User talk:Yngvadottir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A little Keeshond puppy

Archive of my Did You Knows


The wise page


?[edit]

1827 - very vegetarian...

Yu-wowho, that dog scared me a little bit poping up like that... but it looks very nice - second glance. [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Hafspajen (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And good to hear from you again :-) Sorry he startled you. He was very gentle. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, no problem I LIKE dogs! I was happy to see an edit notice dog again.... Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused now, everything is weird. Isn't Eastern Europe like Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and such? While Germany, Nederlands, Belgium, France, Sweden and ... and such is Western Europe - ? What am I missing. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If an interloper may intrude: I think Central Europe reappeared Phoenix-like as a geo-cultural region after the Wall came down, etc. (die Wende, per German). The Poles seemingly want to be thought of as part of Central Europe, but to my mind (having lived in PL) they're Eastern Europe. Central includes DK, D, CH, A, CZ, maybe Luxembourg. Slovakia and all the ex-Yugo states are Eastern.
(Having said that, the geographic center of Europe officially is in Lithuania, of all places.) Sca (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to hear the editor's own explanation; perhaps they are confused about Jews - Middle East - Eastern Europe? Kind of like I am confused about where things are in Africa and in Central vs. South America. Or perhaps as I suggested to them, they just got the wrong Arbcom sanctions template - they are part of our proliferating bureaucracy. I dunno ... Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
true, I have no idea about Africa either. America I can better since I used to visit my relatives and go for long drives - once we went from Los Angeles up to Vancouver - took a month or so... So, yes, if you like in America - then it could be the same. Hafspajen (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You English, can you jugde this edit, I think is a child.... [5] Hafspajen (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I see someone explained as well as leaving a welcome template, and I like the note you left. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I left that w-template - because I thought that a 16 year old who was trying to make her first add to encyclopedia might never come back again if treated like this - what I mean, was she right? (he..) Because if it is true, some of the comtent could be added back, with aref, just to be nice, to her/ (him) I have a feeling it's a girl. Hafspajen (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It's complicated. As the article says (and I've added a couple of variables that were in the cited source), what words one uses (and when one eats the big meal, and what time the evening meal happens ... ) are an index to class and to a certain extent region (there are a lot of such things: see U and non-U English), but the editor is also right that there's a child vs. adult dynamic ... however, that applies more to the upper classes than others :-) Nursery tea used to happen before Mummy and Daddy went to or started their dinner party. My sources on current usage amongst the socially comfortable are limited, but I reckon there might well be printed sources. I hope he or she comes back with one. Thanks for adding the welcome template, then! I believe I said to 74 once - we used to see people adding a lot of those, it was seen in certain quarters as a way to up your edit count, and we have a big range of them to suit most tastes and a lot of special purposes, but now it doesn't seem to occur to people to add one. I think one of the reasons is that the Teahouse came along and its organisers conveyed the message that they were taking over with their way of doing things, and you still see the Teahouse bot posting invites on talk pages, but part of the Teahouse's whole raison d'être was to avoid linking to policies, and in any case the invite conveys no information except that there's a place to ask questions. And because the community felt odd about bot invites, the vast majority of user pages don't even get that. I know some new editors find the welcome templates intimidating, but personally I think the more information we give them upfront - including a range of ways of asking for help, because not everybody is the Teahouse type, I would have been very weirded out - the fairer it is. We use words like "notable" and "consensus" in a very odd way, and look at the situation below with the MOOC - and that editor never got an intro to our policies and terminology. So on balance I think we should revive the old culture of welcoming, and use whatever templates we personally like, not just the one Twinkle uses. (74 focused on the Teahouse instead.) 74, please come back if you're out there .... Here's a wall o' text to make you feel at home :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think I found a source on this in the book Traditional cooking by Carolin Conran. No, I don't think she will be back, not unless we add back what she wrote - well, formulated in a more encyclopedic way .Hafspajen (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well indeed, and I said to some American: I was sick on the boat. - He said, no, ill. And - Jam! NOT preserve, no no.Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Will you give a thougt about translating this? Has something this. Hafspajen (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I will if no one else does (but see items above for other things on my to-do list this "weekend", and I need to help poor Drmies more if further problems arise with his good deeds). I wound up editing the Latin article (!) and had to figure out how to kill Viz Ed to do so (!!), and is there really no other article on the associated set? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No, only the Latin. Very brave of you to go Latin... I speaks some, but the grammar ... no, that is not something I can. But I can actually read Latin, first my botanical words and it is very similar to Spanish and Italian .. so all that together gives me a kind of a kitchen -Latin. But only words- no grammar. Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Not my favourite language, not by a long way. However, something just came up; see my recent edits. (I also had to dismiss Viz Ed on Catalan Wikipedia, sheesh.) And I still have one and a half requests by others on my plate. And an article draft for which the necessary books are due back soon. So no promises about speed, but I should be able to do both. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Viz Ed is only good at commons - but it is not working properly like 4 times of 5 - looks like the archives are saved. Hafspajen (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What Swedish do you stuggle with? Want help? Hafspajen (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Was Lilla Skuggan, done now, thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Great job! Those were really articles we were missing. A great additon to our art articles in many ways. (An interesting thing [ttp://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=29&ved=0CFgQFjAIOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.its.caltech.edu%2F~matilde%2FStillLifeSpacetime.pdf&ei=230RVIOZBOaaygO6joEg&usg=AFQjCNGJF4Ri-1vVpFcwk5HjziA7ZjyYug&sig2=DbQYtLbgRcnMKfJZZuUjzAhere] - not strictly connected, but still...) Hafspajen (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that was a blacklisted..? PDF? - could't save it without removing the h from http... - well - sorry. Wonder why black list that one. Hafspajen (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

