User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Adieu veau, vache, cochon, couvée"

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hope all is well

Hello Yngvadottir,

Hope you are doing well. It has been a really long time since we've interacted. I've had a great learning experience from you and several other people who I'm thankful for. I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best. TheGeneralUser (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, long time no hear, indeed! I'm afraid I'm not as active as I used to be, but good to hear from you again :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Yngvadottir!

Happy New Year!

Yngvadottir,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you! And to you :-) I hope the year surprises us all in a good way. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Yngvadottir,

I see that others have already bestowed lovely templated messages on this occasion, so I thought I'd skip that and spend the time otherwise spent hunting for a nice-looking non-repetitive template on writing a personal message. I really just wanted to say thanks for your many years of service to this great project. Perhaps this time of year is even better used looking forward, so here's a toast to your health and many years of contributions yet to come.

Best regards,

Samsara 05:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I hope the year surprises us all by being a good one. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Amen to that. Samsara 06:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Youre welcome ;)

Re: Tom of Finland stamps

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Instead of trying to delete the article, I wish folks would collaborate and get the article promoted to Good status! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I hope you like the way it looks now. I don't do either GA or FA, but after the AfD finishes, assuming it reaches the "keep" conclusion I hope and expect, feel free to nominate it for GA; I think at this point it covers the issue pretty well. Most of my activity at AfD is attempted article rescue, although I have nominated some articles for deletion myself (with mixed success). Apart from WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, I've noticed that many nominators and arguers for deletion don't seem to be very good at finding sources. Maybe they have search set up differently on their computers, with filters by content or language? This is one of several instances where sources have fallen into my lap. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, sometimes AfD nominators just don't take care to search for sources. I think this standalone article is very easy to justify, but that's just me. I'll definitely consider GA nomination in the near future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Always good to spy on Yngvas user talk page ;) I doubt the article ever will gain GA status, you won't get much scientific coverage of the topic, but it is noteable as such for sure. I wasn't aware that this Tom was a Fin anyway. I like as well Yngvadottirs nonpartisan way to discuss the standpoint of the nominator. Polentarion Talk 22:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Hair iron page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Cooperating about a DYK?

Good evening. I nominated a short article about a new case from the ECHR for DYK, and was told by the nominator that it needed clean-up for language (which I can understand). So, I wondered if you would be interested in giving a helping hand and getting a DYK credit. The case was covered in multiple newspaper articles, so there is some general interest for it. The underlying law isn't really difficult, and you don't have to look into it, but just ask me if there is something in the article that needs clarifying. And of course, feel free to say no to this. Iselilja (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iselilja: I'd somehow totally forgotten about this message! I can certainly give it a good looking at. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Names of Dutch windmills

Hi, re your recent moves of articles about Dutch windmills; in Dutch, the mills do take the definite article as part of their name (De Kat, Het Pink etc). This is shown by their listing on such sites as the Molendatabase. Also over at WP:MILLS, we generally house article as title in the style (mill name, location) for named mills, or (location windmill) for unnamed mills. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

After I moved the two articles and made the changes to the template so that they would show in black on their own pages, I noticed that. But that's not how it's done on the Dutch Wikipedia—I checked both before moving them, in case there was such a convention, or a need for the placename for disambiguation—and we don't add/retain the foreign-language definite article for other classes of objects that I know of, except where it's enclitic (as it is in Ouddeelsmolen, for example). It seems like a romantic convention, but if it isn't even being followed by the Dutch, what justification is there for such complicated titles in an English-language general reference work? Yngvadottir (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In many cases, disambiguation by place name will be needed (Witte Molen, Oude Molen etc), possibly not in the case of De Lytse Geal. I'm totally against translating the names of the mills at the article title as there will be virtually zero sources that do that. Thus De Grote Molen, Broeksterwoude instead of The Great Mill, Broeksterwoude. A look at nl:Lijst van windmolens in Friesland shows that the naming convention with the definite article is used at nl-wiki, but not always. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (and not for example "The Elephant") unless by chance windmill scholars writing in English know one of the mills by an English name. It's possible that usage differs regionally in the Netherlands; I only happened to be looking at what linked to Huizum and to find two mills in the same Frisian location. It's also possible that it has changed. Please talk about it at WP:MILLS if you haven't already; I won't make further trouble, but I did not self-revert because I cannot see adequate justification. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've copied the above over to WT:NL as it will get a wider audience there. Will let WP:MILLS know. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Photo requests

Do you do photo requests in the San Francisco Bay Area? If so, I have some ideas WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'm a good person to ask; I'm relatively non-mobile. But I can certainly try, and I think there must be other editors in the area too. Put together a list. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok! I have photo requests in San Francisco and Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties.

San Francisco

Lycée Français de San Francisco Ortega Campus: 1201 Ortega Street, San Francisco, CA 94122

German International School of Silicon Valley San Francisco Campus: 4 & 8 Funston Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94129

VIZ Media current headquarters: 1355 Market Street, Suite #200 (from this page)

Marin County

Marin City

Sausalito Marin City School District HQ/Bayside Elementary/Martin Luther King, Jr., Academy: 200 Phillips Drive, Marin City, California 94965

Marin City Library of the Marin County Free Library: 164 Donahue St, Sausalito, CA 94965 (within the Gateway Shopping Center)

Sausalito

Willow Creek Academy: 636 Nevada St., Sausalito, CA 94965

Lycée Français de San Francisco Sausalito Lower School: 610 Coloma Street, Sausalito, CA 94965

The New Village School: 100 Ebbtide Avenue, Suite 144, Sausalito, CA 94965

City Hall/Library/Public works: 420 Litho St., Sausalito, CA 94965

Police Department- 29 Caledonia Street, Sausalito, CA 94965

Fire Department- 333 Johnson Street, Sausalito, CA 94965

Santa Clara County

Branches of the Santa Clara County Library

Mountain View

German International School of Silicon Valley Mountain View Campus: 310 Easy Street, Mountain View, CA 94043

San Mateo County

All other libraries of the San Mateo County Libraries (I had asked an employee to see if he could get people to take pics, but in case that doesn't happen...)

East Palo Alto

East Palo Alto City Hall and San Mateo County Libraries East Palo Alto Library: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto CA 94303

Ravenswood City School District headquarters: 2120 Euclid Ave. East Palo Alto, CA 94303 (any other schools would be welcome too!)

If you specify which cities/areas are most convenient to you I can add more photo requests which may involve city halls/government buildings, post offices, fire stations, and/or school district buildings and schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Mountain View German school one is easy, and the East Palo Alto ones may be with a bit of planning, though I can't promise this week. San Mateo County other than Palo Alto is harder than it used to be, since the buses don't run past P.A. any more, but I can look at the map while we see whether library patrons will help us out :-) I am occasionally in San Jose and can reach many things from the El Camino Real / The Alameda bus axis (until the VTA reforms that out of practical useability), or given a day off to blow, from the very strangely routed light rail (Milpitas, for example). I am more rarely in San Francisco; much of Marin is a problem because of public transit costs, and I suspect with the sheer density of Wikipedians in the Bay Area that Berzerkeley and Oakland are already well covered? Sausalito is problematic for me, I think. Feel free to refer folks on the Meetup lists / WikiProject here to coordinate. However, I was leery of photographing the school district HQ in San Jose because I'm not sure of the exact legal requirements. I've gathered from somewhere that there's a problem with public school buildings, which is why Commons usually has pictures mainly of the signs? (Hence my school shot in San Jose shows little of the building.) Could you check with someone who knows before I upload shots of that iconic bank in Mountain View (probabbly verboten because of the artwork on the main facade, come to think of it), or of post offices and other federal buildings? I gather public libraries and city halls are not problematic. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear that much of the area has lots of Wikipedians who can take pictures! For Marin there may be another Wikipedian there who can take care of that.

Under US law buildings in public places are under freedom of panorama: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. It states "Anyone may paint, draw, or photograph buildings from public places." I have uploaded multiple photos of school buildings in Houston, Texas with no problem. However artwork such as murals, sculptures, and paintings are not under FOP. I think the bank will be okay as long as the building is the main subject of the photograph and/or if you photograph a side of the building without the mural.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sacred trees and groves in Germanic paganism and mythology

Per your request, I've started up Sacred trees and groves in Germanic paganism and mythology and it's now live in a serviceable-but-much-to-add state. You're invited to help, of course. Methinks we should better integrate all of these Germanic 'holy site' articles to work together, as complex as the situation is. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice work. Methinks though we should create a combined category rather, Category:Trees in Germanic paganism and mythology, instead of having two parallel categories with essentially the same content. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I also considered putting them in that category. Since the article covers them both, I figure that would be fine. On the other hand, they could both fall under the less specific super category of "Trees and the Germanic peoples", which could cover a broader set of articles. I'm fine with either route. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Bloodofox, since I don't have a list of who watches here '-) De728631 has a good point, but I'm being pulled in several directions at once right now so I'm going to put some thoughts here for now rather than editing. There's the possible connection to the pillar phenomenon that is discussed in relation to Irminsul/Yggdrasil - the "Jupiter pillars" and Thurstable. There's also Tacitus's statement that the Teutons worshipped only in the open air, i.e., in groves, which is one of the points made in saying the hofs developed under Christian influence (or were never real, or were only regional; same has been said of goðar). In general, the point that there were probably differences in praxis both over time and geographically. Then there's the old Balken theory, which I can never quite follow, though it arises from the dual meaning of áss, but deVries does his best to explain it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the pillar thing needs coverage here, as well as the Tacitus quote. I could just drop the Tacitus quote in at the beginning from a primary source at the head of the list. I'll see what I can bring together here soon. There's some stuff to be discussed here regarding, for example, Greek columns as well. The article needs a lot of expansion but I figure this is a fine place to start. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I started expanding it, but more will have to wait for my "weekend". Yngvadottir (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nzi River Bridge collapse

Well you seem to have tidied up this article in some ways, but have also thrown away a lot of detail, including:

• Coordinates of bridge
• Gallery
• Mention with reference to when bridge restored to use.
• Explanation of various details, such as
  • weight of locomotives including or not including weight of fuel.
  • number of type of crane(s) needed to lift locomotives.
  • Bulldozers and steamrollers needed to prepare access ramp for 24-wheel trailer, and pad for crane(s). Hence pictures of same.
• etc.

I was going to create a section listing all the men and material needed to complete the repairs.

How can one revert such details, without throwing away your changes?

It would have been better for you to have commented out things that you did not like, rather than just throwing them away. Tabletop (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tabletop. The coordinates are now up in the right-hand corner, where they usually are. As to the gallery, the two useful images—the map and the close-up of tape in front of the bridge—look like being deleted as copyvios, and the rest were simply pictures of construction equipment. I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for listing all the heavy machinery involved in clearing away the accident and making repairs, and in any case those sections were referenced only to forums, which are completely inadmissable as sources (though Mel does seem to be an expert) and to original research from photographs. I looked at the forum posts hoping to find usable reliable sources, and finding none, instead did some searching and added the two French sources (from the above, I think you've missed those and the statement I added about partial restoration of service). As I noted on the talk page, I did not remove the "incomplete" tag because I was unable to find a source stating the repairs had been completed—the forum posts did not in fact say that, simply that it would now be relatively simple to insert a replacement bridge section. With misgivings, I left in the statement in the lede that repairs were in fact completed in about 15 days, and I also left in the unsourced information about the locomotives (as well as the information about their numbers sourced to the video, which I cannot hear since I don't have working speakers; I'm assuming good faith that those numbers are in the cited source). I'm sorry my edit summaries weren't clearer about why I deleted what I did, and where I put what I didn't, and I hope you have been able to find a usable source for the end of repairs. But forums won't do. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Google search re Nzi Bridge collapse

A Google search for the Nzi Bridge collapse displays the following:

Nzi River Bridge collapse - Wikipedia

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nzi_River_Bridge_collapse

On 6 September 2016, the railway bridge over the Nzi River collapsed, cutting the rail link between Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso. Partial services on the line ...

Google only seems to display about 140 characters thus "On 6 Sep . . . . on the line". If 140, this may match the 140 limit of Texting.

