Nikkimaria, Welcome to Wikisource and it was very nice to meet you at the GLAMWiki Boot Camp yesterday! I have taken the liberty of fixing your interwiki link on your new userpage ;-) (I also just discovered that {{ Cross-wiki diff}} does not work with wikisource!).-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prudence Wright, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the American Revolution Prudence Wright led a militia of pitchfork-bearing women to arrest her brothers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prudence Wright. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Please ask first before moving all the pages for a project you have had no involvement with (AFAIK). Johnbod ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making the names of those GLAM-related projects a bit clearer... What do you think of my proposal at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Smithsonian Institution#Let's move project pages and categories to standard names? Mostly looking to drop the "-related" from the project category names. Disavian ( talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
re: Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. I saw a post regarding the lead. I wasn't real sure about some of the commas there, but given the reason to "pause" in the discussion - I didn't change anything. I always respect the original author's intent. So in the end, I think it's a beautiful article, and I thank you for all that work. I admit that the topic is not my forte, but a friend or two asked that I have a look and offer a supportive word. You do good work Nikki ... thank you for your efforts. Cheers. — Ched : ? 07:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You may want to read this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion, specifically "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.". Adding a cat, but not being allowed to delete it, it standard practice, and not gaming the system. Adding cats is allowed so that people can see the full potential scope of a category, especially one nominated for deletion - deleting is disallowed for the same reason (if the cat is deleted by consensus, it will be removed automatically) Best regards, -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, congrats on the TFA -- very happy to be sharing a small part of the front page with you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On 1 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nakimu Caves, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the "nakimu" in Nakimu Caves means "grumbling spirits" in Shuswap? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakimu Caves. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki,
It was great to meet you this past weekend. You asked me to let you know when I initiated my next FAC. I just did so here. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.
Neelix ( talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope it's better now for you, I added some english wikipedia specific 'quickfixes', until the time arrives that the devs get it fixed. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I like this improvement. Please act on it. The single instrumental parts need to appear, - if the list is too long, they can be abbreviated ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions on cleanup at the FAC for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.
Perhaps you could help a bit? I'll do my best to address your concerns, but after that I might need some more specific pointers on where to fix up the formatting issues.
Thanks again for your helpful suggestions on this important topic related to freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've posted a response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.
Thanks again for the helpful recommendations, we've made changes to address them, and I believe the article is much better for it.
— Cirt ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: Could you please have another look at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate? I've left some updates at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1. I went back through your comments and incorporated more of your suggestions and those of others. The article now includes only two (2) quoted sentences in its entirety. Perhaps it is now up to a level where you could reassess your position at the FAC? — Cirt ( talk) 01:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.-- MONGO 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there - I saw your summary note for Friedrich Wilhelm Rust. Must say, I wasn't aware about dropping accessdates for gbooks. Will try and remember to delete that in the future as it's an autopopulated field in the gbooks citation tool which I use. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please revisit this page and say whether you feel all concerns have been adequately addressed? This nomination has been gathering dust for quite some time now. It would be much appreciated if you could come take a look! —♦♦ AMBER (ЯʘCK) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop reverting without discussion. It's rude and dismissive. I've made my case but you And truth seeker haven't made yours. You can't say take it to talk and then not go to talk. Get over your wp:own issues and bring a logical guidance based argument - otherwise Stop reverting.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You read Bach cantata and know that they typically rely on three types of text, contemporary poetry, Bible text and chorale. Which amount in a specific cantata, is important, believe me. I will update the infobox documentation, but not now. Can you can tell me a better way than naming the movements with Bible text and chorale, and more precision than naming the specific passage and chorale? Please improve, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
|vocal=
and |instrumental=
. This is tomorrows cantata, I will revert as not convinced it's an improvement. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
21:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you watch Template talk:Infobox Bach composition? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Congrats to having it featured! Well deserved, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the pronoun mistake.
Perhaps you might be interested, I've been thinking about a new quality improvement project next — an intersection between women and the category Category:Free speech activists.
I looked through the category and Judith Krug looks like a good one for quality improvement, what do you think? — Cirt ( talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to template a regular who is normally a solid contributor, but you have almost violated 3RR here. I'm concerned that you seem to be deliberately collapsing or removing scoring information from these infoboxes and are claiming some sort of consensus exists where I see an ongoing debate with at least 4 or 5 different people all having slightly different nuanced positions. I'm rather tired of infobox wars (infoboxes are good in general, should contain proper documentation for the user to get a quick glance, and "seaofblue" isn't relevant in an infobox, that's a text issue) so I'm not going to be arguing with you a lot about this, but it seems you are rather determined to try and derail the work of a solid content editor for whom I have considerable respect and I do wish you'd stop. Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No Nikki, your sarcastic comment in the face of someone who is trying to help doesn't make your point, believe me. Please reconsider your position and tone as a mature editor and admin. ( olive ( talk) 20:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)) add to clarify: None of my comments were addressed to Montanabw in case my comments were read that way.( olive ( talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
I am on vacation, so of little help. Please tell me what needs to be clarified on the Bach cantatas after reading Bach cantata and the documentation on the infobox on Bach's compositions, and after actually linking to SATB, it has an article. We agreed in 2010 that details don't have to be repeated in every single one of about 200 cantatas. - I wish for no infobox to be collapsed, feeling it's against the very spirit of an infobox, - long lists in one parameter being the only exception I would want. But I don't own the articles I created and supplied with an infobox. I truly don't understand the last comment about me needing to move to more content, but then I also read that I need to be re-integrated in the community, both comments are amusing, sort of, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Useful or not, I woke up with a thought I would like to share (not in response to the immediate above): the differentiation of infobox and content seems strange. Infobox IS content, actually its most condensed version, that we should take care to make as good as we can. For me, that means 1) accessible without an extra click, 2) for cantatas a separate entry for |vocal=
and |instrumental=
because - as you will know - independent instruments differentiate a cantata from a motet, for example, where I would prefer |scoring=
, 3) the choir first in |vocal=
, as the secret star of most cantatas, at least for those where the choir starts, also for the immediate link to the voice parts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gerda Arendt (
talk •
contribs)
|scoring=
is specific to cantatas because of where it links to. To clarify, have you changed your mind about these things? I don't think we agree about what infoboxes are, but you're right that it should be a "most condensed version" that we make as good as possible.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
|scoring=
with a link, but that made sense only when the link was needed for the abbreviations of instruments, to be followed by the use of them. It doesn't make sense any more now. - 3) When I said "most condensed" I meant "more condensed than the article", not "the shorter the infobox the better". - 4) I see no sense in collapsing more than one parameter at a time. The template doing so was questioned, and may be deleted eventually. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Per a suggestion from Ian Rose ( talk · contribs), just checking with you first to see if it's alright to move your addressed comments from the FAC page to its talk page?