'this too? https://www.inkling.com/read/the-louvre-lessing-pomarede-1st/17th-and-18th-centuries/pieter-claesz
Thanks. The first link resolves for me to this, maybe I can save it in that form. Will look at home :-) (At one point I was going to improve our Cézanne articles, even had a stack of books out of the library for a few months, but I think that was when I got made an admin, or something ... anyway, I hope someone more qualified and with better eyesight did that by now.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

:[edit]

Hi Yngvadottir, I looked over your comments on * Foreign Service Institute Finnish course, audio, assignments, G+ hangouts and media sources , after looking at external links "again", I do not see any violations that allow you to delete several of the links I posted. The Site is a MOOC, with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/deed.en_US. clowningar Please reverse your deletions. — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanx Yngvadottir I will try to post added comments so other editors have more information to act upon. I also need help on the wiki for World Mentoring Academy. Since I'm not suppose to work on the page. I gave up on it 18 months ago. WMA has 8,300 students, 760 courses Free, no adverstising, no VC, Gov, or religious money, only my pocket money & I don't have deep pockets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Mentoring_Academy clowningar — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Clowningar: The problem is, its being a good thing does not make it either notable by our definition or useful in an encyclopedia. You should probably read this. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a MOOC no $'s and your use of "Promotion" refers to raising customer awareness of a product or brand, generating sales, and creating brand loyalty. This is not commercial! and has no future in raising money for it's founders. When and if it does than perhaps delete the links? Regarding notable that is almost a laughable point,, when you have the Cup size of Porn Stars and Klingon? I will dig a bit further and do some research on how to be a better advocate of this project. And when or if I decide to become active in Wikipedia writing with in my knowledge, I promise I will do more research than has been given me. Clowningar (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do dig deeper; as I say, getting the article created is probably the best use of your time with respect to it. But again, I recommend this essay. We can't cover every charity either, or link to petitions or fundraising sites. By the way, your statement above makes it very clear that you have a conflict of interest, and since all your edits so far have been adding links to World Mentoring Academy, drafting the article about World Mentoring Academy, and discussing the links and the article on others' talk pages, up to now you appear to be a totally promotional editor. I suggest you make some edits on unrelated topics, both to demonstrate that you are not only here to promote the academy, and to give you some more experience in how we work here: for example, finding reliable sources and phrasing things neutrally based on them. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir :Thanx for the time you have spent, relating to editing. My first impression from creating the World Mentoring Academy in the sandbox mode,, was frustrating. In my research, I read all the articles about MOOC's, before submitting for approval. I mirrored all the other MOOC listing that are active. And used the same Language as the MOOC's,, but one editor says it is promotional,, and just like middle school all the other lemmings followed the first over the cliff. With no RESEARCH! My experience has diminished my optimism in this format.