IMHO, it is useful to arrange/contrive to display the date that services resume, which is about 15 days after the collapse.

To do this, a few words need to be deleted so that the words, say, "15 days later" fall within the 140 limit. I would also add a date "As At 08 Feb 2017" to make it clear when the text was last updated.

Wikipedia does not seem to have a function that counts the number of (visible) characters on that line, not counting brackets and hidden comments.

It is also rather difficult to count 40 by hand.

Hence the hidden "ruler" "=====-----1====-----2====" etc.

This is not rocket science. Rulers are, by the way, invention that go back thousands of year.

Without the counting of these 140 characters, Google Search looks an untidy mess.

By the way, most of the other related items found by Google seem to be stuck on 7 Sep 2015, with no obvious updates.

Is there anything on Wikipedia that discusses this issue of Google Search 140 Character Ruler. ? Cannot say that I have ever heard of it :-(

Which came first: Google's 140 display limit, or Texting's 140 display limit? :-) Tabletop (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No idea, but we don't need to play to Google's peculiarities, and the article really shouldn't say in the lede that normal service was resumed 15 days/2 weeks later without a solid source saying so. All the more so if you are concerned about what Google searchers will see. Also, the fact that the accident cut the rail connection between the two countries is important, in fact the best argument for having a page on the accident, so it needs to be in the lede.

It will take a while for caches to catch up to the changed date, but as I noted in my edit summary, all the reliable sources but one said "Tuesday" or outright that it was the 6th (the exception being the first of the two Ivory Coast Press reports, which says the 5th). So 7th is an error. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

World Heritage

Just noticed your addition at the mirror list; that "organization" is much more problematic that you may think. They actually have about 100 domains - I've tried to list them here (big red section in the middle of the page) and periodically hunt them down. Would love to blacklist them, but I really hate to subvert the intent of that tool. Kuru (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Good grief, really? Thank you, Gerda :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Stefanie Rabatsch, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; no one told me it was at AfD. But I was surprised it was promoted to GA and in any case I don't have anything to do with GA, so I won't participate in the reassessment. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Entry on Frost & Sullivan

Hi Yngvadottir,

My 1st response was lost when saving so I'll try this again.

First, thanks for your suggestions. I see and agree with your points that the initial contributions were too complimentary; I'll try and keep future contributions more fact based.

I had worked in the industry analyst world for a long time so I have familiarity with Frost & Sullivan, Gartner, IPMV, Forrester, Yankey Group, Ovium, E&Y and other such analyst/consulting firms, which is why I chose to start here.

I still feel uncomfortable with the reference to IPMV because when you look at their website, they seem to 'trash talk' many competitors with many accusations but no evidence to prove their claims (see https://ipvm.com/section/Awards). In looking at credible, 3rd party sources (I.E. Forbes, Business Week, Fortune, Fast Company, Venturebeat, etc.) I can find no bases for any of these claims against any of the companies mentioned in the IPMV website. Ultimately leading me to believe it is just 'trash talking'.

I will remove the reference altogether and we can leave it at that for now. I will continue to scour 3rd party sources and look for evidence of these claims or supporting facts and can update the entry if and when such information comes to light.

Thanks and happy editing! UtexxUtexx (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Utexx: Thanks for your note. I've responded on the article talk page, pinging the editor who originally added the criticism. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Anca Verma

Hi, earlier today you used http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2571447/Anca-Verma-Arms-dealers-wife-claims-beaten-Tihar-Jail.html to support a statement that prison officers were dismissed after being found to have extorted & harrassed Verma. The DM article does NOT support this info (and the DM should not be used anymore), did you even bother to check?79.71.15.114 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't check the references at all; as my edit summaries showed, I was just fixing the English. Since I came to the article from a noticeboard complaint that said it had been edit warred over, I assumed others had checked the references as part of the toing and froing. I now see this, which contradicts the statement you removed, so it's good you removed it. However, the article is still unclear about the joint ventures; see the message I left on the talk page. Maybe you can help with that? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I would like to thank you, for the cooperation and contributions to article, 2017 Verona bus crash. Best Wishes. Junosoon (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I just looked at it again and made some additional phrasing tweaks and marked a paragraph that really needs a source. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Leanne Sarah Holland article

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Well done and thanks for your great editing work improving the Murder of Leanne Sarah Holland article. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for doing the hard work on Murder of Leanne Sarah Holland. I firmly believe that article improvement lessens disruption, esp. when paired with helpful talk page communication. So you should get two barnstars for your efforts, but it's late and I only have one laying around. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

-D Thank you. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Chappell Hill Female College

Thanks so much for re-doing the article! I was worried it was going to be "speedily deleted" and printed it (just now) for my file.

Floridasand (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome; it was indeed deleted, but I was able to get it back the next day by making a new version so that the old ones only had to be revision deleted, and I wound up doing the same thing for the other article created by the same person. See this now-archived user talk section. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

why did you strike the Hitler article?

It's kinda already been better covered. Aren't we striking for "not a translation problem"?

@Elinruby: That took me on quite a search - do you mean User:Jovendo eleutério Joaquim at the CXT subpage? If so, for the reason I stated on the line: we were at the time AGF'ing on pages in user space. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

ahhhhhhhhhhhh it wasn't recent? Sorry. I just got worried that I was doing it backwards or something. As you were then :) my bad and thanks for the reply, I've been mildly concerned about that. Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Car

Sorry about that! My touchpad on my laptop is very sensitive. I find myself correcting it all the time, when I am editing. scope_creep (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That's ok, that makes even more sense than what I figured had happened. I thought of sticking it after your earlier statement but thought I'd better leave that for you. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Reincarnation in Norse mythology

Recently I started a handy template (that needs more expansion). It reminded me that we could use a Reincarnation in Norse mythology article. Are you interested? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IIRC there's surprisingly little on the topic. I'd be interested, but am ferociously busy. So if you have time, start it and I'll add what extra I can find. If you don't, I'll get around to it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I've made a tiny start at User:Yngvadottir/Rebirth in Norse religion. Name stuff next, including the specialist analyses HRE mentions, then other scholars. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! I'll see what I can do about helping out this weekend. It's certainly an interesting topic and you're doing great work so far. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Mainspaced, Rebirth in Norse religion. What I left out was Baldr and Hǫðr - I couldn't find a decent citation, just someone objecting to a mention by Tolkien (p. 343). And I didn't bother setting the scene of there being even more about survival in the barrow and draugar in general. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We could use Reincarnation for everyone. In my case, I won't edit this project anymore. I was happy to work with you. I remember you and our Swedish friend for their contributions, our cooperation and conversations. All the best. Polentarion Talk 16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Polentarion: Very sorry to hear you are leaving; can I possibly change your mind? The project needs people who still care about the mission, and I too fondly remember past collaborations (and wish Hafs would come back). I still have e-mail available, my cranky ISP permitting. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK/apparent death threats?

Thanks for chiming in on that discussion. Your post begs the question, though, why did you leave? You seem to believe, as do I, that DYK generally has value but needs some cleanup. But at the moment, any such reform effort is going to get stuck between a few folks wedded to the status quo, and others who want to scrap the entire thing and so cannot be bothered with incremental improvements. The project could really use more editors with a nuanced approach to the subject. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't be a party to the inclusion of GAs. Sorry, it still hurts. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay. Fair enough. Vanamonde (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation about my editing. I will do well to equip myself better. Thank you. MirabelIkwuebe (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Chidera Okolie' deletion page

Thank you for your kind words on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chidera_Okolie_(2nd_nomination) I had no idea she had been nominated before and that is only usual because she is quite notable here in Nigeria. I thought it would be great if we acknowledged as much young female writers as we could lay our hands on as the culture is fast going into extinction in Nigeria MirabelIkwuebe (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Just dropping you a line...

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

→StaniStani 06:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Received. Rather far from my bailiwick, but I'll investigate. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

CXT/PTR and translation

Hello Yngvadottir,

Just wanted to say hello, and to thank you for your contributions at WP:CXT/PTR. And also to let you know that I admire your contributions to various discussions on the philosophy and practice of translation in general, as well as the role and appropriateness (or lack thereof) of MT at Wikipedia whether related to a specific tool, or more generally. From what I've seen, our conceptions about all this are quite similar, but even if they weren't, it's more your reasoning and argumentation that I admire and respect, and even if I found myself on the opposite end from you on some topic or other, I would pay very careful attention to what you were saying regardless, and I just wanted to tell you that.

Seems like it's been a while since I've seen you at CXT/PTR or on translation forums (not that I see every one) and I miss seeing your comments and thoughts. As for myself, I've been playing multiple roles at CXT/PTR. On the list page itself (of numbered articles), a dual role: firstly, going through batches of items, and just tagging the cxt original language (and any others), and a brief comment about what the article is about, so that the appropriate speakers can quickly target articles in their skill set and skip the rest; secondly, making keep/kill decisions on the ones in my own skill set. Outside the list itself, I've been involved in Rfcs, figuring out deadlines (now June 6), and trying to raise various issues that I think might be important. My latest, is worrying about cxt clobbers of previous good articles that could get nuked if we don't find them first and save them. That would be very problematic.

There may be more articles tagged with lang codes (or names) in your skill set since you've last looked, and it would be great to have you review some of them if you could. Strikeout type still means "keep" (i.e., inoculation against nuking) but there's maybe one new procedural thing since you left, which is that User:Tazerdadog invited reviewers to add the token "kill" somewhere on the comment line to indicate that an article should be nuked. This doesn't actually have any effect on nuke-day since failure to strike would indicate the same thing, but it does have the positive effect of letting other reviewers know that someone has already evaluated the article, so they needn't waste time looking at it again. If you're willing to also keep an eye out for cxt clobbers (by which I mean, a edit summary with the cxt tag in any position other than the oldest one, which overwrote a previous stub or article that was worth keeping) that would be excellent, and that doesn't have to be a language in your skill set, either.

If you're busy with other things, burnt out, or just don't feel like it, then just carry on doing whatever you're doing. You're an asset to the encyclopedia, I hope you stick around a long time, and I look forward to interacting with you, or just watching your contributions. I don't do "barnstars" and such, but please consider me a fan. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm humbled by the praise ... thank you. I guess it's burnout and deep sadness. The WMF showed such contempt for those of us who help with translations, and indeed for those of us who have been translating articles carefully and with an eye to verifiability and to explaining context. Not to mention demonstrating that all their talk of quality was a cynical lie, because all that really matters to them is that people use their rotten software, thus justifying their salaries, and that they be seen as calling the shots. I am an inclusionist, and I hate calling for deletion of articles on notable topics. All the more so since I am deeply aware of bias, and that there are so many, many topics we could and should inform the reader on where the sources are in languages other than English, many of which already have useful articles on other-language Wikipedias. I want to help other contributors, especially newbies, and I hate calling for destruction of people's work, but the WMF cruelly misled many new contributors here into giving us something that is worse than useless to the reader. And undermined the whole basis of translation by endorsing the view that it's a word for word transformation that can be done by a crappy selective search. I can't make a meaningful dent in this; I don't want to lend the slightest appearance of endorsement to what the WMF did (or, especially after this, to the WMF's involvement in the building of the encyclopedia in any way); I have so many other useful things I could be doing with my limited time on-wiki, including my own translations; I kept finding massive problems with articles others had passed in good faith, because that is the nature of this cruel boondoggle that undermines the whole basis of our endeavor, and ... thanks for asking, and I hate letting you, S Marshall and the rest down by only helping a little with this, but it makes me want to cry. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you again (why am I not surprised), but please don't cry. I totally understand everything you're saying, and sympathize more than you know. And there are numerous contributors to the list okaying articles right now in languages they do not speak, and I mostly bite my tongue and ignore it, very rarely I undo a "keep" that someone else has marked, or add an entry on someone's talk page to inquire gently what their methodology is for verifying the translation accuracy of the articles from the nineteen languages they're familiar with, but as you say, it's a volunteer effort and in the end, people do what they want.