Thanks again for your helpful recommendations, — Cirt ( talk) 00:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
On 8 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothea von Ertmann, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Beethoven improvised for an hour on piano to comfort Dorothea von Ertmann, his student and possible Immortal Beloved, over the death of her son? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothea von Ertmann. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thanks very much for all of your help with successfully getting Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to Featured Article quality. I really appreciate the assistance in getting this article about freedom of speech to FA. — Cirt ( talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you were willing to comment on the FAC for Mass Effect 2 which is here, as the review has gone quite stale. Whether you are interested or not, thank you for your time. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 09:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nikkimaria. This edit, in addition to re-removing access dates, replaced straight apostrophes with curly ones, which is dispreferred by MOS:PUNCT. I think the page now has something like three links each to Indonesia and Indonesian language as well. All of these are quite minor issues, and I don't plan to edit the page again. But since you seem to be interested in the article, you might want to look at these style points. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 01:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
On 10 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Friedrich Wilhelm Rust, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Friedrich Wilhelm Rust, who was able to play Bach's Das Wohltemperierte Clavier from memory as a teenager, studied composition with Bach's sons and the violin in Italy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Friedrich Wilhelm Rust. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, since you helped out at my last FAC ( Sesame Street research), I thought I'd ask if you could help out again with my latest one [1]. Would you mind? It's been languishing for a while, so I'm drumming up folks to review it. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Per here and here, especially given the controversial nature that you know these category additions to be, could you please use better edit summaries, and not hide them in a "formatting" edit. Thanks. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for the revert on Hemingway (though I see that Obiwan objects to the edit summary!). Basically I hit a wall. Ironically after catching a break in my schedule after a very grueling 8 months of work, today I checked out books from the library with the intention of cleaning and expanding some of the Am. lit novelist biographies. But when I saw this, it made me think, who am I to stand in the way of category diffusion if I'm to be called abhorrent. I find the push to segregate men from women under the guise of diffusion unbelievably sexist and abhorrent, but I decided to step out because I'll never win. If it does come to an RfC, which it should, the well has been muddied with the canvassing, and given the environment of the past two weeks it's very clear that my opinion - though based on subject expertise - is meaningless. So, though I find editing here relaxing for the most part, this is a battle, like so many others, that I just can't give to anymore. Just thought I'd let you know. Also thanks for fixing the description on the Pound img that the bot left a msg about. That can probably be deleted. I've decided to unwatch all the novelists for now. They can find another woman with subject expertise to write and maintain those articles. Sorry if this sounds defeatist. Truthkeeper ( talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! During the first FAC of Tripura (which was withdrawn largely for prose issues), you did an image review. In the current FAC image review has been done. Although this FAC did not see much participation, lately Casliber did review it.
I was wondering if it will be possible for you to do a source review. I guess delegates would want that. If and when you have time, could you please have a look? I hope this communication with you would not be considered as canvassing. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:20th-century American novelists, Category:19th-century American novelists, Category:21st-century novelists and other similar categories are legitimate diffusing categories of Category:American novelists. People should not be in the parent category if they are in the child categories. If you do not think the child categories should exist you are free to nominate them for deletion or merger, but as long as they exist people should not be in both them and the parent categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic opportunism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit ( 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) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
can you please stop hiding category edits in random "clean-up" summaries? There is currently a discussion about these "massacres" categories going on at the indigenous people's project - in the meantime i'd appreciate if you'd stop with your "cleanup". -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [2]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Nikkimaria
I was wondering if you or someone else could turn
Pewdiepie into a redirect page that leads to
List of YouTube personalities#F as I can't seem to do so as no text box appears and I have a running suspicion that this is because the page has been protected from being created. Since we don't have an article on this very fairly popular person a redirect to the information about him would be the best compromise, unless you have a differing opinion? Thank you.
MIVP
(I Can Help? ◕‿◕) -
(Chocolate Cakes)
14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain what you're doing here, and why it's considered a 'fix'? [3]. Thanks. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Constitution_of_May_3.2C_1791. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the image review at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Winter '94/archive1. I think I addressed at least two out of three issues you raised completely. The remaining one, entailing wikilinking from flags in the infobox seems to be a bit more difficult. I managed to have all flags in one field link and none in the other, but that's the best I could produce since {{ flag}} and {{ flagicon}} apparently do not allow that kind of flexibility. I saw this arrangement used in recently promoted FAs, so I thought to check with you if the present situation regarding the images is satisfactory. Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Nikki, I've gotten MagicPiano involved over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1, but he and I had questions about your comment regarding sourcing for the illustrated map. I appreciate your help! Cdtew ( talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren C 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:American_novelists#RFC_or_not.3F. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 03:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, just a quick note to update you that the image concerns you raised for the above have been resolved, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thank you for taking the time to review. Incidentally, are the other images ok? -- Cassianto Talk 14:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Schwingt freudig euch empor, BWV 36:
For these reasons I will revert. I have no time for other cantatas right now, but would appreciate if you would consider the concerns for others also. Soar joyfully aloft, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
|instrumental=
is going to be linked to the article-to-be on Bach's instruments, please prepare that by using it.
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
|scoring=
goes to the section in List of Bach cantatas where the abbreviations are explained (because that's where they were already explained when the template was created last year). If we don't use the abbreviations, the link makes no more sense, the parameter should not be used any more. Now we link every individual instrument, fine for those with an article, - for the others, a list of the instruments that Bach used is planned, to be linked for |instrumental=
. (See also: template docu and discussion) Yes? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
22:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)In hindsight, I was needlessly rude in my edit summaries earlier. Wont happen again. — Xezbeth ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we've hopefully addressed your issues, if you could kindly revisit when you have a chance? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for copy-editing, and for the article on taille. Es ist ein trotzig und verzagt Ding, BWV 176 is my next project. It translates roughly to "There is a contrary and despairing thing".
You reverted BWV 68 to collapsing the infobox again, referring to my talk page. I didn't find there what you may mean. I am told a lot about respect for the " main author's wishes". I am the main author for several Bach cantatas and I wish that their infoboxes be not collapsed. Torture is too strong a word, but my language is not fine enough for the process of first being told concise abbreviations for instruments can't be used, then - when long names of instruments are listed - being told that has to have to be collapsed, or replaced by the plain word "instruments" which is certainly less informative than "instrumental Co Cn 3Tb 2Ob Ot 2Vl Va Vp Bc, which would tell even a reader who knows nothing about abbreviations that this is a complex and unusual scoring. Why hide the six lines that show the music? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop doing this sort of thing [4]? I don't know what you're up to, but it makes no sense... if you are insistent on bringing back the Category:American novelists category, give it a shot - but don't at the same time screw up the other categories by stripping "American" from them. Thanks. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 02:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to say that I've left you a reply to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry I of England/archive1 - I can't work out the right 3D object license though... Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned many times before, the {{ collapsed infobox section begin}} is questionable. It serves the function to collapse part of an infobox.
