to follow. I'm not going to sort through old internal links to sort out what you're referring to—I don't have the time for it. I'm not involved in any way with Jimbo, nor do I follow his talk page. If I were him, I'd just push for policy that institutes that users over a certain amount of blocks just get permanently banned from the project. Enough is enough after a while. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Bloodofox, if we followed your recommendations, Mount Rushmore would never have been built because Gutzon Borglum was almost impossible to work with. The administration of the Stone Mountain project did find him impossible to work with, fired him, and went broke. What's there in Georgia is far less than it could have been and didn't get built for forty years afterwards. Mount Rushmore is an icon and no one cares that Borglum had an artistic temprament, cubed. Justice, justice shall you pursue. But it needs to be pursued somewhere else because this is a project with a specific purpose and subject to the legal and moral standards of 2015, that goal is all-consuming.
As for Wikipedia's reputation, I find that when I mention it (very rarely), people are very respectful of the project, though they know little about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Comparing Wikipedia users and internet trolls to artists is inappropriate. Let's not flatter ourselves here. There are many users here, none of them are carving Rushmore or, for that matter, the semi-maligned Stone Mountain (which would be highly controversial no matter what yet is in fact a very active and commercially lucrative site today, fwiw), no matter how many articles they contribute to nor how many talk pages they fill. Like I said, I'm for civility in the project and not for feeding drama queen internet trolls nor building an ersatz social network as a side effect of being a prominent wiki. Fortunately, Wikimedia seems to slowly be realizing that they're going to have a problem on their hands if the site consists of users that spend 24/7 calling each other names and threatening to quit upon block after block after block. It's extremely childish and I hope that we can move beyond it. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
We're building something ... to my mind it is important. I do not know your age, nor am I asking for it, but I grew to maturity when the only computer available to me was the cabinet in the little room between Rooms 216 and 218 of my high school. If you fed it punched tape, and the tape had not gotten folded or worn out, it would inform you of whether your shot at an alien cruiser was accurate, but that was about all the information you could get. The library might help you find a specific fact, but that was something of a crapshoot. We are building something so useful that I don't think the human race will ever be without it, or its equivalent, again. It's a sight more useful than Mount Rushmore, and you don't have to sit in traffic in South Dakota to access it. Right now, we are placing white collar workers in charge of the blue collar workers who are building it, and the inevitable is happening.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Before I go...
Sigh...
Before I go back into hiding, I want to applaud you for the unblocking of Eric a few days ago. It was a great move and one in the face to the lunatics who appear to be running the asylum. I'd be happy to support you at any future RfA. Thanks. CassiantoTalk21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey I'm Annoyingbot II. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia! Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Viking , you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monday I'm just telling you that I was going to tell you something but then I don't know what. If I've made any errors, tell my Operator. Thanks Annoyingbot (Annoy) 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
The Barnstar for Wikipedia's longest noun clause
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ingvar Ambjørnsen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
, bigger on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as 
Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.
Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was 
Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