It is a bit disingenuous that you are objective in your entry's,, in order to write an article you must have a investment of the heart. You, like me, don't edit in Wiki for $'s or fame.
Regarding the word Promotional,, you can stretch the word to fit your agenda,, a person who introduce's himself could be a promotional activity.
I have a very limited time, and with my prior experience in the Wiki Middle School behavior, I'm not inclined to write other articles to build up my Street cred on Wikipedia. If I had 2 life spans,, than perhaps I could be helpful in other areas than Free Education for the World, but unfortunately, I spend every moment providing this service. If you are inclined to shout from the sidelines It'll never fly Orville! than be my guest. I would like your support.Clowningar (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You are far more likely to know where to look for the needed one or two further reliable sources about the academy than I am. I note that the last two reviews, by DGG, were quite encouraging. As to writing neutrally, as I imply, it's not necessarily something people already know how to do - but it's an essential part of what we do. I just checked, and nobody ever gave you a "welcome" template with links to our policies, discussion spaces, etc. So I'm going to drop a large version on your talk page; something in there may be useful, and I'm sorry the first person to edit there didn't do that. It used to be a friendly and useful tradition here - there are many things here that take some explanation and/or getting used to, such as our definition of "notable". Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

clowningar, as I said in those reviews, and as Yngvadottir says, what is essential is secondary sources to show notability; we go by the sources, not the intrinsic merits. The promotional tone can be reduced by writing in paragraphs, not bullet points, and by saying what others think of it, based on the secondary sources. As a general rule, we mean "promotion" to indicate any article advocating the merits an organization, rather than discussing what it has done. When you have a draft that improves both the sources and the writing, let me know on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

As I am developing the Archives wiki, if there are blanks on WP when I create articles there it seems only reasonable/fair to copy them over here to create placeholder/starter articles (as I borrow from WP) - and I prefer to make it clear that I am responsible for both WP and (other wiki) entries and thus there is no copy-vio.

What is the best way to proceed - putting a note on the WP List of National Archives talk page? (Creating or developing many of the red links/short pages would require a range of language skills - and it is often easier to 'create the article' #or# 'develop the article' than to do both.) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: There are two issues. The most urgent is that you need to make the stubs look better, providing a reference and not wording anything in the article as a request for the reader or other editors to go look somewhere else. You don't need any more language skills to cite one of the references given in a foreign-language Wikipedia article than you already exhibit when you include the official website - just note the url, title, and location in the footnote. Opinions vary on the usefulness of stub article creation, but everyone agrees that unfinished-looking articles are not useful. Remember, there is no deadline. And ... they attract deletion nominations, whether speedy or not, which is a hassle for everyone. The less important one is that open wikis are not reliable sources. Do not cite them. If you want to reuse your own wording from Wikia or elsewhere, that's fine (although to cross the legal t's and dot the legal i's you should include in the edit summary something like "based on my own wording at http://wikia url"), but you should format the article for Wikipedia - external links section, footnotes, and so on - so if the articles on the other wikis are that short, you may as well do it from scratch. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be practical to have (or is there) a 'national and regional archives and libraries' development group (whether or not making use of Wikia Archives wiki) to develop that particular area (including translating from elsewhere on WP - the German regional archives on DE:WP - not necessarily as so many pages). Might well go some way to solving the problem of one liners and a preference for creating starter articles :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In theory yes, but the majority of the WikiProjects have become much less active in recent years, so I would not advise starting a new one. Regarding the German regional archives, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany; that project is still relatively active, but note that on the project page itself, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, several of the "project divisions" are red linked. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Shall we say that the 'debate' is partly about a matter of style - whether one researches the articles before putting them on WP, or prefers to create basic articles for development by 'the WP community' (or when one has the time to do so) - both of which can be valid in different contexts. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(reset) Would my comment on the List of National Archives 'resolve' the discussion?