Given what you've just said, and your generally inclusionist bent, please allow me to suggest *one* remaining sub-task at WP:PNT that you could still contribute to with a clear conscience if you wanted, which would both truly help, and would not in any way endorse cxt (in fact, just the opposite). That said, if you don't wish to, don't give it a second thought. The task is the one I linked above under rescuing clobbers. This involves finding articles that used to be good, until someone came along and used the cxt tool, which when "saving" at the end of their "translation", didn't bother to check whether an article already existed under that name. So the unsuspecting newbie monlingual using the tool hits "Save", and in the blink of an eye, the History of Rome gets replaced by a gobbledygook cxt mishmash. Typically, alert editors quickly undo this, and the article is back in business again. But, (and it's a big "but"), now the article title is on the list because of that one clobber-edit; the fact that it was reverted has no effect on the list, unfortunately. If nobody finds and tags that item a keeper, the good article will get nuked, precisely because of the bug in CXT that allowed the clobber to happen in the first place. So each time you find one of these articles in the list and save it, you can roll your eyes, look smug, and stick another pin in the WMF voodoo doll sitting just left of the keyboard by your coffee cup, and feel good about having done the right thing by the project, and undone some of the damage they caused. (The sound effect to play in your head while striking one of these, is the sound of one of those ultraviolet mosquito-zappers when it electrocutes a hapless bug.) If you do want to get involved in that way, I'd suggest just using your instincts about what articles might be important enough based on the title and on whatever comments are in the list; so skip all the French javelin throwers, the Patriarchs of Upper Slobovia, and just look at ones that catch your eye that might be worth a look. This doesn't involve evaluating translations at all, so you can do all the ones in Gujarati if you feel like; it only involves looking at the rev history, to see where the cxt happened, whether it clobbered a good article, and whether it was subsequently reverted, and that's very quick work. (Admittedly not as fun as translating, but useful to the project, and undoes the damage that cxt caused.) I was hoping to get some support to do this programmatically, but that didn't go anywhere, so I hope to knock off as many of them as I can. OTOH if you'd rather be translating, I get it, go for it. (I envision you with a white 15-y.o. Volvo station wagon, with a worn bumper sticker that says, "I'd rather be translating.)

There's a life after this CXT nuke project, and I'll be back doing more normal translations. If you have a project, an article, a sub-task, or anything else that you need help on, or just wish would get more eyeballs or attention, please call on me. In the meantime, sending you virtual hugs; please don't be sad, have fun, do what you like. Life is too short to let this get to you. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

for your recent edits to the Troll doll article. 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 00:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thorsteinn Thorsteinsson

As creator of this dab you might like to have a look at various Þorsteinn Þorsteinssons - I was alerted by this posting by @In ictu oculi:, since self-reverted. For some reason I followed it up and found ....

• your work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review
• No trace of there ever having been an article about the footballer ... though he's linked from List_of_Iceland_international_footballers
• author linked from Icelandic Literary Prize, whose title Google translates as "Ljóðhús. Facts about Sigfús Daðason's poetry"
• assistant cameraman linked from Nýtt líf
• an entry in List_of_Speakers_of_the_Upper_House_of_the_Althing_(Iceland)
• An 800m runner in Polish Wiki linked at User:Edgars2007/Requests/Athletes, with the link to the economist offered as a solution

At this point my head starts to spin. If it interests you, see what you can do with that lot. Good luck! PamD 15:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a common name. Having looked again at the economist/Esperantist's article after getting a thanks from In ictu oculi, I had actually been about to check the logs to try to find out what happened to the footballer; I dimly recall seeing that article (and grumbling inwardly about its being at the non-disambiguated title); it was not AfDed so it may have been a prod or a speedy. In the interests of minimum damage, my instinct is to see whether the footballer article can be undeleted, and then move him to the disambiguator "(footballer)", giving reason to keep the DAB page in case anyone ever writes up any of the rest. But that will depend what happened to it, obviously. There will be a further pause, and meanwhile I'm going to ping Drmies, since it looks like I may need someone with admin glasses to sort this out. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The answer is indeed in the log: it was one of Sander v. Ginkel's pages. It got moved to draft space and apparently nobody checked it within 90 days for accuracy. (That case bumped up my deleted edit count appreciably.) I have no idea at this point what the sources were. So I'm going to post at poor Drmies' talk page (if the house internet will humour me by staying up long enough) since that's a gathering place of both admins and polyglots. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yngvadottir (talk · contribs)PamD (talk · contribs) don't think there's a problem here. Yngvadottir was fixing a problem created by earlier editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That was certainly what I tried to do, twice. The Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson article has a bit of a history: it was created by an Esperanto maven using the WMF's awful machine translation, as a translation from Esperanto Wikipedia, and I researched the man and moved the article accordingly. I would have preferred to have him at the undisambiguated title, but that was occupied by the footballer ... whose article has now been deleted because it was created by Sander.v.Ginkel. I'd created the DAB page at Thorsteinn Thorsteinsson, which as Pam and I realised almost simultaneously, now links to the same article twice. (The third person I'd listed was removed by someone else.) The move to the undisambiguated title makes sense after the deletion of the footballer's article. But I am still scratching my head about what to do about the DAB page. I posted at Drmies' talk page and another admin very kindly undeleted a version of the footballer's article, and I have beaten the bushes trying to find coverage of him, but none of it is extended; I'm really not sure what to do because I hate the thought of just turning teh DAB page into a redirect when there are several notable people of the same name (including the footballer; he played for his country). Argh. The one thing I am almost sure of is that the economist should stay parked where he is. For now. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've created Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (athlete), going by the "He was in the Olympics once therefore he's notable" rule; there were two incoming links to him already - luckily I chose the right disambiguator! Also useful that the reference in the Polish article was to an English-language website. PamD 20:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew he was notable but didn't feel capable of writing him up. The author appears to also be a translator for the stage. Somebody was (is?) head of the Icelandic Chess Federation. The politician is much mentioned. And there was just another internet outage here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on the Joakim Brodén page. Metalhead102 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It got kept? Yay! You're welcome :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"But in any case, KrakatoaKatie died remove autopatrolled."

No greater love hath a volcano than to lay down her life for her wiki? Anmccaff (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL, and it's the edit summary so it will remain for posterity .... Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I found it very saddening too. Has KrakatoaKatie been err informed of this terminal edit? Irondome (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Weldens edits

While I do understand the style of my edits might not have been completely to your tastes, I do think there are some areas in need of change. This is either due to an interruption in the flow of reading or a loss of understanding. I will discuss them in order as to make it easier to find where my points of contention are:

I. It is rather ugly to start an article with two very short sentences combined with an and. The best way to solve this is to expand either sentence. I do not know enough about Barbara Weldens to increase thei lenght so I tried to elimenate the and as a stop gap procedure.

II. The structure of the Jaques Brel sentence leaves it up to interpretation. At the moment I can read three different meanings from this sentece. →She won because she was inspired by Jaques Brel →She entered because she was inspired by Jaques Brel →Because she always was inspired by Jaques Brel, she was a natural fit for the contest. →She won because her songs were basically Jaques Brel song.

As you can see the meaning is not clear and it would help if you could correct this to something better if my interpretation was wrong.

Apart from this the unfortunate combination of being inspired by Jaques Brel and winning an award at a festival named after Jaques Brel makes it quite a repetitive sentence and creating space between the two instances of the name Jaques Brel would make it easier to read.

III. It is more common to say that a singer performed in a style or tradition than to say a singer is in a tradition. Eugénie Buffet. This turn of phrase is common in french though.

IV. As far as I know it is either well received or it received great reviews. Well reviewed is quite uncommon but technically correct.

V. The sentence about her death is too long and way too bogged down in the exact location of the event (also common in french). My solution was to cut most of it out, as the reference to Gourdon already encompasses its location in France and the fact that it is a town. Even after editing there is still a problem that the sentence contains two distinct parts that do not combine well. On the one hand the locatison of her death and on the other hand a time of death with a "cause of death" (if it is still up to debate this sentence does not make that clear). The fact that the electrocution is put into a seperate sentance distances this information from the actual death while I would think that is rather important.

VI. Either there was a storm in the area or you should clarify about the fact that during the day/evening/night etc. there were multiple storms in the area. At the moment this sentence does not make a lot of sence.

VII Lastly it is weird to end an article with her age like that. It is more something a newscaster would say.

Sorry for the enormous list of explenations but especially II and V made it difficult to understand the article. My corrections were made somewhat quickly and might have been too brute but I do not have the time at the moment to do any further research or check back in quite some time. I hope these notes will make it clear why I made these changes and I hope you will keep it in the back of your mind while editing further Dondville (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about it so much, and I did make/keep a couple of tweaks from your and others' edits. But a lot of it comes down to what the sources say, and not reading something into them, such as for example that she was born in Hérault or why she entered the Jacques Brel award contest, if indeed she did—it might well be awarded based on nominations. Similarly, that's all the sources say about her having been electrocuted and there having been storm activity in the area; her death is under investigation, and my semi-colon is actually pushing the borders of original research by linking them together. Beyond that, I think we have stylistic differences, perhaps affected by the fact I chose to do this one in British English (I suspect that's the issue with "well reviewed"), but also, encyclopaedic writing should be terse and dense. My hope is that as more press coverage of her career comes to light, and after more coverage of her death perhaps following the official determination of why it happened, there will be more about her life with which to flesh it out. That will make it easier to tuck in things like her age (especially if someone publishes her date of birth, that can simply be replaced by a full pair of birth and death dates in the lead paragraph), but for anything but a major city, most readers need the context of "where is this place". (Another concern is that while the news stories were provoked by her death, that's only one part of her story and should not totally overshadow her career in an encyclopaedia entry on her.) I make no apologies for the lead paragraph being short and blocky: that's how they're supposed to be in encyclopaedic writing, because it's a summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Cancún Underwater Museum

An article that you have been involved in editing—Cancún Underwater Museum—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etoile ✩ (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	It was very nice of you to work on and save the Li Chevalier‎ article, since the major contributor with additions had a close connection / COI issue. Nice job! –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :-) When I found at least some information was available in reliable sources, I thought it was only fair to her. Luckily I didn't need to be able to read Chinese '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Appeasement

Just a word: I have no problem with you making that edit. The only issue with the IP was that they are a banned user. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought so, thanks for your note. As you see, I agreed with one half and not the other. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you went to Oxford

Which college? May I say that I think the way your sysop rights were withdrawn was out of process. When Jimbo decided he would appoint an Arbitration Committee each year he sensibly reserved to himself the power to deal with any overreaching of their authority. In this particular instance, he has maintained his talkpage as a "fire free zone" so the Committee had no jurisdiction to sanction Eric Corbett for posting on it. As there was no AE breach his resulting block was not an AE infringement and your very sensible unblock was not an act which could lead to de - sysop without a full case. Courcelles acknowledged this on Christmas Day - he said "one may use his talk page to make an appeal to Jimbo". So far, so festive, but then he took on the role of Scrooge - "this does not apply to appeals against blocks and bans." Says who? GorillaWarfare was the only Arbitrator who emerged from the case with credit.

On behalf of the Committee at ANI Opabinia has confirmed that there is no objection to Best Known For's statement being retained. So why yesterday did JJMC89 remove it in defiance of the ruling that only Arbitrators and their clerks may do this? He is not even an administrator, although there is a doctored userbox on his user page which makes it look as if he is.

In that ANI discussion Vanamonde claimed that Best Known For was wrong about the content issue. Having investigated the matter yesterday I am confident he is wrong. This is what I found:

<Commented out irrelevant reproduction of Arbcom submission on another case>

As an independent observer who has just become acquainted with this issue (but not the case) in the last couple of minutes I see that Best Known For removed sourced information from Contemporary Latin with the unhelpful edit summary "removed nonsense" then embarked on an edit war without any attempt to discuss on the talk page. The consensus is that the material should stay out. The editor who first added it, Michel Berger, appears to be a SPA registered with the sole purpose of promoting the theories of Gerard Bodifee - it might be useful to scrutinise his edits for possible WP:COI issues. He added similar material to List of galaxies on 26 February 2012 and was reverted the same day. The same sequence of events happened at List of nearest galaxies. Best Known For did sterling work in tracking down and removing good faith edits elsewhere based on the same material.