It is a like crutch, not useful for people how can walk without a crutch. I don't want to use it, and I don't want it used in articles for which I feel responsible, please respect that. Every appearance of it sets a bad example. This is not ownership but concern about quality and style. I hate reverting, but I will revert appearances of this template, and started with Mass in B minor structure, on the Main page. Do me a favour: please do it yourself! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
|scoring=
in the Bach template to the
List of Bach cantatas makes no sense for the
Brandenburg concertos, and even a cantata reader will be confused. Please wait for an article on the instruments, and preserve |instrumental=
, --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A revert by you was brought up at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem with Infobox. See Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester for an example of how the infobox is used. PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Verdi (crater), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Verdi, like Brahms and Scarlatti, lies within Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Verdi (crater). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the best hooks I saw so far, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If you have some spare time, would you care to review this article? -- JDC808 ♫ 04:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Anything else? -- JDC808 ♫ 00:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ping. -- JDC808 ♫ 15:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw you stripped away some comments to some books in the bibliography. These comments were to help the reader and taken from a very unbiased source: Animal Magnetism, Early Hypnotism, and Psychical Research, 1766-1925: An Annotated Bibliography. About this bibliography even the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis said: "...Crabtree compiled what is in my judgment the best bibliography of animal magnetism and hypnotism." I hope this could be of help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan1954 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Please be so kind as to read the two articles Mass in B minor and Mass in B minor structure and compare aspects, before you claim in an edit notice that the former covers "all aspects of it". No writing will ever do that. Compare also please where you find more about the music. I am open to a different title, also to a merge, now that the Main article was improved. The version that made me write the other was simply wrong, - see my question on its talk of 2010. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sheffield Bach Choir may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I've mentioned you here at Talk:Robert_Clark_Young#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Qworty_clean-up, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia ( 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) 15:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on our PR for this important musical at the PR page, here. We are on the way to FAC -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Why was text deleted today from Cigars of the Pharaoh article? I would expect to see at least an explanation in the edit summary. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove language markup, such as <span lang="de">
,
as you did here.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with the Bach cantatas. It would be even more helpful if you would observe some relevant discussions on Classical music, such as the one before it all started which decided that voices and instruments should be all linked every article even if commonly known. - I like your approach to give more prominence to the choirs in a listing of recordings, but think the conductors are more worthy of mentioning than the record labels. For any article, I would want to know who conducted the Thomanerchor when, what Harnoncourt/Leonhardt (first HIP) did, Koopman, Leusink, Suzuki, Gardiner. I accepted the way of recordings listing as it was handled before I came to the topic. - You may also be interested in the Classical music discussion that spoke about Mincham. - I like his very personal approach but think it's rather specialized; Klaus Hofmann knows much more about the connection of language and music, and John Eliot Gardiner has a great way to address a more general public. - I would link the first mentioning of a key in a article, for those who have no idea of major/minor. Happy editing, I still have practically no time. - Thanks for BWV 39, together we will be able to get it to 5* as it deserves (hopefully the day it was written for, next Sunday) ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Recitativo vs. recitative: the discussion when we started the Bach cantatas articles resulted in listing Bach's original terms at least once, in the scoring section. If you think people will not understand them, please explain. For three years now, there have been no complaints. Please revert your revert, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Adding: the source Dürr says:
Note: Recitativo, Aria, Chorale, are no German words, but respectfully the terms that the composer used. We keep them, as the German headings for the movements, following the sources, and we speak English in the prose. Note also that Dürr added the voice parts abbreviated, and marked them as added by the brackets. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that you understand my wish to represent as much of what Bach wrote, he wrote recitativo, all the reason to have that appear at least once. - We can discuss it on Classical music, if you like. - Different question: if you want to use Whitsun, although the List of Bach cantatas (which I found when I started) uses Pentecost, please list the cantata there. Do you have a reason to prefer Whitsun? I would think that more people around the globe understand Pentecost. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
ps: I looked at Whitsun, it seems specifically British to me, not suitable, - Pentecost is general. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, I reverted your removal of Category:Operas from Orlando furioso (Vivaldi). See the boxed notice on the category page. For navigation convenience, all operas are listed both the main category and their sub-cats. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Nikkimaria, I hope you're doing well! :)
You previously participated in an FAC for Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.
It's subsequently had additional copy-editing through Guild of Copy Editors and a once-over by FA Writer Tim Riley.
I've nominated it for consideration a 2nd time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.
Your input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 19:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You had a hand in labeling Barry (dog) as a History good article. I'm not debating if the article meets good article criteria, but I don't see what relevance this article has to do with the study of history. Unless you object, I intent to remove this article from WikiProject History. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
On 1 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74, includes both "childlike openness" and "manic chortling"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice! - Bzzt, BWV 100: "This is considered one of Bach's last extant cantatas.", source: liner notes. - If I sort by year in the list I find more than 20 later cantatas, - I would drop it, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The links to chorale text and melody in BWV 99 (same as 100) are not used as citations, but to provide easy access to the text of the hymn and its translation, and to the melody in music. Sure, both links appear in the bc ref, but the uninitiated reader will have to search, why not help? Sure, Mincham has the melody, but how will a reader know who doesn't follow that link. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
On 2 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Eliot Gardiner (pictured), conductor of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, noted the "immensity, vigour, flexibility and imagination of the opening chorus" of Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
On 3 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100, includes up to 24 demisemiquavers per bar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ich steh mit einem Fuß im Grabe, BWV 156 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zerreißet, zersprenget, zertrümmert die Gruft, BWV 205 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ewing Galloway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harrogate College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unidentified flying object may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silkeborg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laura Bozzo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tomasz Konieczny may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pitcairn Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Cameron Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 04:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris DeRose (author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asset-backed commercial paper program may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Manuel Moreno Barranco may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
On 4 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143, may be too unpretentious to be a Bach work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you making Bach's cantatas known. In this case, however, you don't even tell people that it is a Bach cantata, and you tell those who know or guess that it is a work by Bach you tell that his music is pretentious? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
On 5 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117, includes "the palpitations of an excited heartbeat"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you gave ignored several requests to stop stalking my edits; I feel I have been left no choice but to raise the matter at WP:ANI#Persistent edit stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me think on this a bit. The point that you both edit in a same general topic area is a good one. I'd much rather see some sort of compromise and/or agreement than to see anyone admonished. Just noting that I did see your reply, and I'm not ignoring it. — Ched : ? 22:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | |
Thank you for trying to work out your dispute civally. Bearian ( talk) 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) |
To Andy and Nikkimaria: I'm troubled by seeing two editors I both respect at each other. I've poked around a bit, but d not yet fully understand the issues. I started looking at some of the diffs provided by Andy. If I may, I'll start with one, as I have questions for both of you.
Nikkimaria, I see:
I'd be curious to know why the empty parameters were removed. I think I could support the removal of honorific_prefix if you know enough about the subject to know that it will never apply. However, why remove awards? It may be that the removal of the influences is why this is on the list. I do not support such inclusion, but I think that should be a community decision, not an individual editors decision. I think the community is on board with the notion that unsourced entries in the infobox are problematic, and you cited unsourced, presumably to justify removal of Epstein, but the source clearly supports it, so what am I missing?
Andy, when I first started writing this, I had missed that the influences were removed, so I originally was puzzled why this was on the list. I'm not on board with removing all empty parameters, but think that is worth a community discussion, and doubt that prompted the inclusion. Am I correct in guessing that the removal of the influences prompted the addition to the list, or were any of the other edits an issue?--
SPhilbrick
(Talk)
14:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As you are aware, the distinction between prohibited wikistalking and encouraged correction of problematic edits is "not always sharly defined", Arbcom left some guideance here
I looked at the recent edits of Charles Morgan, 1st Baron Tredegar, in which you removed an infobox twice. Your first edit summary stated "(img, add)" while the second one stated "(rv unjustified removal of content/ref and addition of overlong and redundant template)".
I am not aware of a policy prohibition against the inclusion of such an infobox. Is there one? I do not see a post on the talk page of the article or on the talk page of the editor adding the infobox explaining why it was a problem. While such a post would be ideal although not required on the first reversion, surely the addition a second time, indicates that the editor disagreed, and it was time to go to the talk page.
And yes, I'll note that the edit adding the infobox failed to bring it up at the talk page of the article or your talk page, but I believe that the removal material, not obviously against policy, requires the initiation of a talk page discussion.
