User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Archive of my Did You Knows

pictures of students

Pratham currently has the library-pic, and the yoga-pic. Are there any restrictions about uploading pictures of recognizable-individual-humans, without their explicit permission? We might have to wait a bit before we break this new heartbreaking news to him.  :-)   Glad he came back to talk, without needing to be blocked. There is yet hope. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a guideline, but for group shots at some distance like those, it's more honored in the breach than the observance. More to the point, I fear he may not have taken those himself, either; I keep expecting some image maven to find originals. Since no one has, I'm ignoring them in hopes he did take them. If that makes any sense. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

On another subject, Clover is visiting their friend the Duromac CEO, to get shots of the cool machinery. Please sanity-check my advice, are they going to get insta-deleted from commons here? [1] Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons is Commons, but I don't see why they would be; the only possible argument would be about brand-name equipment and I don't see why the manufacturer would object, so I would say go ahead and deal with those objections if and when they occur. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see, User_talk:Prathamprakash29#Possibly_unfree_File:Library_of_NRSJPS.jpg as of the 27th. Pratham last edited on the 5th, and is unlikely to notice this problem, until the imagefiles are deleted from mainspace per usual. When it is noticed...

1. we can try to explain again about taking pics personally, or about going through the copyright-assignment-regimen.
2. Our main question is whether the "newspaper such as Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran" which Pratham mentioned have hyperlinks to the stories about the school; at least the first one of those newspapers *has* a website, that I found.
3. Also, you were wondering how many Class-9-thru-Class-12 students there were... roughly 47*4 based on the average-class-size, but of course, that average class size hardly squares with the 2500 students in 13-or-14-classes... so more information would be good.
4. Do we have more pending queries?

p.s. Any idea what human-language this might be?[2] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. I'd kind of been waiting for the shoe to drop on those pics, since no camera info comes up at the bottom (and the exterior pic is the background on the school's Facebook page and also appears on the About Us page on this second official school site (!)). And I think we both agree it's probable that the New R.S.J. Public School as a whole has 2,500+ students, only some of whom are in the Senior Secondary years. This bears out the hunch. This one shows a lower-form classroom and may well have confirmatory audio - I don't have speakers hooked up - but obviously neither of those is citeable! There are several directory entries for the school online - it's operated by the Kumar Educational Society - and as I believe I've mentioned, a couple of news hits about students' performance in exams and a student petitioning to be allowed to take exams. I have no doubt it's notable, no matter what the actual enrollment. But I suspect the meat of the news coverage is in another alphabet. Unfortunately most of the balls are in Pratham's court, although if he stays away for a few weeks longer I'll cite stuff to that alternate website - it's better for our purposes. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC) ... ETA Dainik Jagran. Hindi, I'm almost certain. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the second website is intended for the under-construction branch? There is a sentence in the article about the location in Alladhabad of the new facility. Not having perused the youtube links, my hunch is that the 2500 includes predicted attendance in the new-under-construction-branch, plus maybe additional planned-student-growth for the current branch, and that the currently-open-branch has 47*13 ~== 600something actual students at present. Hard to say without folks on the ground. My understanding of wikiPolitics is that high school districts are "inherently wikiNotable" under the theory that they describe a physical/political location and as such get an article... and since there is one high school per school-district, generally, that is why schools failing to meet GNG-sourcing requirements still tend to get a free pass of sorts. But yes, agree that in the case of NRSJPS, the sources prolly actually exist, if we can find someone fluent to search for and grok them. Is there a WP:WikiProject_India person you know? Does Sitush speak the lingo, or maybe Kudpung? HTH. p.s. Worrisome, Dainik_Jagran#Paid_News. p.p.s. Ahem, Kumar Educational Society.  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in my repertoire of languages I'm afraid, but it's a fair guess it's one used by tolls and teenagers - it's called vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandaleze, of course, cannot believe I missed that one! ;-)   You could well be right, however, since this was from the same city as the school, and just added a few words to the end of a random paragraph (i.e. not deleting anything), methinks possibly it was graffiti-just-testing-if-this-anyone-can-edit-thing-really-works-eze, rather than more devious forms of vandalism. The main contributor (and only local contributor) to the article has a small case of IDHT, so I'm hoping we can find additional folks local to the region that speak the language of the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please

Could you please comment on this article [3] and compare it with the Olde English Bulldogge. It looks like the same thing for me. What are the rules in these cases? Do we really need two separate articles on bulldog breeds where none of them is officially accepted by the Kennel clubs, AKC, FCI and so on. Hafspajen (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