Ivanvector's description of Best Known For as a "vandal" is provocative and wide of the mark in my opinion. The word "vandalism" implies an intention to degrade the encyclopaedia. It is irrelevant to edit summaries and talk pages, and the word is not mentioned at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP.<Removed personal attack> 86.159.235.15 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c0:7f02:c01:880d:de75:eccd:13c7 (talk)

Late to the party

I gave up editing in Wikipedia ages ago, as you can tell from the fact that I have just now seen your cheery comment (from seven years ago) on my homemade language userbox, "Bha Gàidhlig aig seaneairean agus seanmhairean agam." To save you re-researching, it's "my grandfathers and grandmothers spoke Gaelic," which is true. I apologize for seeming indifferent to a friendly remark from a true polyglot.

To make amends, let me suggest this lovely rendition of Runrig's "Cum Ùr N'Aire"; here's a translation. (Apparently I still have email turned on, which given my visits seems a more useful channel.) OtherDave (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@OtherDave: Oh, no worries; I'm just glad you haven't completely given up on the project :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi Yngvadottir. I just wanted to send you a personal message to apologise if my actions and comments regarding the Norse religion article have at any point become too personal and have ratcheted up the tensions between us (and others). As you can probably tell, the whole situation has frustrated me; it's almost certainly frustrated you too. That frustration has got the better of me in places. I've always tried to keep things civil but there are points where I should have done more to keep my cool. For that I am sorry.

It's really great to have someone with your expertise working on the article and I appreciate that you have made an effort to keep my prose and the citations that I originally added. Although I disagree with some of your prose alterations, others are really good. The main issue of difficulty for me has been your change in the citation style and (as PBS's recent appearance and comments show) I am not the only one. I appreciate that you find the harv citation style complicated but really, when you get used to it then it becomes very easy to use (I found it difficult to start with too). I would be grateful if, wherever possible, you did not change the citation style of pre-existing text. Or at least, when you do change it for your own working convenience, you do not revert me when I then restore it after you have finished making your prose edits. Even if a collective Talk Page decision is made to shift the citation style to something else in future, it is important that at present we do not get things too tangled and confused (as we have with Andren/Abram and with those scholars who have published various works at different dates etc). It is also important that everything is properly referenced and that there are not any sentences without citations (even if they do seem common sense or obvious).

I also think that it would be best if we do discuss things at the Talk Page first before making significant alterations to the article. I certainly won't object to prose alterations or additions being made, but in the spirit of collaboration I think it best if neither of us do anything too radical without just bringing up the issue at the Talk Page first. I have a few proposed additions that I would like to make but I will start Talk Page sections so that you and others can have your input first before I add to the article itself. At the end of the day, we both want the same thing for this article.

Again, sorry for those moments when frustration has got the better of me. I hope that your flu clears up soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, but I'm sorry, no. Unless someone else wants to take over redoing your rewrite, I can't work with the added complexity of that citation style. And it serves as a useful visual index of what I have rewritten. The problem is less your being personal than your failing to realize that you bit off more than you can chew. Drmies has now been revising your prose, too, and he isn't aware of the inaccuracies, just the prose. ... I am not aware of anything I am leaving unreferenced, but we clearly have different standards for what is "obvious" and even for where it is necessary to start a new sentence. I don't think the GA requirements are as nitpicking as you think, and I'm thinking in particular of your perception that we need to footnote "polytheistic" separately even if we then continue to say that the gods resemble humans in many respects. But in any case, things like that can be well dealt with in a final stage of revision, if only by combining sentences to clarify what the reference covers. You are of course free to point out things I or others have genuinely left unreferenced, or unclear except to experts (again, we clearly disagree; in places you have taken so much religious studies/classical terminology from your sources that the prose is indigestible in my view), but what I'm trying to do is amend your work so that we have a reasonable article for the reader: there is no need for me to justify that in detail first. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl - you really are not doing well to insist on changing the reference style to one you choose when there is disagreement with that change on the talk page of the article. Here is the article on 3 August, where there isn't a single harvard/sfn citation. To be frank, Yngvadottir is correct here and you should get consensus on the talk page before changing the reference system to one that was not in use when you started editing the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And Yngvadottir - there's no requirement or bias towards sfn/harv at FA/GA... I don't use it unless it's already in an article I start working on. And I've got over 50 FAs that use the usual history ref format of "Author last name Short title of work p. #" for short citations in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth, I'm glad to hear it. I'd really thought it was mandatory in those processes. I'm afraid it took me years to master even the citation templates; these days I often cover bare refs using those, because I know the "referencing for beginners" tutorial uses them, but I have limits, especially since I don't use editing widgets of any kind. Midnightblueowl, I'm afraid I'm now reverting all those edits where you undid my prose changes and/or reverted my change to a citation format I can work with. Please flag places where I actually cited the wrong author or we have 2 works by the same person and I cited only the name, so I can compare your version and fix it. Otherwise I'm afraid it's just delaying further actual work on the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

From my perspective, the issue is not which particular citation system we use, but rather ensuring that the citations themselves are clear and that the system used is standardised across the article. When I was making my edits to the article, I ensured that the entire article used the same citation system, replacing what was previously a very muddled array of different systems. I decided to use a sfn/harv system which is both simple and very widely used at Wikipedia. My concern with your changes, Yngvadottir, is that you were again using an array of different citation systems, introducing a level of chaos where I had tried to introduce order. As PBS pointed out, it is confusing to state "Andren p. 123" when there are several reliable sources by Andren listed in the Bibliography. It was also causing problems when various Andren and Abram sources were confused with one another. When you continue to add citations, could you at least ensure that the correct year or title is featured in each and every citation? That would deal with many of the problems that both myself and PBS have raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally get this picky and cranky, and you know I appreciate your work MBO, but ... you need to read WP:CITEVAR a bit better. Yes, the article used a variety of citation systems. There were, however, enough in the full citation format (i.e. where the footnote is the full bibliographic information and there is no separate references section) to make it clear that the article wasn't "If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data". You really need to have a consensus to change to using a harv/sfn system BEFORE you did it. It's common courtesy. And if you had stopped trying to make harv/sfn the system after the first objection, you probably woudn't be getting so much pushback. I know you mean well, that you want to improve the article, and you think you're helping, but you're not really collaborating when you are insisting on imposing a citation style that was not in use at all in the article when you began your rewrite. @Drmies: Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but when I started my main range of edits on 3 August, there was no established community of editors active at the page. For several years, it had mostly been edited by anonymous IPs, vandals, and sock puppets like ElfMasterLLLLLisfihfiiaf. Yngvaddotir was not active on the article at that point; indeed they had never before edited it. For that reason I felt it acceptable to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with the formatting change (and most of the citations were additions rather than alterations). Indeed I had almost entirely changed the formatting system before anyone expressed any concern. Now that there are a wider range of editors who have joined me in editing this article, I am open to the idea of shifting the citation style in accordance with group consensus, so long we keep things nice and clean and concise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll start a Talk Page section to debate the issue of which citation system we should employ. That way we can establish a consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(after ec) Here's what I had been posting:

I can and will try to make sure they are correct! But no, I will not incorporate years into the citations just because you like a style that uses that as the means of identifying works. It's problematic anyhow, not just because scholars often publish more than one thing per year, often on related topics but because many of these books have been reissued; especially Gods and Myths, but also De Vries, where what I actually have is the unaltered 3rd edition, and Davidson's Road to Hel has been reprinted. I realize you were trying to impose order. But the reader can deal with varying citation styles for now (especially since I think sfn is unclear, and it certainly masks how many references are repeated), and the reverting of what I've done is just requiring me to waste time mucking with the same sections again and again whereas I'm happy to fix any actual errors I've made (some of which were from the endless scrolling to see what "name-unmemorable number" actually refers to (not helped by putting even very specialized articles that we use—or should use—a couple of times on the same basis as survey works the article refers to 100 times). I'm almost out of time today, mulling whether I dare do any actual work on the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And here's a further response. Midnightblueowl, you started a bold rewrite that was bad. Others objected to it but you continued. Rather than be uncollegial and simply revert your work, I started a piecemeal revision of it, most important pieces first. I believe your intent and your effort deserve that much respect, quite apart from the benefits of more than one mind working on it. But I can't work with the citation style. I have no objection whatsoever to its being reimposed after the article itself is adequately rewritten; I didn't realize it wasn't mandatory for GA, but that still suffices as a reason so far as I'm concerned. It also serves as a useful bookmark for my work in redoing the article. But by insisting on it, and changing passages I have rewritten to use it, you are exerting an unjustified ownership. You had your bold, the work was not good, that's why I've dropped you don't know how much other on-wiki work to work on this when I can, although the sfn makes me very slow. I'm sorry I'm so slow, and I'm sorry I've made mistakes - have I now found and fixed them all? Because I don't know when I will next have a block of time to work on this and I have not been able to work on a new section today, but I am still here and the noises off are for now merely a dull roar. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

While my contributions undoubtedly had problems, I really do not think it fair to say that my edits were bad. My contributions were well referenced; I used over forty academic references, drawn from archaeology, the history of religions, and literature studies. These included both broad overviews and more specialised works. (Indeed, in your own edits, you have retained much of what I added, so it can't be that bad). Some of my sections got a bit too lengthy; that is why I did not object to you giving them a good trim. I gave some of them a trim myself. Some of my wording was perhaps a little verbose, which is why I was happy with some of the rewrites (although others I have found problematic and would really like to discuss further on the Talk Page - we shouldn't have whole paragraphs consisting of a single sentence, for instance). But remember that, from my perspective, it was a work in progress; if no one else had come along I would have continued writing and rewriting the article before inviting other editors to read and review it through the GAN and Peer Review systems. I was editing an article that had been virtually ignored by everyone for a very long time; I was never really given a chance to do things my way before other editors were criticising me and rewriting my contributions (as was their right, of course - I don't own the page!). But this has created a scenario where my early edits are treated as paradigmatic of what I could do and this has been used to unfairly present my work as "bad". It's as if my 'first draft' is being treated as the final finished work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've bent over backwards to keep what I can of your work, but you admitted yourself when there first started being objections that you were learning as you went. You have no way of knowing what you don't know (and you're probably not aware of the divisions within the field, either). You don't even seem to have been aware of numerous relevant specialized articles we already had: one of the jobs of this scene-setting article is to lead readers to those, so I was surprised by this. If you wanted to rewrite in many, many stages, you should have done the rewrite in user space. But what's done is done; now you're demanding final-stage consistency as I'm trying to salvage what I can. I'm sorry, but no. I can't both do the demanding editing necessary to make decent new/revised sections, especially demanding while trying to respect your work and reuse as many as possible of your chosen citations, and engage in endless discussions that you did not expect to deal with yourself until you were ready; I'll discuss, but there went my writing time. I cannot both do new work and go back to sort out your reversions and format changes; I spent most of my writing time doing that today. I appreciate your effort and will salvage what I can; or someone else will, maybe. I see where you are coming from but I'm sorry, you don't know the field well enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacques Champagne de Labriolle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swahili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Moni Nag

I now have an hour or two on my hands so I returned to this article to improve it after contesting deletion earlier, but I see that you have already done a much better job than I could have done. Great work!. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I just finished what I can do; there may be an old Columbia faculty page archived somewhere, but I couldn't find it. And I haven't searched for old newspaper articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI

FYI: WP:ANI#Clear legal threat Jim1138 (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

here he removed the interference section and replaced it with election info and left a misleading ES. Will the saga continue? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I'd just seen that at AN/I. That was a bad edit. He's blocked for the legal threat and the article is semi-protected, so I'd say no. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Acta deperdita