What am I missing?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC) In particular, you've suggested before that you do not like template with a lot of empty parameters. That is hinted at in the word "overlong" in the edit summary, but you didn't removed the empty parameters, you removed the whole template. According to Help:Infobox, "Optional parameters may be left empty or omitted entirely." but this does not provide much help if one editor want to remove empty parameters and the other wants to leave them in, as both actions are supported. If there guidance elsewhere supporting the removal of empty parameters, or, more to the point, removing the entire template if most are empty?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It occurred to me as I reviewed some of the edits identified by Andy that I was emphasizing more recent edits. Perhaps one or both of you had been using the talk pages, and found it fruitless, so abandoned it. I just now looked at the first two edits in the list of examples, both in December 2012. In neither case do I see either of you at the article talk page, nor so I see evidence that either of you discussed either of these articles on each other's editor talk pages. You both have tens of thousands of edits, yet are ignoring rules we expect editors with a hundred edits to follow.
I had panned to look into more edits, but I think that is a waste of time. While I do see some edits that are problematic, I see them on both sides.
At the moment, I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
On 8 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151 opens in a "mood of iridescent transparency"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I have made some alterations to the Molgula oculata article to address your concerns. However, as I mentioned in the DYK template, there is very little information that I can find of general interest on these two organisms, which are of specific interest to the scientific community because of the different characteristics of the larvae. I don't want to start delving into the realms of rDNA and gene sequencing in the articles. If you still think the nomination unsatisfactory, I could withdraw the joint nomination and nominate just one of the articles instead. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. It was a useful information to have about knowing the list of diplomatic missions of Sao Tomé abroad. Why was it cleaned up? There are no much information on the net of how many embassies and consulates Sao Tomé holds, therefore for public information it was really useful to know. Please revert the information back in whatever way you like, but do please provide public of such information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.48.235 ( talk) 08:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of
WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
The MOS suggests (it is not a rule or policy) that quotes of more than "about" 40 words be blockquoted. But where there are already two blockquotes in the same paragraph, it is not necessary, and, in my opinion, it would be poor formatting. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Mass in B minor: The collapsing of the instruments creates white space on my screen, the instruments are just as important as the voices, and the unusual complexity of the scoring should be seen right away, - my POV, but I am tired of reverting, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we need a central discussion if the instruments - all but viola with solo function as important as the solo voices - should be shown without an extra click? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, thanks for the source review of this FAC [5] Wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing your feedback. There's one issue that you may not think is resolved. Could you please go take a look? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
please take a look -- Երևանցի talk 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, given the age of the instrument, it should be pretty easy to find a pre-1923 image we can add to the article. Do you personally have any computer image files of the instrument, or have seen them around the internet? If you need help uploading them to Wikimedia Commons and adding them to the article, let me know. Thanks for adding the article! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Ken Seh. I see you have removed most of the references from Finnick Odair without explaining why. If it was a mistake, no need to worry. I restored the deleted content. If you believe what I did is a mistake, please leave me a message. Thanks! Ken Seh ( talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, this nomination was just approved, but the amount of quoted material in the article strikes me as borderline given its overall length, so I thought I'd pass this to you (my schedule this week is horrific, and I'm way past my bedtime as I type this given when I need to be up again). Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the page moves etc. We have only one active member on the Opera Project who's an administrator ( Antandrus), and he's less active on Wikipedia lately, so we're often up a creek. Your prompt help is much appreciated. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, could you say here whether you're willing not to follow Andy's and Gerda's contribs? In return, they're being asked not to add infoboxes where they know they'll be controversial. I'm hoping that an agreement will help to head off an ArbCom case. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria, I've suggested you might like to make a statement here as a way of bringing the ANI to a conclusion. Best regards. Klein zach 13:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Canadians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could we lock up this page (Semi-protected or Pending changes) it gets vandalized 2 to 3 times a week...I am having trouble keeping up. Something odd happened at the page today an IP did a great job changing the images in the infobox as seen
here, but then changed some stats to made up numbers that didn't even add up as seen
here. Pending changes might be the best idea what do you think? Should I just go to page protection? The reason I am asking you is that I have had many page protected by way of page protection request but they are never more then a month or so - looking for a long term solution. The ratio of positive edits vs poor ones by unregistered users is a bit much.
Moxy (
talk)
06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Merritt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Offenbach and Orff ( 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) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to request that Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abyssinia, Henry/archive2 be closed as the review is going nowhere and would like to withdraw it. GamerPro64 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria, why is it necessary to delete Amy Hanley's father's bio, http://vegas.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Hanley since he was a big part of Sin City Rules episodes. This was one of the reasons Amy Hanley was chosen for the role, because of who her father was and the Las Vegas history connection. ... In fact he was shown numerous times on the show, especially during each and every preview of the show and the opening of the show. What do you think would be appropriate to reference Tom Hanley, we thought the wikia was a perfect reference. ( Mafia Mob Doll ( talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).
Hey Nikkimaria! How are you? It's been a while, I hope you are doing fine. Anyway, I have Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded at FAC (see here); the nomination has 5 supports and 0 opposes and also the media files were checked (everything is fine). The source spotcheck is the only thing left; as I know you have the tools and you are good at that, could you do it please? I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I said above: I don't want to start a new topic for the simple question: what makes The Company of Heaven an oratorio, as the category says (not the article)? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
New day, I slept over it and think it deserves a new topic, after all. The work is a radio feature, mostly spoken, with some texts set to music by Britten, like incidental music in a play. You would not say a play is a work by the composer of the incidental music, right? Can you word that and categorize it properly? - I don't have time for that article right now. - I know the arguments about truth and verifiability, - but if a source proclaims nonsense, it should simply not be termed a reliable source (see Kafka). - I confess that I am in love with the piece, - one of the reasons I didn't tackle it yet. (Yes, I know that love is a bad advisor.) I asked people for help before, as you can easily see, following the links to the wonderful title that speaks at the same time of good company and a military force. - I wanted to have it ready for DYK on Britten's birthday. That will not work now, I can't expand your great start 5* later, and the DYK people will not be willing to hold it that long. But it doesn't matter too much ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but this FAC has been up since April 21 and I was wondering if you would be kind enough to leave a review? It would be very much appreciated. Best, jona talk to me 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
On 19 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that passages of Bach's Nur jedem das Seine have been compared to the descent into earth in Das Rheingold and the love duet of L'incoronazione di Poppea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
When you remove hooks from the DYK queue, could you please fill the empty slot with another hook? This would be a courtesy to other DYK participants and other keepers of the main page. It's disruptive to the main page when the size of DYK fluctuates.