(And will contribute [6] to the cat discussion.) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(Talk:List of national archives, for the talk page stalkers.) Yes, I think that's very helpful. And all three deletion discussions were closed as (speedy) keep, and the nominator says they understand now. But when you do create a new article, please make it minimally acceptable so it doesn't attract the new page patrollers (or perplex readers!) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Thank" thing[edit]

I just couldn't resist :) Irondome (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL good for you :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

5S ref[edit]

http://www.wga.hu/html_m/b/bruegel/jan_e/2/5sense1.html Hafspajen (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

.

http://www.wga.hu/html_m/b/bruegel/jan_e/2/5sense1.html

. http://italianno.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-five-sense-series-by-jose-de-ribera/

http://arthistory.about.com/od/from_exhibitions/ig/Double-Take/05_Breughel_Sight.htm

http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/spring12/makart-painter-of-the-senses

PDF - OBS ttp://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=33&ved=0CC0QFjACOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstorage.ugal.com%2F3871%2Fnordenfalk---the-five-senses2.pdf&ei=7pARVKi4C4jhywPSwoIY&usg=AFQjCNGK_HRicBcO43m6YZdYK0fuBHXI8A&sig2=9tXX-GSvriHWGYdwI5NW4g

Oh, well, what do you know - blacklist again - but WHY blacklist a PDF from Stockholh Art Museum? - see page 7

Hafspajen (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again :-) Will muck about with it at home :-) Are you going to nominate Man Writing a Letter and Woman Reading a Letter for DYK? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Hafspajen (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leon Schuster 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:
  • BLP sources|date=September 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Hill[edit]

- Sorry to bother you, but you being an Oxonian ... what have we done with JONATHAN HILL - who has a first class degree in Philosophy and Theology (top of year) from Oxford University and an MPhil in Theology also from Oxford. He has worked in a freelance editorial and writing capacity since leaving Oxford in 1997, and is currently working on Sky News. Jonathan has been highly acclaimed for his keen grasp of theology and philosophy, his engaging writing style and his ability to make often complex subjects accessible to all. Jonathan’s books include The Big Questions, The New Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity and The Crucible of Christianity. [7][8] [9]

[10] Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • He is NOT the same as Jonny Hill, Austrian singer, see "Teddy Bear".... Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
'*And he IS GREAT! Truly this guy is the Attenborough of the History of ideas - and very NPOV - DON'T YOU WORRY. Hafspajen (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Not my kind of thing at all at all I'm afraid. Remember, I try to avoid working on churches or their architects - let alone Christian apologists. And I'm afraid neither the top of year result nor the MPhil, both worthy of considerable respect though they are, qualify him for an article. What would is if you can find two articles in the press that are about him and his thought, rather than just a review of one of this books; or if you can find simply a ton of reviews of his books, some in good places (like the Times Literary Supplement or leading theology journals) in which case he would qualify as a writer. You may be able to if he's as good as you say; but I'm afraid I can't help. Drmies may be able to. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK; OK - OK - I can make this article - but I can't find out - ( And I tried)- when he was born and where. That is why I said that you as an antireligiuos Oxonian still might be able to find out ... because I can't. Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

1976. You don't absolutely have to have a birthdate and birthplace in an article, you know. But librarians tend to index by year of birth. Make it Jonathan Hill (theologian) unless you think the chap at Exeter is also notable. And I assume you have this review. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg The chap in Exeter is him, I recognize him. Thanks, that excellent. Why did you think they were different? Hafspajen (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Singapore. Ah, I see now, the survey of theologians is the same book. Sorry, this is stuff I try to stay away from. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK: as you wish ... very nice of you to pick him up ... thankss. Hafspajen (talk) 18:03, 12 September