I've been pondering what to do with this--it is a very useful term to know, but its meaning is presumed known in all the sources I've looked at, meaning Wiktionary may be the best option. What do you think? Ealdgyth, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just confirmed my hunch here that it means a missing chancery document. I was thinking that as an alternative to Wiktionary, it might make sense to follow his logic and stuff it into our Regesta article; but I see with some consternation that we are defining that term as only applying to Vatican documents. So maybe your instinct is right. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, it does come from Urkunde-science; in my case, it's Michael Tangl who leads me there, and the acta deperdita he talks about are letters from the Boniface correspondence. In other words, it needn't be so high brow, indeed. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Psst: Tangl, Michael, "Studien zur Neuausgabe der Bonifatius-Briefe, 1. Teil." Neues Archiv 40 (1916): 641-790; and "Studien zur Neuausgabe der Bonifatius-Briefe, 2. Teil." Neues Archiv 41 (1917): 23-101; reprinted in Das Mittelalter in Quellenkunde und Diplomatik, Berlin, 1966: 60-240, esp. 195-216. Tangl reconstructs 90 letters. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooooohhh sooooo NOT my field or expertise. Us Anglo-Normans try to avoid the papacy... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't deny you're a medievalist, Ealdgyth. Plus I don't believe it, and I got two words for you: dissolution, monasteries. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve never denied I’m a medievalist...but I’m an Anglo-Norman specialist...it was the silly Tudors that dissolved the monasteries...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. If they couldn't read/recite Beowulf, they're all the same to me. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Further from my expertise than yours, Ealdgyth; I imagine your Latin's a lot better, too :-) (I gather acta had passed from "official pronouncements" to "documents" long before it gave rise to Ger.Akten; my Latin, in addition to being exiguous, is very Classical.) And I just went down a rabbit hole with the National Archives forgeries, while trying to educate myself, and I think we need a redirect at the singular False decretal. So ok, it won't fit at Regesta, and Drmies, you should rewrite that article to have its appropriate breadth. Unless you feel like producing List of terms in paleography and diplomatics, which would probably be very useful, I again think you were right, park it at Wiktionary. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm thank you. I think we need a lot here, and in general we need a lot in textual scholarship, manuscript studies, codicology, and of course critical theory. Diplomatics, comparatively speaking, is very decent, thanks no doubt to the efforts of GVogeler and GrindtXX. But we do not have de:Quelle (Geschichtswissenschaft) (Source text is not the same) and the associated articles. On the to-do list... Drmies (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite format

I felt that this revert was actively harmful in that I took raw "cite web" pastes of Google book links and ran them through the Wikipedia citation tool to properly cite them. Why would you revert this as well as the other edits? If there's something about your motivation regarding this I'm missing, please clarify. Ogress 06:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever why the citation templates must be used. You partially changed the citation format of the article. Those are links on the page number to the on-line material, which is perfectly acceptable as a method of citation. They are not bare links; there is nothing improper about them. Please see WP:CITEVAR. (In addition, you left the article using a mix of citation styles; note the eruption of reversed names. I've re-reverted. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

CITEVAR is all good but I try to standardise the use of raw google books links and employ {{cite book}} standards? Somehow this is a problem sufficient to revert? Ogress 15:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup. CITEVAR is all about how we don't have a preferred citation style, hence teh citation style of an article shouldn't be changed without good reason. You have some unspecified objection to what you call "raw Googlebooks links"—all I can think of is that this is about what Betacommand ran a bot to "fix", including more than the page number in the link, so I have endeavored to shorten two of them as a gesture of goodwill, although personally I think the reader benefits from seeing the search term; it makes it a lot easier to track down the passage in another scanned copy if Google isn't showing them previews of the one I linked to—and on the strength of that preference you use a tool to change the citation format. In this case, for only one section of citations, leaving the article in a mixed citation style. That is "harmful", in your words. There's no reason to violate CITEVAR in such a fashion; you're making a mess where there was none. "Standardise" in what way? I'm sorry, please think about it again. I can see the utility of running the tool on articles with bare links, especially where there are already citations that do use the templates. But please confine it to that kind of situation. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I have expanded the article about Rikard Wolff. A very well known Swedish singer who sadly died today. Could you please take a look at that article. Any help is appreciated. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I hope that helped, and someone else has also been working on it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

For sure. Thank you!. It certainly help my nom for this article at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you in passing here, in the course of answering a question about bad arbcom decisions. Hopefully I'll make it up to you by actually writing that Miamiensis avidus article you requested, which I've had open in a tab for a week now but haven't gotten around to yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and massive thanks in advance if yuo do write that article. I had thought our species coverage was pretty good. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really, too many species articles are substubs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, and the single-celled critters are particularly bad. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

One more of my illusions shattered. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's before we go into the completed articles that need expansion as new material has surfaced. Such as 1257 Samalas eruption which has about 80 sources I need to check and see if they need to be added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a colossal heap of work to be done in fields in which I know my ass from my elbow. I used to have a pile of scribbled notes to myself on this desk. And then I keep reading the unnameable site and seeing things mentioned there. And I read a book on the bus, or open a news site, and something like leopard sharks dying off from protozoa suddenly appears. But I really thought species was one area where you all with decent science educations had things reasonably in hand. The one time I tried to write a vaguely techie article, I was politely and kindly told my ignorance showed. I hesitate to copyedit medical articles, although I know enough Latin to look things up and they tend to be written in English reminiscent of doctors' handwriting. It all makes me very sad, and frustrated beyond words whenever that canard gets trotted out that the encyclopedia is "almost finished" and all that's left to do now is fiddly adjustments and polishing. Thanks for helping me out, Opabinia. I'll stop whining now and go to bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoever thinks the encyclopedia is "finished" must be living in an alternative universe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) +1. I don't know how people can even begin to think that. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's blue now, but I think I'm a net contributor of redlinks to the world... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!!! That illustrates why it would have been very unwise for me to attempt the article. It doesn't mention entry through the nostrils, which the news coverage had led me to think was the main method of infection, and the picture with regard to Philasterides dicentrarchi is murkier than I'd gathered. And although we have no scutociliosis article, we turn out to have an article on the subclass. I have however created the P. dicentrarchi redirect for now, since we are mentioning that species once in a ref. And yeah, we now have a redlink on an important fish disease. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect! Now that I have a bunch of the sources I'll probably write a stub for scuticociliatosis (which I can't spell, and I now see I copied and pasted the same typo three times... grrr). I didn't find any papers (at least on first look) on route of infection in sharks in particular, and the ones on fish seemed to suggest it happens either through the gills or through damaged areas of skin. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I see it, thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yngvadottir. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, gawds. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki

Hi! With your language skills, you might like to sign up to this WikiProject – even if, like me, only as an Associate. (I'm now up to 29 languages translated into English, including cases where one good non-English article linked to a stub or two. Everyone needs a hobby...) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No thanks; I tend to flit from article to article rather than work methodically through lists of any kind; plus, although I have done several translations, sometimes I've found it better to write from scratch even when there is a foreign-language article, and sometimes, in fact, my own creations have been translated. (The article on the foreign-language Wikipedia may be unreferenced or poorly referenced, or the approach that seems best to take for English-speaking readers may differ, partly because basic cultural concepts may need explaining ... or I may just have got there first, just as sometimes a foreign-language Wikipedia gets there first with an English-language or truly international topic.) Plus in particular, I'm adamantly opposed to the use of the WMF translation tool or any other machine translations; the WMF have cruelly misled a lot of well-meaning editors with their push for translation using that "tool", and I could easily spend the next few years of my wiki-career just trying to fix the damage, which both sets me against being associated with an interwiki translation project that is associated with that WMF policy, and, frankly, has turned me a bit against doing more translations, emotionally. After all, the WMF has thanked me and the rest of us for translating carefully and responsibly by effectively telling everybody that that's the wrong approach and all that matters is bulk, accuracy be damned. I appreciate the compliment, though :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer + a barnstar

		The Happy Holiday Barnstar
		How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 12:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! (more likely to be cat videos). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Yngvadottir!!


Hi Yngvadottir, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2017 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Brost

I have improved the article about Johannes Brost. Take a look. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

not knowing editors are blocked [1]

Under Preferences/Gadgets/Appearance you can select "Strike out usernames that have been blocked". It does not tell you if a user is indeff'ed, but it is useful to know when a user you are discussing (or interacting with) is suddenly blocked. Meters (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I use that gadget and it has zero overhead, which is to say it does not affect my loading speeds at all. Once again, his bitch was with me, and then Barek. Thanks for your improvements and your patience in dealing with this difficult article. John from Idegon (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I might consider using that gadget, but I'm very leery of computer stuff. John from Idegon: You're welcome, and it's only fair to note I would never have known about it if it weren't for the editor's attempts to cover it at Wikinews, which is on the face of it where it belongs. But there are some strange things about their editing. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What a beautiful puppy. May he rest in peace. And by the way, "Ersatz" brings back many childhood memories, having grown up in what was probably at that time the most ethnically diverse mid sized city in the states, Gary, Indiana. Most families were 3 generations in the same household, and the old "Oompa's" used to delight in teaching us young boys all the swear words in their native tongue. At one point in my life, I could tell you to "Eat shit", "Kiss my ass" or "Fuck off" in 8-12 different languages. The point being, American English has become quite boring with homogenization.John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your e-mail

I see no reason to delete it. If he wants it hidden, he can complain (clearly) to WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh phooey. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoo, I hit the big time! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

Precious

Six years!

... and thanks for a fitting comment just above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda :-) I am so old ... Yngvadottir (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Romeo Castelen - Reply

Hi there again, from Portugal,

don't know if you remember, you picked up from where Drmies left off on some occasions and helped me out in the translation of Dutch sources. Yes, times two: 1 - "yes" i meant exactly that source you refer to; 2 - "yes" your explanation was perfect. I'll now retrieve that to the piece, thank you very much.

Keep up the good work and enjoy that weekend (and by the way, that's a great cat above! RIP) --Quite A Character (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesse Waugh AfD

Hi Yngvadottir, there is a repeat of the AfD for Jesse Waugh. I’m just wondering if you’d be willing to take a look at it and chime in if possible. Thanks 81.44.32.50 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Crime

I have created an article about Fallet Kevin. I am planning to nominate it for DYK in a few days time. Any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

matronae Austriahenae

Would you be interested in putting together an article for the matronae Austriahenae? We could really use one, and I think you'd be the ideal person for the job. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Thanks for asking me, but I suspect my knowledge on the matronæ is outdated. And I'm still concerned by what happened at Old Norse religion. A thicker-skinned person with access to the latest books in English and able to use the latest fashionable reference format is clearly what is needed on these topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I get the impression that very little discussion has occurred regarding these finds within the past three decades, despite their relevance to the discussion surrounding Ēostre, and almost all of it has been in German. I wouldn't worry about anything other than what you dig up — you'd be doing a great service! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

New WikiProject: WP:Folklore

Since you edit in related areas, I figured you'd be interested in the fact that Wikipedia now has a WikiProject dedicated to the topic of improving our coverage of folklore and folklore studies: WP:Folklore! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's an area I know only a little about, plus I'm not much of a joiner :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting

Hello Yngvadottir,

This is the subject of the page Majid Rafizadeh. I am not sure how and who to reach to the appropriate person for my serious concern. Based on the following from Wikipedia site, I have read that "Biographies of living persons, where the subject is of marginal notability, may be deleted by any administrator if the subject of the biography requests deletion" and "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." The page is also subjected to excessive socket puppetry. As a result, I am writing to request the deletion of the page if possible please. If you'd like to confirm if I am who I am please feel free to call me or email me. http://iaccouncil.org/contact/ Mr198013 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the Inedpent Music article

Independent Music; being signed to a “label” does not make you notable in the industry. Variations of media coverage make one notable. Please refrain from subjective ideology. Dafteire (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You're linking to a deleted article, but more importantly, see my second post on the talk page: the band has to meet either one of the criteria at WP:NBAND, of which signing with a label is the most likely to happen anytime soon, or the general notability standard, which requires a lot better referencing than the article currently has. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by not AfDing it until the second EP has a chance to garner reviews; and it's possible someone with good knowledge of Dublin media, and maybe access to subscription-only archives, can find the necessary references before then. But it was unwise for the other editor to move it to mainspace before it was passed at AfC, the purpose of which is to make reasonably sure an article can withstand deletion proposals before it is created in mainspace. I was about to welcome you at your talk page with a template with links to our policies, when I got sidetracked fixing an article you'd edited; I'll do that now so you know where to look up the rules and guidelines. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Working in concert with other editors

I understand that you are not convinced by the criteria of an article; however, it appears that you have been working in concert with other editors to damage the reputation of a legitimate article. Please review the criteria necessary for having an article on a musical group. I would also ask you to understand that you may live in a different area of the world where certain media outlets might night be considered 'notable.' Please take some time to enlighten yourself to the media outlets that you are degrading before discrediting them.