As for that too-short article you pulled a few hours ago, mea culpa for not verifying its length before I promoted the queue. (It looked a bit short, but it also appeared longer than a couple of articles I had checked -- and verified to be long enough -- just a little while earlier, so I didn't bother...) -- Orlady ( talk) 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Nikkimaria. Sorry, but I reverted your good faith edit over at Wolfgang Kornberger 'cos it is the result of ongoing vandalism. You might like to check out the following to see three editors - or just the one - that are playing around: [6] ... I'm off to revert further vandalism at that article. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 19:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Nvvchar says that the issues you raised with this nomination have been addressed. Can you please check, and give whatever icon it now deserves? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, while you're there, can you please check Template:Did you know nominations/Hartland Moor? There were close paraphrasing issues raised; the nominator made fixes about two weeks ago, but also asked for a second opinion. Thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christmas Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toddy ( 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) 11:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ infobox opera}} is an option for operas. I will not ask permission for every insertion, but will not revert if the Main author (!) disagrees. See the discussion on project opera and talk:Carmen#Project opera. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
As discussed several times, the structure of a Bach cantata can be shown in an infobox by saying precisely which movements the text poet derived from the Bible and from chorale. The discussion of BWV 103 showed a feasable way to do so, mentioning "(in movement x)" the first time, "(movt. y)" later. Please consider reverting your changes that delete this information, such as this, and the respective section in the documentation of the template, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Welcome to Wikisource and it was very nice to meet you at the GLAMWiki Boot Camp yesterday! I have taken the liberty of fixing your interwiki link on your new userpage ;-) (I also just discovered that {{ Cross-wiki diff}} does not work with wikisource!).-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prudence Wright, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the American Revolution Prudence Wright led a militia of pitchfork-bearing women to arrest her brothers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prudence Wright. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Please ask first before moving all the pages for a project you have had no involvement with (AFAIK). Johnbod ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making the names of those GLAM-related projects a bit clearer... What do you think of my proposal at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Smithsonian Institution#Let's move project pages and categories to standard names? Mostly looking to drop the "-related" from the project category names. Disavian ( talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
re: Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. I saw a post regarding the lead. I wasn't real sure about some of the commas there, but given the reason to "pause" in the discussion - I didn't change anything. I always respect the original author's intent. So in the end, I think it's a beautiful article, and I thank you for all that work. I admit that the topic is not my forte, but a friend or two asked that I have a look and offer a supportive word. You do good work Nikki ... thank you for your efforts. Cheers. — Ched : ? 07:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You may want to read this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion, specifically "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.". Adding a cat, but not being allowed to delete it, it standard practice, and not gaming the system. Adding cats is allowed so that people can see the full potential scope of a category, especially one nominated for deletion - deleting is disallowed for the same reason (if the cat is deleted by consensus, it will be removed automatically) Best regards, -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, congrats on the TFA -- very happy to be sharing a small part of the front page with you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On 1 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nakimu Caves, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the "nakimu" in Nakimu Caves means "grumbling spirits" in Shuswap? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakimu Caves. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki,
It was great to meet you this past weekend. You asked me to let you know when I initiated my next FAC. I just did so here. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.
Neelix ( talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope it's better now for you, I added some english wikipedia specific 'quickfixes', until the time arrives that the devs get it fixed. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I like this improvement. Please act on it. The single instrumental parts need to appear, - if the list is too long, they can be abbreviated ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions on cleanup at the FAC for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.
Perhaps you could help a bit? I'll do my best to address your concerns, but after that I might need some more specific pointers on where to fix up the formatting issues.
Thanks again for your helpful suggestions on this important topic related to freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've posted a response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.
Thanks again for the helpful recommendations, we've made changes to address them, and I believe the article is much better for it.
— Cirt ( talk) 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: Could you please have another look at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate? I've left some updates at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1. I went back through your comments and incorporated more of your suggestions and those of others. The article now includes only two (2) quoted sentences in its entirety. Perhaps it is now up to a level where you could reassess your position at the FAC? — Cirt ( talk) 01:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.-- MONGO 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there - I saw your summary note for Friedrich Wilhelm Rust. Must say, I wasn't aware about dropping accessdates for gbooks. Will try and remember to delete that in the future as it's an autopopulated field in the gbooks citation tool which I use. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please revisit this page and say whether you feel all concerns have been adequately addressed? This nomination has been gathering dust for quite some time now. It would be much appreciated if you could come take a look! —♦♦ AMBER (ЯʘCK) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop reverting without discussion. It's rude and dismissive. I've made my case but you And truth seeker haven't made yours. You can't say take it to talk and then not go to talk. Get over your wp:own issues and bring a logical guidance based argument - otherwise Stop reverting.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You read Bach cantata and know that they typically rely on three types of text, contemporary poetry, Bible text and chorale. Which amount in a specific cantata, is important, believe me. I will update the infobox documentation, but not now. Can you can tell me a better way than naming the movements with Bible text and chorale, and more precision than naming the specific passage and chorale? Please improve, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
|vocal=
and |instrumental=
. This is tomorrows cantata, I will revert as not convinced it's an improvement. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
21:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you watch Template talk:Infobox Bach composition? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Congrats to having it featured! Well deserved, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the pronoun mistake.
Perhaps you might be interested, I've been thinking about a new quality improvement project next — an intersection between women and the category Category:Free speech activists.
I looked through the category and Judith Krug looks like a good one for quality improvement, what do you think? — Cirt ( talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to template a regular who is normally a solid contributor, but you have almost violated 3RR here. I'm concerned that you seem to be deliberately collapsing or removing scoring information from these infoboxes and are claiming some sort of consensus exists where I see an ongoing debate with at least 4 or 5 different people all having slightly different nuanced positions. I'm rather tired of infobox wars (infoboxes are good in general, should contain proper documentation for the user to get a quick glance, and "seaofblue" isn't relevant in an infobox, that's a text issue) so I'm not going to be arguing with you a lot about this, but it seems you are rather determined to try and derail the work of a solid content editor for whom I have considerable respect and I do wish you'd stop. Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No Nikki, your sarcastic comment in the face of someone who is trying to help doesn't make your point, believe me. Please reconsider your position and tone as a mature editor and admin. ( olive ( talk) 20:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)) add to clarify: None of my comments were addressed to Montanabw in case my comments were read that way.( olive ( talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
I am on vacation, so of little help. Please tell me what needs to be clarified on the Bach cantatas after reading Bach cantata and the documentation on the infobox on Bach's compositions, and after actually linking to SATB, it has an article. We agreed in 2010 that details don't have to be repeated in every single one of about 200 cantatas. - I wish for no infobox to be collapsed, feeling it's against the very spirit of an infobox, - long lists in one parameter being the only exception I would want. But I don't own the articles I created and supplied with an infobox. I truly don't understand the last comment about me needing to move to more content, but then I also read that I need to be re-integrated in the community, both comments are amusing, sort of, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Useful or not, I woke up with a thought I would like to share (not in response to the immediate above): the differentiation of infobox and content seems strange. Infobox IS content, actually its most condensed version, that we should take care to make as good as we can. For me, that means 1) accessible without an extra click, 2) for cantatas a separate entry for |vocal=
and |instrumental=
because - as you will know - independent instruments differentiate a cantata from a motet, for example, where I would prefer |scoring=
, 3) the choir first in |vocal=
, as the secret star of most cantatas, at least for those where the choir starts, also for the immediate link to the voice parts. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gerda Arendt (
talk •
contribs)
|scoring=
is specific to cantatas because of where it links to. To clarify, have you changed your mind about these things? I don't think we agree about what infoboxes are, but you're right that it should be a "most condensed version" that we make as good as possible.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
|scoring=
with a link, but that made sense only when the link was needed for the abbreviations of instruments, to be followed by the use of them. It doesn't make sense any more now. - 3) When I said "most condensed" I meant "more condensed than the article", not "the shorter the infobox the better". - 4) I see no sense in collapsing more than one parameter at a time. The template doing so was questioned, and may be deleted eventually. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Per a suggestion from Ian Rose ( talk · contribs), just checking with you first to see if it's alright to move your addressed comments from the FAC page to its talk page?