On my way to bed and way outside my areas of expertise, but I note that it's at AfC and that the See also is in there. Let the AfC reviewer decide. If it gets accepted, is there a WikiProject:Dogs where you could raise the issue? Unfortunately I can't see the NYT article - they tell me I've reached my limit for the month, sigh. Ultimately there's AfD, but it's always possible there are indeed sufficient sources; some unrecognised breeds do collect enough press. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well. thanks. I get sometimes the feeling that if it is in the Wikipedia, than it will be - kind of the kick of for the thing. People do fight to get their thing in - and - their oppinion will be spread all ower the world, I don't know if you understand what I mean. Hafspajen (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Damn. Why do we suppose that all new beginners know about all the rules? This Barry didn't have a clue on the guidelines, or anything else about Wikipedia in general, and nobody really cared to tell him anything, just growled at him all the time. Are we so great that we don’t care about people who are helpless? I think I have seen this over and over again, everywhere. Hafspajen (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• There's a lot of that, yes - which editor are you referring to? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see you meant Freedombulls. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The one who created this article[4]. He must be a thoroughly unhappy man by now. He is Dutch, bu the way, and nobody cared to explain a thing for him. And mostly for anyone, as far I can see who seeks for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation - declined ones. I mean, yes, they do make mistakes, but then everybody does who does't have a clue. And instead of explaining things for them, people just keeps telling them about their mistakes, instead to tell them how Wikipedia works. Me to I am affraid, in the begining. Hafspajen (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I see they did get the article, and now a fairly typical Wikipedia situation: the AfC was accepted, but other editors are not sure it's notable (as you weren't). It seems to me people often disagree about similar dog breeds; I know more about cats but I recall some cat breeds also that are not universally recognised. As regards the treatment of the editor, I agree, we seem to welcome people less these days, and that's sad. You left him a nice big welcome template though (I prefer the ones with lots of links, myself, but I note that the page where they are all listed seems to imply that those can be overwhelming.) The 74 IP doesn't like user-page templates at all, but is very good at helping confused new users and very much concerned about how we treat them, so I've pinged them at their talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, I know that some editors are not sure it's notable, but that is one thing. Not to notice a poor confused persons situation, is a different thing. I mean he is trying to do something he thinks is a good idea, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  Please feel free to ping me, either of you, any time this sort of thing comes up.  :-)   I'm reasonably certain that Leavitt Bulldog 2005+ is not Notable enough for a dedicated article yet... but it does seem to be WP:NOTEWORTHY, and deserves a mention (in a distinct paragraph) in the existing article Olde English Bulldogge. And truth be told, that article may need a rename! From what I can tell, here is the deal.

  Circa 1971, David Leavitt started trying to breed a "healthy bulldog" which was more like photos from the 1800s, not the current smashed-in-nose sort of bulldog (they die young from oxygen-deprivation during sleep... nose is simply the wrong shape!). Various other dog-breeders, a couple others in the 1970s, and one in the 1980s, and about four in the 1990s, have also tried to breed "healthy bulldog" lines. After founding the OEB breed-registry circa 1975, David gave up that name circa 1995 to some other person named Mark. There is also a UK variation, and another American variation, and so on. The variations are listed in breed-books (cf King of the Kvens and royalty-line-breeding); the name of the breed-book is a tradename aka corporate brand; the breed-book-tradename-owners publish a "standard" which describes how canine-offspring must appear to qualify for the stamp of approval. See also "organic" certification in agribiz. Just satisfying the breed-book-standard is not enough... you also have to pay the registration fee! So there are all kinds of WP:COI and WP:OWN difficulties in the world of exotic-strain-Molosser-descendants (which are the dogs Alexander the Great used to conquer the world allegedly). Through in some nationalism-slash-patriotism while we're at it... there are around a dozen flavors of Tornjak, depending on which portion of the former Yugoslavia the owners of their canine-ancestors paid registry-fees into.

  So how does all this apply to Barry? Like this. The full official name of the 1970s breed is the Leavitt Olde English Bulldogge, the 'genericized' OEB tradename. There are at least four different groups claiming to WP:OWN some portion of the pie: ioeba.net, nationalbulldoggeassoc.com, "Leavitt OEB" from the 1970s to the 1990s, and now the leavittbulldogassociation.com (not to be confused with leavittbulldogassociationeurope.com and leavittbulldog.com). Genetically, these are all the same animals, and are all descended from the original 1970s Leavitt Olde English Bulldogge adam-n-eve-pair most likely. The question is who gets the registration-fees, and who gets the credit, not what sort of animals they are biologically/genetically/scientifically.

  The politics of the situation do make our sourcing *very* tricksy, unfortunately... the dog-breed of the 1970s, the Official Leavitt OEB, was often shortened by crass vox populi into simply "Leavitt bulldog" from what I can tell. Some commentators even go so far as to call *NBA*-registered animals "Leavitt bulldogs" which is so totally not the case. Multiplying the confusion exponentially, as of 2005/2006 when the LBA was founded, David has made an official tradename out of the colloquial phrase — quite on purpose I presume — and dubbed his current not-at-all-OEB-registered-animals the Official Leavitt Bulldog. Which means, that when we have a source calling something the Leavitt bulldog, they might well be referring to IOEBA-OEB-animals descended from the 1970s-Leavitt-adam-n-eve, or to LBA-not-OEB-animals descended from the 2000s-Leavitt-adam2-n-eve2 (plus also the 1970s-Leavitt-adam-n-eve great-great-great-grandparents), or to some third-party-breedbook, or perhaps to some unholy combination/conflation.