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Cute dog by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonchild101 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Hardly working in concert; though collaboration is valued here, I would rather suspect that the two of you have been consulting? In any case, let me now get back to the formal notifications, sibce I'm afraid you pushed my hand by devolving the argument into accusations of bias. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moonchild101: Ah, now I suspect I know why you accuse me of nefarious collusion: I had assumed there was an article at Run in Red but now I see it's been repeatedly deleted, so there must have been editors tagging it for speedy deletion. Nope, I came to the article by noticing vandalism to it on Recent Changes patrol. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Nathan Larson (political candidate) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Larson (political candidate) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (political candidate) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

More Neutral than I!

Just thought I'd drop you a message for your work on Nathan Larson (political candidate) - a true masterclass in NPOV on a terrible person.

Cheers :)

Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I have a bit of a tiger by the tail. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Saxon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Fiona the hippo

Hi, I translated the article into German. The zoo has signalized to send a photo :) --Nicola (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks great! I was hoping some Wikipedian could visit her and upload a shot to Commons, but if the zoo is willing to let us use a photo, that would be awesome too :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I provided the picture. Do you have any legitimate reason for removing the infobox? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for the picture! There is no reason to overwhelm the article with an infobox. She isn't a species or an object requiring a lot of technical specifications, and the reasons why she is known are amply explained in the article text. Infoboxes are not required and often not useful. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, unfortunately the zoo changed its mind after reviewing the permission form. They are anxious somebody might misuse the photo, which seems a little bit silly to me, because there are many photos online already which might be "misused". Well, we got a photo now :) --Nicola (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good! I'm not too surprised the zoo changed their mind; their lawyer probably advised against surrendering all rights. But it was very good of you to ask them. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarding this Barnstar Award for the professional (and single-handed) creation of a valuable article on Callahan v. Carey, a landmark legal case. Markeer 18:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you :-) It seemed odd we didn't have it. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Larson

Hello. I guess the material you just removed from the talk page explains why user Tannehilltop, the SPA (only editing articles related to Nathan Larson) who started the move proposal suddenly went off the air, globally blocked as a sock of a "globally banned user". Cheers - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It might. Or there may be some joe jobbing involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Alan Sabrosky

Hi! Thanks for your kind welcome. I just posted a comment on the AfD page (re: deleting "Alan Sabrosky") - I would appreciate it if you would read it and perhaps join in. Basic issue is that as long as one uses "Alan Sabrosky" most of my work does not appear, but when one uses my full name (Alan Ned Sabrosky) a lot of military, government and academic work comes up. I'd be flattered to have an article in Wikipedia, but nothing is better than what is there now, and I simply do not know how to get that across more than I have done so far. But I appreciate your courtesy and your advice. Thanks, AlanDocbrosk1941 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Docbrosk1941: You're welcome. It's all too easy for those of us who have done this for a while to forget how many rules and conventions there are on this site that newcomers don't know about. As you may have seen, I added a second source search template with the middle name included, and I agree, it brings up more. I wound up arguing for the article to be kept (which might not surprise many Wikipedians who are familiar with my AfD track record), but eclectic though I am, your field lies very far outside those in which I am confident of my ability to judge academic notability, and as you can see from the points that have already been made in the discussion, under our guidelines you don't fall clearly and obviously on one side or the other. I would normally at this point start editing the article, adding reviews of and responses to your publications, specifics on your education (and your middle name!), but the admins have hamstrung me by full protecting it. (And this is the midpoint of my work week.) I appreciate both your effort in making specific points about the defects of the present article and suggesting replacement text and sources, and your nuanced view about what you want to happen to the article. However, after reading what I said in my argument for keeping it, it's possible you would now prefer it to be deleted. Acceptable sources may not exist for a full account of your career (see this page and this page; however, you may well be able to point us toward published bios we can use), and the article needs to mention the largely negative response to your 9/11 piece. If after considering the matter in that light you would rather it be deleted, please say so at the AfD and I would quite understand. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

All things considered, if you or someone else with your attitude did the editing/revising, I would -prefer that something be kept, if only to offset some of the negativity the original piece (plus the vandalism) has generated. I did mention there (and am sort of repeating it FYI) that I can send copies of my military DD214 (which will list service time, rank, service in Vietnam and medals) and 3 items from the US Army War College: my appointment to the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, my diploma from the College (I was the first civilian faculty member to get that) and my Superior Civilian Service Award (given at the end of my time there) - all official government publications, easily verified, and I expect the bio of me the Army War College used would also be available.

I should mention one thing, given the way in which Google & mainstream sources are used - none really look kindly on people who publish criticism of Israel, even people such as myself with some Jewish heritage. For instance (and since I do not bother looking myself up, both examples come from friends) shortly after I published a sequel to the "Treason, Betrayal and Deceit" article called "Demystifying 9/11" in Veterans Today (July 2011), one friend noted over 330,000 hits in Google - and a week later under 30,000, since back up a bit. And a YouTube video of a Press TV interview was seen by another friend going past one million views, but when she went back to the exact same video (having copied its address) the following day, it was under 10,000 views. So stuff happens, and you can share that info or discard it as you choose - and again my thanks to you for your input. Alan Docbrosk1941 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Docbrosk1941: I'm cynical enough about Google not to be surprised, but fortunately Ghits don't determine notability for Wikipedia's purposes. (In any case it shows different results to different people and according to logged-in status, as you probably know.) I am still planning on trying some rewriting in my user space over my work weekend. The thing is, Wikipedia frowns on the use of primary documents, so the only one of those you mention above that would be usable is the Army War College bio. Was that published somewhere online, and were there faculty pages from Middlebury, Catholic University, Penn, or Georgetown that might be retrievable via the Internet Archive? (I can search, but without knowing the URL it would be unlikely I can still find any.) I'm also going to bother with a ping a senior editor with a lot of experience with academic biographies, who might have advice for both of us: Drmies, this is about Alan Sabrosky, see also AfD and talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond to a remark that Wikipedia does not care much for primary sources....That certainly sets it apart from any and all printed encyclopedias in 4 languages with which I am familiar. I will try and find faculty pages from the various places I have taught, but you do know that in almost all US colleges, universities and research institutes, people write their own descriptions and the institution simply edits them down so most are more or less the same length? I find it odd that a write-up by me on myself at (e.g.) Georgetown would be acceptable to Wikipedia, but a write-up by me on myself directly would be verboten. Whatever, I will look for it this evening - and thank you for the ping to Drmies, I'll keep tracking this thread. -Alan Docbrosk1941 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! It has to do with the fact that original research is forbidden here ... and that the reader is supposed to be able to verify the information ... and that the universities vet what appears on the faculty pages, so they aren't exactly self-published. Best is when some newspaper or book has a whole long treatment of a person (that counts straightforwardly toward notability, also), but second-best is something vetted by some sort of editor that has been published somewhere openly available. (The folks who hang out at the policy pages may want to take me to task for some of that, and of course I'm leaving out the links to relevant guidelines, but I don't think I'm garbling it too badly.) Many of the greatest encyclopedic writers would find this a disconcerting place to work; but then we have no overarching body of planners and task assigners to rein us in, volunteers come from every imaginable background, and our coverage is uniquely broad, so we have peculiar guidelines instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Forrest

I wish I had been pinged about this one. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm sorry, I have been trying to avoid bothering you, and now I don't remember what you did there. I remembermy hunt for sources and that's it. I apologize. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it was a long time ago that I knew her. Don't feel bad. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You knew her? Oh I am sorry. I hope she's still around and enjoying living in Paris. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't be in the US if it wasn't for her. No, I believe those fan pages. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing to FRINGE publications

Please refrain advocating the sourcing of a WP:BLP to WP:FRINGE publicaitons, as you are doing at Talk:Alan Sabrosky, Here: [2], and in your proposed rewriire of the Alan Sabrosky, here: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: The citing of his own work in association with third-party characterizations of it is not a policy breach. I also think your characterization of the site is simplistic. I'll be archiving this section after responding, but you're welcome to report me to a noticeboard of your choosing. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Alan Sabrosky

• Do we have a source for the fact/dates that he served as an enlisted man, then mustered out, when to college, got a PhD. It's an impressive thing to do, but a secondary source would be nice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No comment on whether serving in the military then attending college and earning two master's degrees and a PhD was extraordinary, though I agree it's impressive :-) Docbrosk1941 has been offering primary sources for his military record, as you know, plus one bio that a newspaper added above a letter to the editor (in my talk page archives, IIRC). The degrees are sourced in my rewrite to a directory of annual doctorates in the field, as you will have seen. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We need SECONDARY sources for a WLP. also, the doctorate sources the doctorate, not the life bofore an dafter receiving the PhD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We can and should have bibliographic information on where publications worthy of mention can be found, and links where feasible, for the reader's benefit. (That's why ISBNs for the subject's books.) Also, perhaps you can't see that directory entry? As I say, it also lists his previous degrees. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: It occurs to me that I assumed you had looked closely at the rewrite and therefore knew that it uses neither the primary sources nor the newspaper note. I answered the question "Do we have sources" assuming you were asking because you saw none in the article. The short answer is "No, not that I've felt comfortable using." Which is why those specifics/dates are not in the rewrite. Perhaps that helps. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked carefully at the rewrite, and wrote up a long memo on its sourcing flaws on the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw and responded, hence I assumed you knew it does not include the primary sources I mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for going above and beyond to find high-quality sources for the AIM article. Comics articles usually don't see much love at AfD. Cosign your point about JSTOR's garbage search function. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits: SK-II History Section

Hi, understand that you previously made edits to the history section of the SK-II page. There's actually a couple of points that require correction to make it more accurate. Would like to discuss the following points with you

1) SK-II as a brand was not developed in the 1970s, it was launched in Dec 1980. so it might be more accurate say their “story" began in the 1970s. Reference: http://news.pg.com/blog/birth-icon-skii and http://news.pg.com/sites/pg.newshq.businesswire.com/files/blog/additional/PG_BB_Sheets_SKII_Final.pdf)

2) It was not a monk that made the observation but scientists, according to numerous sources as well as the source on P&G's website. Ref: Reference: http://news.pg.com/blog/birth-icon-sk-ii

3) Would be good if there was an additional line to expound on "Pitera". Proposed Line: "Pitera is a bio-ingredient that contains the same similar composition of vitamins, amino acids and organic acids as the skin’s Natural Moisturizing Factors." (Reference: https://www.futurederm.com/sk-ii-is-it-worth-all-the-hype-and/)

4) To make the sentence more complete, can there be a mention to talk about SK-II being sold in 13 different markets (Ref: http://news.pg.com/sites/pg.newshq.businesswire.com/files/blog/additional/PG_BB_Sheets_SKII_Final.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvgho81 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dvgho81: I'll look, but I can't promise it will be soon - I am madly busy both at work and on Wikipedia. (When I do little edits, it's because I don't have time or access to the books for the big stuff.) Also please note that third-party sources are preferred over the brand's own website. So the monk vs. scientist thing will depend on what I find. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Thank you. If it helps, I also chanced upon this reference. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7u8hlu4/Company-Background-History-The-history-of-SK-II-back-to-the-1970s-is-when-a/ Dvgho81 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Hi, can I check if you had the time to look at the page :) Dvgho81 (talk) 01:47, 08 Aug 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dvgho81: I finally made time, and have reported the bases for my edit at Talk:SK-II. I'm afraid it's not changed as much as you wanted. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marian T. Ryan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assault and battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Move dicussion on North Germanic peoples

There is an ongoing move discussion inspired by the idea that North Germanic peoples and inhabitants of Scandinavia are equivalent. Some members of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies have already expressed their opinion, but including more members like yourself would certainly be of benefit to the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Piloti

Hi! I really appreciate your committment in writing the voice. Thank you!--SimonBaraldi24 (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I like to save articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Supreme Intelligence