Thanks again for your helpful recommendations, — Cirt ( talk) 00:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
On 8 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothea von Ertmann, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Beethoven improvised for an hour on piano to comfort Dorothea von Ertmann, his student and possible Immortal Beloved, over the death of her son? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothea von Ertmann. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thanks very much for all of your help with successfully getting Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to Featured Article quality. I really appreciate the assistance in getting this article about freedom of speech to FA. — Cirt ( talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you were willing to comment on the FAC for Mass Effect 2 which is here, as the review has gone quite stale. Whether you are interested or not, thank you for your time. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 09:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nikkimaria. This edit, in addition to re-removing access dates, replaced straight apostrophes with curly ones, which is dispreferred by MOS:PUNCT. I think the page now has something like three links each to Indonesia and Indonesian language as well. All of these are quite minor issues, and I don't plan to edit the page again. But since you seem to be interested in the article, you might want to look at these style points. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 01:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
On 10 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Friedrich Wilhelm Rust, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Friedrich Wilhelm Rust, who was able to play Bach's Das Wohltemperierte Clavier from memory as a teenager, studied composition with Bach's sons and the violin in Italy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Friedrich Wilhelm Rust. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, since you helped out at my last FAC ( Sesame Street research), I thought I'd ask if you could help out again with my latest one [1]. Would you mind? It's been languishing for a while, so I'm drumming up folks to review it. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Per here and here, especially given the controversial nature that you know these category additions to be, could you please use better edit summaries, and not hide them in a "formatting" edit. Thanks. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for the revert on Hemingway (though I see that Obiwan objects to the edit summary!). Basically I hit a wall. Ironically after catching a break in my schedule after a very grueling 8 months of work, today I checked out books from the library with the intention of cleaning and expanding some of the Am. lit novelist biographies. But when I saw this, it made me think, who am I to stand in the way of category diffusion if I'm to be called abhorrent. I find the push to segregate men from women under the guise of diffusion unbelievably sexist and abhorrent, but I decided to step out because I'll never win. If it does come to an RfC, which it should, the well has been muddied with the canvassing, and given the environment of the past two weeks it's very clear that my opinion - though based on subject expertise - is meaningless. So, though I find editing here relaxing for the most part, this is a battle, like so many others, that I just can't give to anymore. Just thought I'd let you know. Also thanks for fixing the description on the Pound img that the bot left a msg about. That can probably be deleted. I've decided to unwatch all the novelists for now. They can find another woman with subject expertise to write and maintain those articles. Sorry if this sounds defeatist. Truthkeeper ( talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! During the first FAC of Tripura (which was withdrawn largely for prose issues), you did an image review. In the current FAC image review has been done. Although this FAC did not see much participation, lately Casliber did review it.
I was wondering if it will be possible for you to do a source review. I guess delegates would want that. If and when you have time, could you please have a look? I hope this communication with you would not be considered as canvassing. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:20th-century American novelists, Category:19th-century American novelists, Category:21st-century novelists and other similar categories are legitimate diffusing categories of Category:American novelists. People should not be in the parent category if they are in the child categories. If you do not think the child categories should exist you are free to nominate them for deletion or merger, but as long as they exist people should not be in both them and the parent categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic opportunism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit ( 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) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
can you please stop hiding category edits in random "clean-up" summaries? There is currently a discussion about these "massacres" categories going on at the indigenous people's project - in the meantime i'd appreciate if you'd stop with your "cleanup". -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [2]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Nikkimaria
I was wondering if you or someone else could turn
Pewdiepie into a redirect page that leads to
List of YouTube personalities#F as I can't seem to do so as no text box appears and I have a running suspicion that this is because the page has been protected from being created. Since we don't have an article on this very fairly popular person a redirect to the information about him would be the best compromise, unless you have a differing opinion? Thank you.
MIVP
(I Can Help? ◕‿◕) -
(Chocolate Cakes)
14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain what you're doing here, and why it's considered a 'fix'? [3]. Thanks. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Constitution_of_May_3.2C_1791. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the image review at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Winter '94/archive1. I think I addressed at least two out of three issues you raised completely. The remaining one, entailing wikilinking from flags in the infobox seems to be a bit more difficult. I managed to have all flags in one field link and none in the other, but that's the best I could produce since {{ flag}} and {{ flagicon}} apparently do not allow that kind of flexibility. I saw this arrangement used in recently promoted FAs, so I thought to check with you if the present situation regarding the images is satisfactory. Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Nikki, I've gotten MagicPiano involved over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1, but he and I had questions about your comment regarding sourcing for the illustrated map. I appreciate your help! Cdtew ( talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Silver seren C 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:American_novelists#RFC_or_not.3F. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 03:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, just a quick note to update you that the image concerns you raised for the above have been resolved, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thank you for taking the time to review. Incidentally, are the other images ok? -- Cassianto Talk 14:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Schwingt freudig euch empor, BWV 36:
For these reasons I will revert. I have no time for other cantatas right now, but would appreciate if you would consider the concerns for others also. Soar joyfully aloft, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
|instrumental=
is going to be linked to the article-to-be on Bach's instruments, please prepare that by using it.
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
|scoring=
goes to the section in List of Bach cantatas where the abbreviations are explained (because that's where they were already explained when the template was created last year). If we don't use the abbreviations, the link makes no more sense, the parameter should not be used any more. Now we link every individual instrument, fine for those with an article, - for the others, a list of the instruments that Bach used is planned, to be linked for |instrumental=
. (See also: template docu and discussion) Yes? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
22:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)In hindsight, I was needlessly rude in my edit summaries earlier. Wont happen again. — Xezbeth ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we've hopefully addressed your issues, if you could kindly revisit when you have a chance? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for copy-editing, and for the article on taille. Es ist ein trotzig und verzagt Ding, BWV 176 is my next project. It translates roughly to "There is a contrary and despairing thing".
You reverted BWV 68 to collapsing the infobox again, referring to my talk page. I didn't find there what you may mean. I am told a lot about respect for the " main author's wishes". I am the main author for several Bach cantatas and I wish that their infoboxes be not collapsed. Torture is too strong a word, but my language is not fine enough for the process of first being told concise abbreviations for instruments can't be used, then - when long names of instruments are listed - being told that has to have to be collapsed, or replaced by the plain word "instruments" which is certainly less informative than "instrumental Co Cn 3Tb 2Ob Ot 2Vl Va Vp Bc, which would tell even a reader who knows nothing about abbreviations that this is a complex and unusual scoring. Why hide the six lines that show the music? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop doing this sort of thing [4]? I don't know what you're up to, but it makes no sense... if you are insistent on bringing back the Category:American novelists category, give it a shot - but don't at the same time screw up the other categories by stripping "American" from them. Thanks. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 02:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to say that I've left you a reply to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry I of England/archive1 - I can't work out the right 3D object license though... Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned many times before, the {{ collapsed infobox section begin}} is questionable. It serves the function to collapse part of an infobox.