User:Hafspajen/Jonathan Hill (theologian) Drmies Hafspajen (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a beginning. Now look for reviews of his books in good newspapers and in academic journals. Remember you don't need to say where he was born; for academics we often don't know that stuff till they die and get an obituary. Just write what you do know, with lots of good references. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I expect he will tell me that soon. Mailed him. Hafspajen (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Hope you don't mind but I put you in the DYK... Hafspajen (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
For the letter paintings? It pinged me, that must be one of the upgrades they have made ... I was thinking of asking you to take me out and credit Taksen instead. They added several good sources and are an expert on the artist. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, now - I can add him but can't remove you. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, thanks :-) Now be sure to use that review I linked to above. It has more clout than Amazon. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey were are you. Have lost you in all this love-orgy. That link was weird - when I tried to save ir told me it was not permitted . Blacklisted? Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Just copy the URL from my edits above; it's letting me save them, so that theological journal can't be blacklisted. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm, now it worked. And according to his publishers there was a review in the Times Literary Supplement but I can’t be accessed.
That was very brave of you Yngadottir! Thought I have to chuck him. Wonder what Crisco 1492 succeded with the picture of him. Poor man, might have scared him, he is not responding to my e-mails any more. Drmies, think you could try your witts with him a little? Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Love[edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate. Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Erdbeerteller01.jpg ..............................food to................................vegatarian.................. Hafspajen (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ein Schmusekätzchen kommt vorbei.[edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Thank you!

Serten (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Aww, bitte sehr, and wie süß, thank you! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ersatzkätzchen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, maybe :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tea again - a mystical thing this tea[edit]

In homes where servants were engaged in 'serving' meals, High Tea was the light meal taken standing up, at the "High Serving Table" in the kitchen, hence the name, by servants who would then be busy until the dining room was finished and they were then able to eat.Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Using cite templates, or not[edit]

You appear to prefer not to use cite templates (example). I am just wondering your reasons for that preference. Personally, I find it much easier to keep references consistent by using the templates, and it also helps assure that you have the desired information. Just wondering.