You really saved the day on the Advanced Idea Mechanics AFD - do you have anything that would help out with Supreme Intelligence? BOZ (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I think the Kree will have to fight this one for themselves. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi Yngvadottir. I'm sorry I've upset you. Yes, I did attempt to get you to address my concerns in more detail, and I was very concerned about BLP being overlooked. BLP alone sets very high standards, and I tend toward following those standards strictly, especially when there's a history of likely undeclared paid editors involved with the article. That said, yes, I should have worked to deescalate the situation when you clearly weren't backing down from the inclusionism/deletionism mindset. If you want to discuss the matter further, let me know. Sorry I didn't handle the situation better. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You had ample opportunity to make a cogent argument, to edit fairly, to explain your bias against somneone saying that they "tend inclusionist" when called on it, to consider edits, sources, and arguments on their merits, and to consider that politeness and collegiality might be behind someone's declining to battle right back atcha. Rather than apologizing, treat the next person better. Good day. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I don't know any other admins and I have a question that I'm not sure where to ask. While researching to try to fix dead links on Yoweri Museveni, I found this book, which is for sale on Amazon. It seems to contain passages that are either ripped directly from WP or WP is copied from it; I suspect the former. That's a violation of WP's copyright or something, right? I just have no idea who to ask about this. Thanks. Runawayangel (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, but I'm not an admin any more; Ymblanter is, and there may be others who still have this page watchlisted. :-) Anyway, it's perfectly legal to republish Wikipedia articles in any format, and several books are out there that are just rebundled WP articles ... so long as attribution is given. Ideally that's the URL of each article, since from there readers can click on the history, with each contributor credited; some academic books actually list all the contributors in the back. The book you've linked to credits "Wikipedia" in general with the main page URL; see the back of title page with the publication info. There are also some Wikipedia mirror sites that don't give credit, which is a violation; there's a list of known ones somewhere. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not an admin business. If they republish Wikipedia without attribution, WMF should know. If they do it with attribution this is legally fine. (We can not of course use such a book as a source).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I wanted to ask an admin is because I figured they'd be more likely to know. I was just confused since it's for sale and I wasn't sure if that was allowed or not. Thanks for the info. Runawayangel (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sergey Morozov (politican)

Since you were editing Alexander Ananchenko, I was wondering if you might be able to help me out here. Sergey Morozov (politican) still has a lot of similar errors to what the other one had, but I don't know how to go about fixing it, especially since I can't read Russian. I was wondering if you had any idea where to start. Thanks. Runawayangel (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Runawayangel: Thanks for sounding the alarm on that one; Ymblanter confirmed that it was a copy and paste of an article we already had (and has deleted it), and that the source article also has referencing problems. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually corrected some of the problems but a more thorough check is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, glad it was taken care of. Lyudmila Porgina seems to have some more formatting issues which were partially cleaned up, I think some of the references might have other issues. At least a couple of them appear to be broken. Runawayangel (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Runawayangel: As you will see from my latest edit summary there, I was able to fix a URL by deleting spaces within it and find an archived version. But that is a terrible machine translation from Russian Wikipedia that he began after he was told machine translated text is unacceptable. Oh dear, I thought he'd stopped. I must now turn in, so I've dumped it in Ymblanter's hands. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Runawayangel: In case my ping from AN/I didn't work (or alarmed you!) noting that at Ymblanter's request I've made a new report on the editor; and I've also stubbed Lyudmila Porgina, after rescuing a ref from late in the article and removing a broken one. Thanks again. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just saw that they were indeffed, I'm happy it was resolved alright, and that you knew what to do with those articles. I certainly didn't. :) Runawayangel (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Using signature

Thank you for your help in correcting the problem I was having with signatures. With your assistance, I have been able to correct the matter. Ouranista 04:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouranista (talk • contribs)

Eardisley

Thanks so much for expanding it and your kind words Yngie!! Hope you're well!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) I was actually worried you might object to me messing with it; then it became a matter ofpride to get at that Telegraph article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yngvadottir. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And in advance, a Good Yule. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ... hubby and I will be celebrating Yule for him later in the month... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Yngvadottir, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And thank you for yours, too :-) Good Yule to you and yours. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks so much :), Take care, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:13, 24 December 2018 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Oldperson (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely e-mail, Oldperson, and good Yule to you and your family :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

And to you and yours as wellYngvadottirYou have been a bright spot in my WP experience. Eternally grateful and indebted. Same to CatrionaOldperson (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

YngvadottirA favor please. If I may impose. I have a draft article at draft:oldperson/sandbox5 I am somewhat satisfied with it. Looking for one or two more references. Two problems. There are six references. When Iview them in Visual Mode all six show up, when I publish only three show up. The three that don't show up are

.

and they don't show up on your page either, only in Source mode. Any ideas. They show just fine, the way they show up on Show Preview is perfect, but when I publish they disappear. Also I would like to add the Submit your Draft for Review template, but either one has to be an admin or have privileges.

Can you help? ThanksOldperson (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I'll take a look, but I am not very techy so it'll take me a while, and I have an article I'm working on right now that I need to hack into a more rounded shape before pressing "save", so give me a few minutes, please. It's also possible that someone who watches my talk page will have fixed the references problem first; it's probably something picky in the code. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottier Thanks. I can wait. Frustrating. I would like to know what it is, so I can fix it myself. Totally wierd though for three out of six to go invisible in publish mode but show in Preview mode. Oldperson (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, take a look now. I made a couple of changes, one being adding {{Reflist}} to summon the references. I think the one that made a difference was replacing the smart (angled) quotation marks on the three reference names with non-smart, Wiki-markup-compliant, straight ones. You can tell MS Word or any other word processing software not to use smart quotes; alternatively, if you use only single words (not digits) as labels for repeated refs, there is no need for the quote marks, which is what I do (see that latest article). Less possibility of mistyping. As for submitting it ... I don't seewhy you would need any permissions if what you mean is putting it through AfC? The proper code is {{subst:submit}}; I forgot it's supposed to be "substituted"; copy and paste that at the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

{{U}Yngvadottir}}Thanks. I got all of that, I think. It looks like copy and paste references from MS Word is out.