It is a like crutch, not useful for people how can walk without a crutch. I don't want to use it, and I don't want it used in articles for which I feel responsible, please respect that. Every appearance of it sets a bad example. This is not ownership but concern about quality and style. I hate reverting, but I will revert appearances of this template, and started with Mass in B minor structure, on the Main page. Do me a favour: please do it yourself! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
|scoring=
in the Bach template to the
List of Bach cantatas makes no sense for the
Brandenburg concertos, and even a cantata reader will be confused. Please wait for an article on the instruments, and preserve |instrumental=
, --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A revert by you was brought up at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem with Infobox. See Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester for an example of how the infobox is used. PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Verdi (crater), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Verdi, like Brahms and Scarlatti, lies within Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Verdi (crater). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the best hooks I saw so far, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If you have some spare time, would you care to review this article? -- JDC808 ♫ 04:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Anything else? -- JDC808 ♫ 00:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ping. -- JDC808 ♫ 15:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw you stripped away some comments to some books in the bibliography. These comments were to help the reader and taken from a very unbiased source: Animal Magnetism, Early Hypnotism, and Psychical Research, 1766-1925: An Annotated Bibliography. About this bibliography even the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis said: "...Crabtree compiled what is in my judgment the best bibliography of animal magnetism and hypnotism." I hope this could be of help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan1954 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Please be so kind as to read the two articles Mass in B minor and Mass in B minor structure and compare aspects, before you claim in an edit notice that the former covers "all aspects of it". No writing will ever do that. Compare also please where you find more about the music. I am open to a different title, also to a merge, now that the Main article was improved. The version that made me write the other was simply wrong, - see my question on its talk of 2010. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sheffield Bach Choir may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I've mentioned you here at Talk:Robert_Clark_Young#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Qworty_clean-up, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia ( 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) 15:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on our PR for this important musical at the PR page, here. We are on the way to FAC -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Why was text deleted today from Cigars of the Pharaoh article? I would expect to see at least an explanation in the edit summary. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove language markup, such as <span lang="de">
,
as you did here.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with the Bach cantatas. It would be even more helpful if you would observe some relevant discussions on Classical music, such as the one before it all started which decided that voices and instruments should be all linked every article even if commonly known. - I like your approach to give more prominence to the choirs in a listing of recordings, but think the conductors are more worthy of mentioning than the record labels. For any article, I would want to know who conducted the Thomanerchor when, what Harnoncourt/Leonhardt (first HIP) did, Koopman, Leusink, Suzuki, Gardiner. I accepted the way of recordings listing as it was handled before I came to the topic. - You may also be interested in the Classical music discussion that spoke about Mincham. - I like his very personal approach but think it's rather specialized; Klaus Hofmann knows much more about the connection of language and music, and John Eliot Gardiner has a great way to address a more general public. - I would link the first mentioning of a key in a article, for those who have no idea of major/minor. Happy editing, I still have practically no time. - Thanks for BWV 39, together we will be able to get it to 5* as it deserves (hopefully the day it was written for, next Sunday) ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Recitativo vs. recitative: the discussion when we started the Bach cantatas articles resulted in listing Bach's original terms at least once, in the scoring section. If you think people will not understand them, please explain. For three years now, there have been no complaints. Please revert your revert, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Adding: the source Dürr says:
Note: Recitativo, Aria, Chorale, are no German words, but respectfully the terms that the composer used. We keep them, as the German headings for the movements, following the sources, and we speak English in the prose. Note also that Dürr added the voice parts abbreviated, and marked them as added by the brackets. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that you understand my wish to represent as much of what Bach wrote, he wrote recitativo, all the reason to have that appear at least once. - We can discuss it on Classical music, if you like. - Different question: if you want to use Whitsun, although the List of Bach cantatas (which I found when I started) uses Pentecost, please list the cantata there. Do you have a reason to prefer Whitsun? I would think that more people around the globe understand Pentecost. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
ps: I looked at Whitsun, it seems specifically British to me, not suitable, - Pentecost is general. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, I reverted your removal of Category:Operas from Orlando furioso (Vivaldi). See the boxed notice on the category page. For navigation convenience, all operas are listed both the main category and their sub-cats. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Nikkimaria, I hope you're doing well! :)
You previously participated in an FAC for Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.
It's subsequently had additional copy-editing through Guild of Copy Editors and a once-over by FA Writer Tim Riley.
I've nominated it for consideration a 2nd time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.
Your input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 19:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You had a hand in labeling Barry (dog) as a History good article. I'm not debating if the article meets good article criteria, but I don't see what relevance this article has to do with the study of history. Unless you object, I intent to remove this article from WikiProject History. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
On 1 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74, includes both "childlike openness" and "manic chortling"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice! - Bzzt, BWV 100: "This is considered one of Bach's last extant cantatas.", source: liner notes. - If I sort by year in the list I find more than 20 later cantatas, - I would drop it, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The links to chorale text and melody in BWV 99 (same as 100) are not used as citations, but to provide easy access to the text of the hymn and its translation, and to the melody in music. Sure, both links appear in the bc ref, but the uninitiated reader will have to search, why not help? Sure, Mincham has the melody, but how will a reader know who doesn't follow that link. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
On 2 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Eliot Gardiner (pictured), conductor of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, noted the "immensity, vigour, flexibility and imagination of the opening chorus" of Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
On 3 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100, includes up to 24 demisemiquavers per bar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ich steh mit einem Fuß im Grabe, BWV 156 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zerreißet, zersprenget, zertrümmert die Gruft, BWV 205 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ewing Galloway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harrogate College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 02:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unidentified flying object may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silkeborg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laura Bozzo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tomasz Konieczny may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pitcairn Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Cameron Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 04:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris DeRose (author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asset-backed commercial paper program may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Manuel Moreno Barranco may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
On 4 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143, may be too unpretentious to be a Bach work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you making Bach's cantatas known. In this case, however, you don't even tell people that it is a Bach cantata, and you tell those who know or guess that it is a work by Bach you tell that his music is pretentious? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
On 5 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117, includes "the palpitations of an excited heartbeat"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you gave ignored several requests to stop stalking my edits; I feel I have been left no choice but to raise the matter at WP:ANI#Persistent edit stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me think on this a bit. The point that you both edit in a same general topic area is a good one. I'd much rather see some sort of compromise and/or agreement than to see anyone admonished. Just noting that I did see your reply, and I'm not ignoring it. — Ched : ? 22:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | |
Thank you for trying to work out your dispute civally. Bearian ( talk) 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) |
To Andy and Nikkimaria: I'm troubled by seeing two editors I both respect at each other. I've poked around a bit, but d not yet fully understand the issues. I started looking at some of the diffs provided by Andy. If I may, I'll start with one, as I have questions for both of you.
Nikkimaria, I see:
I'd be curious to know why the empty parameters were removed. I think I could support the removal of honorific_prefix if you know enough about the subject to know that it will never apply. However, why remove awards? It may be that the removal of the influences is why this is on the list. I do not support such inclusion, but I think that should be a community decision, not an individual editors decision. I think the community is on board with the notion that unsourced entries in the infobox are problematic, and you cited unsourced, presumably to justify removal of Epstein, but the source clearly supports it, so what am I missing?
Andy, when I first started writing this, I had missed that the influences were removed, so I originally was puzzled why this was on the list. I'm not on board with removing all empty parameters, but think that is worth a community discussion, and doubt that prompted the inclusion. Am I correct in guessing that the removal of the influences prompted the addition to the list, or were any of the other edits an issue?--
SPhilbrick
(Talk)
14:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As you are aware, the distinction between prohibited wikistalking and encouraged correction of problematic edits is "not always sharly defined", Arbcom left some guideance here
I looked at the recent edits of Charles Morgan, 1st Baron Tredegar, in which you removed an infobox twice. Your first edit summary stated "(img, add)" while the second one stated "(rv unjustified removal of content/ref and addition of overlong and redundant template)".
I am not aware of a policy prohibition against the inclusion of such an infobox. Is there one? I do not see a post on the talk page of the article or on the talk page of the editor adding the infobox explaining why it was a problem. While such a post would be ideal although not required on the first reversion, surely the addition a second time, indicates that the editor disagreed, and it was time to go to the talk page.
And yes, I'll note that the edit adding the infobox failed to bring it up at the talk page of the article or your talk page, but I believe that the removal material, not obviously against policy, requires the initiation of a talk page discussion.
What am I missing?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC) In particular, you've suggested before that you do not like template with a lot of empty parameters. That is hinted at in the word "overlong" in the edit summary, but you didn't removed the empty parameters, you removed the whole template. According to Help:Infobox, "Optional parameters may be left empty or omitted entirely." but this does not provide much help if one editor want to remove empty parameters and the other wants to leave them in, as both actions are supported. If there guidance elsewhere supporting the removal of empty parameters, or, more to the point, removing the entire template if most are empty?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It occurred to me as I reviewed some of the edits identified by Andy that I was emphasizing more recent edits. Perhaps one or both of you had been using the talk pages, and found it fruitless, so abandoned it. I just now looked at the first two edits in the list of examples, both in December 2012. In neither case do I see either of you at the article talk page, nor so I see evidence that either of you discussed either of these articles on each other's editor talk pages. You both have tens of thousands of edits, yet are ignoring rules we expect editors with a hundred edits to follow.