Part of that wondering is that I have been working on a follow-on to WP:Cite4Wiki for some time now. It is primarily focused on presenting references using templates. I wonder if having some capability to provide references output in a non-templated form would be desirable (i.e. reasons for and number of people who would desire such). Doing so would open up a large can of worms regarding formatting that I am reluctant to get into coding. Knowing why you prefer not to use them might help me understand the issues. Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Makyen: Yes, I don't like them. When I create an article, I don't use them; generally in articles started by others I follow the guideline and if references are mismatched, try to use the system that was first established for the article or most recently dominant in it, but if it's entirely bare URLs I will often follow my own preference in expanding them. I believe we wound up with the template output we did partly as a compromise; in different fields and, particularly outside the sciences, in different countries there are many competing ways of presenting footnotes, quite apart from the rival uses of parenthetical references defined in a bibliography (MLA style and that "sfn" style, to name the two I see). However, to my eye the output of the citation templates, Harvard style, is completely ass-backwards: it puts the date, which is relatively unimportant except when comparing scientific research, at the front, bolds one of the least important items in the citation, the volume number, imposes reverse order of names, which is of no utility in a footnote (as opposed to a bibliography) and presents difficulties since different linguistic cultures divide names differently or don't divide them at all (I often cite Icelanders), and as realized in the templates, it cannot accommodate updated dates in news reports or the entire page range of the article in a book or journal in addition to the specific page cited, so that I have to stuff the updated date in with the original date as a backdoor method and abandon the citation templates for following references to the same work unless I want to repeat vast amounts of information unnecessarily. (And one thing is just stupid: reflinks blindly adds an access date for a Google Books citation, because it is a URL, but the citation is to the book, which will continue to exist even if the Google Books link goes bad; an access date is ridiculously inappropriate and comes from the citation template having that field available.) The style was developed for citing social sciences articles, and is poorly suited to humanities applications and unfamiliar to many working outside the sciences, but the template system required choosing one format ... in my view this is invidious, there is no policy or compelling stylistic reason to harmonise citation styles between articles.
Further, while editors using scripts to fill out citations will obviously find the templates make things easier, that ease comes from the script: typing the templates themselves, as I do, takes much longer than manually coding the citation and introduces a large number of additional opportunities for error. Even now that we've gone through a period of clean-up when errors in the citation templates in particular articles have been flagged in red and fixed by both bots and human editors, I still come across articles where someone forgot to put in the title, forgot a pipe, or mistyped a parameter (and the curly brackets themselves are a common cause of BracketBot alerts). I used to copy and paste the blank templates, as suggested: that introduced the further hassle of figuring out which one to use (encyclopedia and journal article templates are under-used because it's not intuitive where they are, or even that we have special ones, and most editors use "cite web" when they could be using the more appropriate "cite news"; and a couple of things, such as a translation, I've never quite figured out what template to use). I eventually realised that the order of elements within the template doesn't matter and that there is quite a lot of cross-validity of elements, so when I do use the templates now, I rarely consult that page and usually build it up in what order seems best to me, labelling elements based on my memory of what parameters are coded; note that there I'm drawing on extensive experience including memory of such things as there being a "format" parameter available, and the templates are in fact requiring me to work both harder and smarter than if I just slammed it all in using wiki-code.
So there you have it :-) Summary because this got long: There's a big element of individual preference here (similar to the one that would obtain with Viz Ed vs. wikicode if Viz Ed. actually worked) and it's counterproductive to change the citation format of an article without a very good reason, but in practice the citation templates have to choose one output, and that is a big negative from my point of view, and when one is not using automated tools, they make things appreciably harder, at least for those of us who are not always citing the same narrow range of kinds of sources. I'm an extreme case: I'm unusual in the breadth of things I edit, as well as in the complexity of some of the sources I want to cite, and typing footnotes is something I have a lot of experience with. But there it is since you asked :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the long an thoughtful response.
I agree that the templates, and their output are not ideal. However, my feeling is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. My viewpoint is certainly biased based on the fact that I use tools to help fill in references nearly 100% of the time. I agree that for someone who knows what they are doing, is editing an article with a known and consistent style of reference, and is not using any tools to fill in reference information, then making references without the use of the templates is easier. Where I feel this breaks down is that articles are not the work of only people who have that skill-set and knowledge. They are, often, the work of many people. I find it easier to maintain a consistent style of references by accepting the structure imposed by the use of the templates. It also allows easier transition from editing one article to the next. Without the use of the templates the amount of context that is changed from working on one article to working on another is increased (i.e. you have to check for and remember yet another referencing style).
I will keep your comments in mind while thinking about what other features to build into Cite4Wiki Phoenix.
Questions regarding tools that would make referencing easier: When creating a reference what places do you usually start? Possible examples: You have a book and are looking at a page??? You start with the title? An article in a ? you start with the title, the publication? What source for your sources do you normally use (web service (JSTOR?), library public/personal, etc.)? Are you usually looking at a webpage and wanting to cite the contents? — Makyen (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I have to say I see a huge variety in referencing styles here: the sfn things are gaining ground, being pushed by the GA and FA people; I see a certain amount of "make it look kind of like the template output"; a lot of folks are using "author=", sometimes jamming all the co-authors into that, because they don't like the name reversal or because multiple authors are so fiddly; and the most common ref style in some quarters is the bare URL, with URL covered by title and dash indicating newspaper/website as the sophisticated second :-) In fact aside from those who upload a script and then rely on it, I'd have to say I see a movement away from the citation templates as just too fiddly (now one gets red messages when one gets them wrong, that has been scaring some people; plus of course a lot of editors now do use Viz Ed.) So I believe to a great extent you're trying to put lipstick on a pig. But that's me :-)
I use a wide variety of sources, but probably the most common are: online newspaper archive; Google Books ref. to a book (including books that are collections of essays/articles, books that have a translator, and books where Google has not recorded the page numbers); and offline book (again often an individual essay/article, but probably less frequently than on Google Books). For online material, the first thing I often do is copy and paste the URL, then for a book, get the page number(s) in place, since they will be hardest to reconstruct if something goes wrong or I get interrupted. Then author/editor name and title of book, usually then copying and pasting those to OCLC Worldcat, which will give me the publication info including (long) ISBN, and if I'm lucky the article title and author. Or for a newspaper, article title, author and/or agency if any, then newspaper name, date, page number if Google News Archive. But I suspect the order I work doesn't help you much, and what would help me more in articles that already use the templates is to be able to fit in stuff like: translator; pages taken up by the contribution and specific page within it; date of 1st edition and date of particular edition I am using; revised date for online news. Just for books that are not collections of articles, see this and this for two examples of difficulties. The former was first issued in two volumes in two different years in the 1930s, then a completely rewritten version was published in two different years in the 1950s, then there was a 3rd edition published in 1970 that is completely unchanged from the second (that's the one I'm using), and there is also a one-volume edition in some libraries; the author's name is differently alphabetised in different countries; and the book actually uses section numbers rather than page numbers, so it would be useful to be able to give both, or to use the section numbers instead of pages. It's also in a foreign language and only available on Google Books in badly indexed snippets (in many cases indexed to the wrong volume); I'm using hard copies. Oh, and I almost forgot, it's in a numbered series so there are two competitors for the "volume" cell in the citation template! The latter is an English translation that also constitutes a significant update of the original; it was written in association with the original author, who used the opportunity to revise his book, and it is also multiple volumes with different years of issue involved. My point is that problems like this - both these books would require adding material to the reference after the citation template for full citation - are not uncommon when citing sources in the humanities. The templates have actually required me to acquire a whole different level of expertise on top of what I already needed for actual encyclopedic writing and referencing, namely how to fill out and if necessary outwit the templates. I won't presume to suggest how to solve these problems, although one solution might be to have a separate set for humanities books, the output would be further from Harvard and thus offend those who want our articles to use similar referencing styles - which I see as a hopeless and counterproductive aim. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