There is one last reference driving me nuts. Reference [5]"Social life in Seventeenth Century Virginia" I've done everything I can think of and it is still invisible. I"ve retyped it on the page, over and still invisible. Is it me or is it the program? I even tried using the cite button and it just garbled the ref name and still invisibleOldperson (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I think I got it. You had the wrong kind of closure for a repetition of a named reference, which caused part of the text and the next reference to fall into a small black hole; you then had an instance of single quotes instead of double and you hadn't exactly copied the reference name, including capitalization. Does it look right now? If not, let me know and I'll look tonight; must now start preparing for bed, back to work in a few hours. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Belated Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you! And Good Yule to you and yours :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Yngvadottir Thank you. I see you fixed it. What I do wrong. I don't want to make the same mistake in the future. Iused the cite function on my test Sandbox2 and it worked, this time. So much to learn.Oldperson (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir It looks great, Thank you so much.First time I ran into the problem. I hope it doesn't happen againOldperson (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir It was the quotes. Keyboard has straight quotes, but MSWord turns them into curly quotes.I changed my test page quotes and voila. I never would have figured it out were it not for you. So many thanks.

````

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope it brings good things to all of us. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thank you SO much for your help with the article I was trying to submit. I have resubmitted and hopefully your assistance will help to have it published. We do believe that Ms Mizutori's notability is sufficient (she is a UN Assistant-Secretary-General, just 2 steps below the Secretary-General) and we are also striving for gender-parity. Your help is very much appreciated! Elsworthj (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Fortunate Eagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...

for your help with Goldberg Variations (play)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'd forgotten all about that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

Your day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Wow. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Duggardesh listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duggardesh. Since you had some involvement with the Duggardesh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gotitbro (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your wise words :) Contaldo80 (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)

Gina Stewart Page Edits

Thank you for your edits Gina and I appreciate the assistance. However, we would like to know what you suggest with respect to citations that are acceptable? Unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to take issue with tabloid citations and the vast majority of Gina's are from such sources. Furthermore, the latest image that I uploaded was deleted...again. With the incorrect reason that it was a copyright violation and was taken from Instagram, neither of which is true. How do I convince you that the image is both authorized content and an unpublished original image created by me? Also, I am very curious why her official Instagram account link is allowed, but the links I put in for her official Facebook page and official Twitter were deleted?Angusrobbie (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Angus Robbie

Heya, good to hear from you. First of all, I'm afraid I have to tell you that if you're editing on behalf of Ms Stewart, that's a conflict of interest that has to be declared at a minimum and that should preferably cause you to step back and not edit the article any more. Neutrality is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and it's extremely difficult to be dispassionate in writing about a friend; and paid editing is flat-out forbidden under the WMF's terms of service. See WP:COI.

That said, I came to the article after seeing an edit by Drmies that piqued my interest, was appalled by the sourcing, especially given that this is an article about a living person—you're correct, use of tabloids is deprecated, especially the UK "redtops" such as The Sun (see WP:RS), and although the Daily Mail is not the worst of these in most respects, its use is specifically forbidden, especially in biographies of living people—but I did find extensive coverage, so I decided to see whether I could save the article by referencing it adequately. If someone were to nominate it for deletion now, I can't promise it would be kept, but I would vote keep. However, there is a big problem insofar as her fame is largely built on Daily Mail coverage. You've been able to find some more acceptable sources, although I found the New Zealand Herald, which I think is the best of the lot so far; are there any others you can find for us to plug in to offset the marginal stuff? (Note that an article published by, say, Fox News saying it originally appeared in The Sun is a Sun article and can't be used. Daily Mail articles get republished all over the world, but we still can't use em.)

In terms of the image, read the Commons rules you have been linked to over there. Commons is not Wikipedia, and only hosts images that are free for anyone to reuse in any way, including commercially. To upload a photo there, you either have to have physically clicked the shutter, or be able to establish the image is out of copyright, usually by reason of age, or the rights owner (again, this is almost always the photographer) needs to e-mail Commons OTRS explicitly donating the image in perpetuity. There's no provision for allowing Commons to host the image but limiting its use. If you upload to English Wikipedia itself there's more wiggle room ("fair use", but much more limited than in academia), but there are still rules, one of which is that photos of living people have to be taken personally by the uploader and donated exactly as at Commons, because, unlike images of dead people and, say, film posters or album covers, they are not impossible to replace with a new, free photo: someone could always photograph the person in some public place. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for an overview and links to a help page regarding images and other media files.

The External links question has the shortest answer: as my edit summary stated, we give one official URL, not all of them. If she had an official website of her own, that would be best. Or is there a modelling agency page we could use? Failing either, since her Instagram was in the news (and since non-Facebookers like me can essentially see bupkis of someone's Facebook page), I went with the Instagram.

Damn, I wrote a lot, I'm sorry. I hope at least some of it helps. I see that you've been around for a while but I've still taken the liberty of linking to info pages so you can read up on the official wording if you wish, rather than relying on my summary. I've also pinged Drmies, who is an admin and therefore more up on the rules than I am, and who recently looked at the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Angusrobbie, in case you didn't see this. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sometimes better than words. skål! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. *clink* Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Seruga Titus sources

I saw you cleaned up Seruga Titus and added a source, thanks. There's an ongoing discussion on RSN to establish whether sources discussing Titus are reliable, any comments would be appreciated. <sub>signed,</sub> Rosguill <sup>talk</sup> 22:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I do not consider myself an authority on reliability of news sites, but I posted there with my thoughts. I'm going to drop a note on the creator's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For speaking up. I've been following your comments, nodding my head at each one I read. You feel the way I do, and I've meant to stop by for a few days but I've been so upset it's difficult to articulate anything. Your recent comment, "this is harassment" is spot on. That's exactly how I feel! Victoria (tk) 00:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it means a lot to have someone say they appreciate what I'm saying. The community is sadly split, but this makes me so sick at heart. I have loved writing stuff here, and met some wonderful people. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry it took so long (I'm mostly shy). I've met some wonderful people her, but with each passing year it's been more difficult for me to contribute content at the same rate and I started to drift away. Yet I missed this place, the sense of community (yeah, I know it's not perfect and you and I didn't agree recently (I meant to stop by then, because I respected what you said there as well)), and decided it's okay to hang out, to edit a little, do a few reviews, contribute what I can, when I can. And now this, tearing the community apart. Plus I worry that I get short tempered, have a tendency to be snappy at times. Will someone report me? Sick at heart is right phrase. Victoria (tk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Elephants

• User talk:Drmies#There is an encyclopaedia around here, somewhere.

As I said before, I think that you might find my next AFC submission quite interesting. I am working on another of the sections.

• Did you know … that the person who fired an administrator and set off a crisis had a couple of years before created a "Healthy Stations Project" coördinated by her (then) husband that in practice usually sought to remove control from volunteers over content? <sup>(Walker 2004, p. 147)</sup>

Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Uncle G, I'm delighted you have written that article, and when you mentioned it at the AfD I dimly recalled seeing newspaper coverage. I would have researched and written it up myself, but not only have you done a far better job than I would have, but as I have mentioned, I haven't written either of the articles I was all set to write when I became aware of Fram's ban, and won't now be writing them or doing any other substantial new article work unless we get a big apology from the WMF. This morning this seems even less likely; I've just started reading what Katherine Maher has been writing. My intention at this point is to dump the two articles in my user space and avoid editing in July. There will be articles I could have tried to save, references and information I could have added, and now that I have posted this, probably raids on the articles listed on my user page. But I won't edit as a subject of the WMF, and although I'm a pretty tough old bird, I won't contribute to normalizing the atmosphere of fear and dread they seek to establish. I have loved this project and met some wonderful people. I regret that I can't be an admin again and that I have no place sharing my views on harassment, civility, and collaboration because I can't have skin in the game. But I'm going to have to break this addiction because that's apparently the only thing they are likely to pay attention to, and because nobody will fork (and I can't help with the heavy lifting there anyway, so fair enough, though it breaks my heart we can't break free from this incubus). Insofar as I edit after I dump those two articles, it needs to be as little in mainspace, as little work here, as possible. So although I see the parallels, I am unable to participate in parallel action. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. I did half-entertain the fanciful notion that you could get Nicole Sawaya to Featured Article status. But walking away, quietly, without fuss, and not looking back may well be a wise course of action. Just bear in mind what job M. Sawaya had some years later. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd missed that it gave her cancer and she died ... I don't do FAs or even GAs. You may be confusing me with someone, but your logical choice, Eric Corbett, has already walked away before this. I wish we could have forked. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I did say that it was fanciful. ☺ I had this amusing image of a small group of content writers writing Nicole Sawaya to make a point. I'm not going to get into the other topic. peter jackson would like to make a point. Further discussion of that to xem, please. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
        • As I say, I can't do any heavy lifting anyway. I hope you can get others to assist; this has been yet another hole in our coverage that the WMF is blissfully unaware of when it talks about near completion. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Black Sun (symbol)

This discussion over at Black Sun (symbol) may interest you. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting times, we live in

You might be interested to see this thread .... ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 18:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

mail

.. the "e" kind. And dogs are NOT second class citizens to cats ... looks like a beauty though. :-) — Ched (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• ... and the puppy is really cute too. I am very sorry for you loss though. — Ched (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom

Good daughter of Yngvi... Have you given any thought to committing the supreme foolishness of running for Arbcom? The current shitshow has made it clear that there needs to be a new crew rolling in and an old crew rolling out into well-deserved retirement. Count me as a big YES if you do run. Please give it some thought. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yngvi I can't, for a number of reasons. It requires adminship, and I can't do that again (and might not even get promoted, the way things are now, let's not assume). It requires identifying to the WMF, and I don't trust them with my data. It requires being a political or legal animal, and I am very far from either. And even if I could talk myself into doing some sort of shieldmaid damn-the-torpedoes run, I wouldn't get elected. Thanks for your confidence, misplaced though it is. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I obviously echo what Carrite has said, but I understand your reasons for declining it. If I could have a fantasy ARBCOM league, you'd certainly be in it. The sooner these incompetent bunch of fools are deselected, the better. Cassianto<sup>Talk</sup> 07:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Yngvadottir. You have new messages at Sebthepleb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Pretty decently you elucidated everthin' to me.Thanks for kind advice SHISHIR DUA (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ace Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Henry Ashurst

This typo looks like I was in "Quick, fix up the article before another admin speedy deletes it!" mode. Cheers for spotting it. Also, what's all this "Edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" about? I mean, I'm not exactly jumping up and down and saying the WMF is brilliant and T&S is the best thing to happen to the encyclopedia (and who can blame me), yet somehow I manage to ignore it and work on content anyway. (Email me if it's easier)Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 11:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

October

... with thanks from QAI

... for comments towards article improvement in Ritchie's case, - nice to be not alone. I typed a lot on my talk this morning, ending on "should be unblocked", - and then found out he was ;) - "don't believe in miracles, rely on them" (Mascha Kaléko). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you :-) Two or three Arbcom elections ago, a lot of us were appalled at how little weight the then Arbs seemed to place on our purpose here: collaborative encyclopedia writing. I was hopeful that a new lot would change that; it hasn't come to pass. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Passing by...

And though you'd be amused to hear that some bot with time on its electrons wants to delete my lone language userbox:

gd-0Bha Gàidhlig aig seaneairean agus seanmhairean agam.

"My grandfathers and grandmothers spoke Gaelic.

-- OtherDave (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I remember that user box! How mean. Hi again OtherDave, and I hope you're doing well :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"This edit intended to improve the encyclopaedia is not an endorsement of the WMF."

Appreciate the useful copyedit on Poplar, London, but your edit summary comment about the WMF made me wonder what the WMF was in Poplar and prompted me double-check what sounded like a careful edit about a controversial subject, perhaps a political party or an infamous Poplar-based company where you were clarifying their activities but uncomfortable that people thought you might be endorsing their position.

But I see now you were just making a general statement about the Wikimedia Foundation while performing uncontroversial copyediting. WP:SUMMARYNO discourages this kind of discursive edit summary, I guess for reasons like that. Perhaps put a statement on your user page instead? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Glad you liked the edit; I've been told I have a good eye, and I still think of myself as mostly a wiki-gnome. As to my edit summaries, great minds think alike; Ritchie333 asked the same question a little while ago. Apart from length, I can't see how I'm offending against the recommendations you link to; I'm certainly not attacking anybody, and my edit summaries have always tended to be long because I often find one thing leads to another and by the time I finish editing an article I've changed numerous things. About the only good thing I can think of that the WMF has done for us recently is semi-accidentally to massively increase the edit summary length on en-wp (they were thinking only of other-language projects where diacritics and such inflate the byte count); not many people seem to read my edit summaries all the way to the end and have noticed that an extra bit now almost always appears '-) Anyway, I'm afraid if the community wants me to continue pottering around here, they'll have to endure my including disclaimers. I love this project, but it makes me feel dirty to let the WMF boast of my contributions to it as if they are at their behest and indicate they are doing something good. I have tried to keep under five edits a month so they cannot claim me as an active editor, but it was too hard. So I am trying to keep under 100, which they call "highly active" or something. I failed last month through trying to save articles, and I had to wait for a new month to respond to you, sorry :-( But I can't in good conscience keep editing without registering a protest. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I came here to ask you the same question, and I like your answer. Like you, I consider the WMF a deterrent, and sometimes an obstacle, to productivity. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame,

I used to hold your participation on Wikipedia in such high regard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry too. We must be talking at cross purposes somehow. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I find it hard to be friends with people who empathise with the prolific content providers who believe themselves to be so important they are above the law and harass and attack people with impunity. I believe Wales to be right. It looks as if the only thing you and I do share are our concerns about the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the "prolific content providers", Mr Kudpung, you wouldn't have a website to pontificate over. Please bear that in mind. Cassianto<sup>Talk</sup> 17:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again, Cassianto. That's another limp, argument-losing claim. While FA are an excellent feature of the encyclopedia, they are a drop in the ocean of the six million articles, but I do hold some of their writers in extremely high regard and peer reviewed a few. And maintenance work is just as important for keeping rubbish out and trying, just trying, mind you, to reduce the insults. By asking you politely to refrain from posting on my talk page, it was not an invitation for you to continue your attacks in another venue, and I still had not warned you about your very serious recent breach in our rules, but don't be lulled into thinking I hadn't noticed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Who's talking about FA? And again, would you care to provide a diff for my "attacks"? Nobody's forcing you to reply here and you are free to ignore me here just as you have done at my talk page. You've not told me to stop talking to you, only to stop posting to your page, which I've done. Should you wish for me to stop interacting with you completely, you only need to say. Have a wonderful day. Cassianto<sup>Talk</sup> 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, then what you took for disingenuousness is my not sharing your background regarding how he used to behave at RfA, and perhaps some other attacks; I haven't seen such a broad-brush situation as you describe, and we may also differ regarding the "law" / rules. I do think any further discussion should go off-wiki, particularly with an Arbcom election about to happen at a moment when the community is divided and many of us are feeling very hurt. But I did mean what I said: the point I felt compelled to pipe up about was referring to Jimbo's speech as you did. We differ in our views on it, but also I don't believe it was his place to make any such speech. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that you were disingenuous for not sharing my agreement with Wales. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think you did, exactly, but I'm now a bit lost, to be frank. Didn't you realise that Jimbo's opinions don't weigh heavily with all Wikipedians, and that that speech in particular can be seen as overreach at best? (quite apart from my opinion as to its content). I'd better not get into FA/GA, the topic above, since I've made clear in the past that I don't do either, and I don't think it's useful to talk about winning or losing arguments in this context. Rather than waffle on and make both of you roll your eyes, I'll just say this: we need all kinds of good writers here, including subject matter experts whose ref formatting needs to be fixed, gnomes who fix the ref formatting, single-handed creators of lovely articles whose social graces leave something to be desired (this is a honeypot for people on the spectrum and good!), people whose interests are weird and wonderful (a lot of our missing articles the vast majority of us don't even realise are topics, and attracting a huge variety of contributors is a far better way to get those articles than trying to research and make lists, pace Women in Red), people who love collaborating, people who speak and write less known varieties of English, and people of every possible background including class (which affects patterns of address and perceptions of incivility to a huge extent). This project thrives on diversity and intersectionality, and has been a model of collaboration and listening between different editors. And not a whole lot of it gets done without the people. So yes, I think Jimbo was wrong, wrong, wrong, and given my druthers I'd have fewer rules. You may now call me ingenuous, or wishy-washy, but I'm coming to think you thought I was more intelligent and more guileful than I am; I just can't see where I was disingenuous. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And here is proof, should proof ever be needed, that discussion is the best way to fix disputes, and that passive aggression and suppressing debate is really for the cowshed. Thank you. Cassianto<sup>Talk</sup> 19:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): (I believe that's Fluffernutter?) I am not sure I knew about it, and pretty sure the WMF would have designed it in such a way as to make it almost impossible to fit one's response into the options given, so I doubt I would have bothered. I won't be responding to the survey you just invited me to, since the privacy policy says it's a Google survey and if I don't trust the WMF, who I know to be utterly incompetent, with my data, why on earth would I trust Google, who are extremely competent?

I believe you know my answer to the question of what the WMF's relation to the community should be. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

They spammed a great many editors with this, according to the bot's history. I made my position clear at WP:FRAM. The WMF didn't care what the community had to say. They not only refused to apologize for what was done, they wouldn't even pledge to stop doing it in the future. Any further feedback is obviously a waste of time considering they won't even admit to doing anything wrong in the first place. Jan and Maria should've faced repercussions, at the very least. It appears he sent them out, with authorization from Kbrown and others, I assume. Enigma<sup>msg</sup> 17:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

TFA

November

Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you today for your share for Bramshill House, "one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college."! - I am happy to share the page with a modest DYK about a singer who impressed me. In celebratary mood today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunvalley Shopping Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And good Yule to you! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And good Yule to you! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Yngvadottir
	Hi Yngvadottir, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 01:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And good Yule! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはYngvadottirたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) And good Yule to you! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)