I had panned to look into more edits, but I think that is a waste of time. While I do see some edits that are problematic, I see them on both sides.
At the moment, I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
On 8 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bach cantata Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151 opens in a "mood of iridescent transparency"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I have made some alterations to the Molgula oculata article to address your concerns. However, as I mentioned in the DYK template, there is very little information that I can find of general interest on these two organisms, which are of specific interest to the scientific community because of the different characteristics of the larvae. I don't want to start delving into the realms of rDNA and gene sequencing in the articles. If you still think the nomination unsatisfactory, I could withdraw the joint nomination and nominate just one of the articles instead. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. It was a useful information to have about knowing the list of diplomatic missions of Sao Tomé abroad. Why was it cleaned up? There are no much information on the net of how many embassies and consulates Sao Tomé holds, therefore for public information it was really useful to know. Please revert the information back in whatever way you like, but do please provide public of such information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.48.235 ( talk) 08:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of
WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
The MOS suggests (it is not a rule or policy) that quotes of more than "about" 40 words be blockquoted. But where there are already two blockquotes in the same paragraph, it is not necessary, and, in my opinion, it would be poor formatting. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Mass in B minor: The collapsing of the instruments creates white space on my screen, the instruments are just as important as the voices, and the unusual complexity of the scoring should be seen right away, - my POV, but I am tired of reverting, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we need a central discussion if the instruments - all but viola with solo function as important as the solo voices - should be shown without an extra click? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, thanks for the source review of this FAC [5] Wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing your feedback. There's one issue that you may not think is resolved. Could you please go take a look? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
please take a look -- Երևանցի talk 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, given the age of the instrument, it should be pretty easy to find a pre-1923 image we can add to the article. Do you personally have any computer image files of the instrument, or have seen them around the internet? If you need help uploading them to Wikimedia Commons and adding them to the article, let me know. Thanks for adding the article! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Ken Seh. I see you have removed most of the references from Finnick Odair without explaining why. If it was a mistake, no need to worry. I restored the deleted content. If you believe what I did is a mistake, please leave me a message. Thanks! Ken Seh ( talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, this nomination was just approved, but the amount of quoted material in the article strikes me as borderline given its overall length, so I thought I'd pass this to you (my schedule this week is horrific, and I'm way past my bedtime as I type this given when I need to be up again). Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the page moves etc. We have only one active member on the Opera Project who's an administrator ( Antandrus), and he's less active on Wikipedia lately, so we're often up a creek. Your prompt help is much appreciated. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nikki, could you say here whether you're willing not to follow Andy's and Gerda's contribs? In return, they're being asked not to add infoboxes where they know they'll be controversial. I'm hoping that an agreement will help to head off an ArbCom case. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Nikkimaria, I've suggested you might like to make a statement here as a way of bringing the ANI to a conclusion. Best regards. Klein zach 13:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Canadians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could we lock up this page (Semi-protected or Pending changes) it gets vandalized 2 to 3 times a week...I am having trouble keeping up. Something odd happened at the page today an IP did a great job changing the images in the infobox as seen
here, but then changed some stats to made up numbers that didn't even add up as seen
here. Pending changes might be the best idea what do you think? Should I just go to page protection? The reason I am asking you is that I have had many page protected by way of page protection request but they are never more then a month or so - looking for a long term solution. The ratio of positive edits vs poor ones by unregistered users is a bit much.
Moxy (
talk)
06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Merritt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Offenbach and Orff ( 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) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to request that Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abyssinia, Henry/archive2 be closed as the review is going nowhere and would like to withdraw it. GamerPro64 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Nikkimaria, why is it necessary to delete Amy Hanley's father's bio, http://vegas.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Hanley since he was a big part of Sin City Rules episodes. This was one of the reasons Amy Hanley was chosen for the role, because of who her father was and the Las Vegas history connection. ... In fact he was shown numerous times on the show, especially during each and every preview of the show and the opening of the show. What do you think would be appropriate to reference Tom Hanley, we thought the wikia was a perfect reference. ( Mafia Mob Doll ( talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).
Hey Nikkimaria! How are you? It's been a while, I hope you are doing fine. Anyway, I have Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded at FAC (see here); the nomination has 5 supports and 0 opposes and also the media files were checked (everything is fine). The source spotcheck is the only thing left; as I know you have the tools and you are good at that, could you do it please? I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I said above: I don't want to start a new topic for the simple question: what makes The Company of Heaven an oratorio, as the category says (not the article)? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
New day, I slept over it and think it deserves a new topic, after all. The work is a radio feature, mostly spoken, with some texts set to music by Britten, like incidental music in a play. You would not say a play is a work by the composer of the incidental music, right? Can you word that and categorize it properly? - I don't have time for that article right now. - I know the arguments about truth and verifiability, - but if a source proclaims nonsense, it should simply not be termed a reliable source (see Kafka). - I confess that I am in love with the piece, - one of the reasons I didn't tackle it yet. (Yes, I know that love is a bad advisor.) I asked people for help before, as you can easily see, following the links to the wonderful title that speaks at the same time of good company and a military force. - I wanted to have it ready for DYK on Britten's birthday. That will not work now, I can't expand your great start 5* later, and the DYK people will not be willing to hold it that long. But it doesn't matter too much ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but this FAC has been up since April 21 and I was wondering if you would be kind enough to leave a review? It would be very much appreciated. Best, jona talk to me 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
On 19 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that passages of Bach's Nur jedem das Seine have been compared to the descent into earth in Das Rheingold and the love duet of L'incoronazione di Poppea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
When you remove hooks from the DYK queue, could you please fill the empty slot with another hook? This would be a courtesy to other DYK participants and other keepers of the main page. It's disruptive to the main page when the size of DYK fluctuates.
As for that too-short article you pulled a few hours ago, mea culpa for not verifying its length before I promoted the queue. (It looked a bit short, but it also appeared longer than a couple of articles I had checked -- and verified to be long enough -- just a little while earlier, so I didn't bother...) -- Orlady ( talk) 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Nikkimaria. Sorry, but I reverted your good faith edit over at Wolfgang Kornberger 'cos it is the result of ongoing vandalism. You might like to check out the following to see three editors - or just the one - that are playing around: [6] ... I'm off to revert further vandalism at that article. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 19:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Nvvchar says that the issues you raised with this nomination have been addressed. Can you please check, and give whatever icon it now deserves? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, while you're there, can you please check Template:Did you know nominations/Hartland Moor? There were close paraphrasing issues raised; the nominator made fixes about two weeks ago, but also asked for a second opinion. Thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christmas Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toddy ( 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) 11:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ infobox opera}} is an option for operas. I will not ask permission for every insertion, but will not revert if the Main author (!) disagrees. See the discussion on project opera and talk:Carmen#Project opera. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
As discussed several times, the structure of a Bach cantata can be shown in an infobox by saying precisely which movements the text poet derived from the Bible and from chorale. The discussion of BWV 103 showed a feasable way to do so, mentioning "(in movement x)" the first time, "(movt. y)" later. Please consider reverting your changes that delete this information, such as this, and the respective section in the documentation of the template, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)