![edit]

I think somebody butchered a little bit this article. This is how it looked like [11] - and I think it was quite all right. Saint Lucy's Day is a major Scandinavian celebration, much comparable with Cristmas - really - not a little daily Saint celebration as it is in Italy.And where is Lussi? Where is Finland, Dan mark and the rest of it? It is all gone - and NOTHING was incorrect. This is the kind of removals that make me angry. Also it has nothing to do with the saint . I don't like the changes. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the version prior to Dbachmann's cuts (pinging him here because I forgot to sign at the article talk page - have just got up - and that means it won't have pinged him from there). So now it needs to be discussed on the talk page. I know a little about this topic, but I have a conflict of interest that lies uncomfortably close; you should probably notify the relevant Wikiprojects, but keep it a neutral notification. And as I have said at the talk page, more sources are needed; you may be able to add some good ones. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I notified Peter Isotalo, one of our most reliable Swedish editors - but I can assure you there is noting religious about it, (about the Lucia) and the Nordiska lexikon is like the Brittish Encyclopaedia, wouldn't call that unserious source (or remove it). Actually Lucia is hardly ever celebrated in churches - well not as a saint, so change lead. Hafspajen (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Good. As I say, I agree about the notability (and the encyclopedia source) and I know there are more sources you could use, but I shouldn't edit this one. I just got up - WikiProject Sweden, and I hope folks have posted on the talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Koller[edit]

Yngvadottir, if it was you who cleaned up my confusion about Rudolf Koller and the Swiss Northeastern Railways, thank you. Guess I should have found a source other than Bing for translating Verabschiedung. Sca (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thankyou so much for your time and input. I would like to nominate a page for deletion, if you'd stick with me a little further-as I believe it requires special attention over and above the deletion methods. The page in question is labelled 'Suicide methods' and provides explicit instruction and references. I welcome the original article about 'Suicide', but an informative article of ways to kill yourself has no place on a positive, forward-moving website viewed by all age groups. I realise this may sound a little arrogant of me, but in light of the fact that the it is accessible through a simple google search of 'suicide' in conjunction with the fact that the article has recieved over 80,000 hits in the last 30 days causes me a great deal of concern. I believe this is a matter for the police, as the issue has been raised several times by other users. I personally have experienced suicidal feelings and feel passionate about this issue.

Thanks for your time,

Al

Please feel free to message me with updates Redzimus (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! (I've removed one of the duplicates.) I'll respond on your talkpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Åsa Lif[edit]

Aw, RIP beautiful Ersatz! He does look old in the photo. Can you expand Åsa Lif from German wiki, providing of course you're feeling like wiki. Sorry to learn of your loss.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I had a look and will see what I can do if no one else does, although the field is one where I'm not very familiar with the terminology. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thankyou, this is really helpful. I'm a new user so I am a little unsure of what I'm doing, despite my campaign to delete said content. You do make a good case for poential academic use of the article, although there is no shortage of such information amongst professionals-Wikipedia mainly being used as a go to, quick source of information. Regardless of my personal opinion,

thanks for your time,

Al Redzimus (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Cow-Man[edit]

Well, I think that it would be a bit too much withdrawing the DYK, I tried to find refs. Looks like he actually one of the most famous Swiss painters, the poor thing, after all.[12] Hafspajen (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks I made a mess of this. Sca translated other articles and all of them were referenced and all right. My fault, wasn't checking it enough. Hafspajen (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you delete this one, please[edit]

No idea how this came up. It is certainly all wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:UsernameNotice#RFC.2FN_discussion_of_the_username_.22.7B.7B.7B1.7Cuser_name_required.7D.7D.7D.22

I've reverted your edits to it. I'm a bit puzzled, but you appear to be the second editor in quick succession to accidentally edit that template; probably what you should do is substitute it? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?[edit]

The disruptive editing on Dalmatian was being done by other users. I simply submitted a photo. Again and again users changed it back with zero - and I mean zero - logical reason. After rejecting my photo for no reason they then put another entirely different photo than was there to begin with! Seriously? This is why is so many people find trying to contribute to Wikipedia so frustrating. Pages become a "club" instead of home to any logical discussion. Not consensus just silly people who become proprietary about certain pages. apollo284 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.198.238 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me silly me or other editors. You were offered a discussion but you stayed out of it. I personally offered a solution with your picture in the gallery - but after this kind of comments I am not that sure about it. You don't respect any of the rules and conventions of editing. Hafspajen (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You gave me no time to respond, obviously. And yes, your changes were purely emotional and then - after the fact - you came up with reasons. Make any argument you wish but the page is not improved since our discussion. Your point was to assert control. Which, again, is why Wikipedia struggles to involve to get the greater public in participating. Pages become little fiefdoms... I am obviously new to Wikipedia so apologies if I don't know the rules but I know when people are being pedantic. As I just posted on the talk page, you stated "...in my opinion, the images of Apollo do not demonstrate any specific point about the breed so are not relevant..." You could make that point about any photograph on the page. The "consensus" was just the same decision by the people who had proprietary feelings over the page in the first place. You didn't improve the page you just had a meeting to discourage casual users from ever participating. apollo284 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.198.238 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Apollo284: I've left a message on your user talk page, but also responding here because since you are logged out, you may not see the notification. The place to discuss this is the article talk page. We have certain rules and guidelines here, which I've asked the others to explain to you on request, since you are evidently a new editor. But one of the fundamental ones is that we discuss and reach consensus. Go talk about it there; they've been waiting for you. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Drmies, please, we can't discuss like this. I don't need several editors who think this and that (silly and pedantic) instead of being civilized. I am out of here, you deal with her/him. I don't discuss this any more. Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know you aren't silly or pedantic. They posted to the article talk page and I've responded there. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel like responding to someone who is calling me silly and pedantic. I WAS THE one who wanted a solution, a compromise - and made a gallery where this picture is included - now he instead of saying: - thanks that you came up with a compromise, please let us use that gallery, that was very nice of you really that you tried, thank you or something like that - well - she/he goes calling me names. Crisco 1492 is called all kinds of things to, now is this the New Wikipedia? why aren't these people get told to keep their mouth and get blocked if they open it again? Hafspajen (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know you were. I hope it doesn't look as if I claimed that was my offer! Hopefully they are now looking at what you all said and at the pages I linked them to. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, edit warring, socking and uncivility - only you are the one who still have the patience to go on, an other admin have blocked them by now. Hafspajen (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Mabille[edit]

Hopefully something you will enjoy translating. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Mabille Hafspajen (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, maybe at work. On teh home machine I have some things I need to do if possible because library books are due. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No hurry, it haven't been translated in many years... Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Aww, sweet little puppy, thank you :-) But I understand they need even more brushing than my poor ersatz cat did. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, unless you prefer Chinese crested and other Naked dogs... And if you have a garden - no problem. Poodles and Maltese don't sheed, but still needs some brushing. No brush, no sheed - try Vizsla (but you need to bike thre-four km with that one every day. Hafspajen (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK; that ... Freyja, the headstrong Norse goddess of love, sensuality, and women’s mysteries, was also served by hare attendants? Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be another attempted translation of the cats, which are anachronistic for Iceland. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)