  Anyhoo, TLDR, I'm glad to help beginners, especially when they are getting hammered by you-are-wrong-we-will-now-delete-all-your-harmful-stuff-from-our-encyclopedia-while-you-go-away. Most of the folks talking to Barry were not *trying* to be that way... but the overall effect was absolutely that. Even though I doubt that LeavittBulldog2006 qualifies as a dedicated article, it does seem to qualify as a sentence or two of WP:NOTEWORTHY-ness, which should go in Olde English Bulldogge. Also, wikipedia can perform the service for our readership, of disambiguating the various BrandedBulldogRecreationBreeds, and pointing out which are "more Notable" and which are run by whom, and so on. This explanation of the various feuding breedbooks that all claim to be the real bulldog, might be best served in a renamed article that would cover the non-Leavitt-inspired recreation-of-the-breed attempts, but I'm uncertain such a step is really necessary. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Yng' Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Frigg Rewrite

I don't think I mentioned it, but this is happening. You're welcome to help. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, like there isn't already enough on? Thanks for the tip-off, although I know less about the scholarly views on her, except for the evergreen Frigg-Freyja thing, on which I probably Should Not Write. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean! However, I think it's all pretty approachable. There are a lot of interesting questions when it comes to Frigg. It's always so great to sit down and write these articles. And you should write about the Frigg-Freyja issue! We need a solid article on that. I've been itching to sit down for a Frigg rewrite for a while now, and it will help with getting the Odin article in order. Another connected article that should be easier to rewrite would be the mess at Vili and Vé—but now that I think of it rewriting the Frigg article will also provide a lot of material for a new attestations section there... :bloodofox: (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Folks please! Enough with the friggin' profanity already, we are supposed to be WP:NICE to each other!  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, you wouldn't believe how often folks have said stuff like that to me and meant it ... call her Frige or Frija if you like :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

:) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Something for your page, new article?

You know, we don't have an article on this woman.[5] I might start some stubb, but it would be silly. She was somewhat in the shadow of her husband, Carl Larsson, but she did have a personality of her own, and own works and the question is if it is not her work we admire when we admire the Larsson paintings about their home. Are you interested to make this article? Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm - severe lack of sources. I wish they'd footnoted where they got that V & A quote from, or better yet given the original English. Unless I can find a couple of good sources, to show she is notable, that exhibition will have to have either been on her or given her a good-sized section. Or did she make it into the Nordisk familjebok? I'll put it on my list to research. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be a book written in English, quite recently about her.Hafspajen (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.clg.se/karin.aspx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DUQfwUsfGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q8ifjC1w_k

Thanks, that first URL helps (as I suspected, the V & A exhibit was on her husband - but it does imply it devoted considerable attention to her). However ... the Swedish article is copyvio of the biography! Sigh. Could you be a gentleman and a scholar and paraphrase? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.thelocal.se/20081209/16236

Good, thank you, that plus the book referenced at the bottom of the Swedish article settles it, she should be safe from AfDing :-) I don't know how soon I can get to it, mind you - Yule is still happening :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A tomtenisse

This is what I feed mine (recomended by the Swedish connoisseurs, especially for our climate)

• Shall I scholar and paraphrase? Do you mean....? Hafspajen (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-25/preparations-for-carl-and-karin-larsson-creators-of-the-swedish-style/

Oh goodie, that's the V & A, thanks! ... I mean that somebody who can actually write Swedish needs to change the Swedish article so it isn't so obviously copied from that website. Unfortunately I can only read it (and that not as well as Norwegian). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I got you. Will go ahead and paraphrase, then . This is a book written about her. http://www.bokborsen.se/Axel-Frieberg/Karin-En-Bok-Om-Carl-Larssons-Hustru/2687353. There is a second book too. this one Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I did it, paraphrased and paraphrased, since you asked me so nicely, but it was really a lot of work. Weird how difficult is to break out of a sentence that is put in a certain way. Hafspajen (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is, which I think is why other Wikipedias have so much copyvio - we tend to hunt it down here. Thanks very much for doing that!! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC) (LOL I just noticed the pic, that is cute!) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fun picture. It should be in the Topiary article. Did you feed your house tomte with porrige on Christmas eve? It is actually a very old custom. If you don't take care of the tomtenisse, he will not take care of you. Hafspajen (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL yes, I have a less than ideal relationship with wights/tomter; luckily they do like the booze I give them, and the other stuff other household members give them :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Karin Larsson-Bergöö's rocking chair

What do you feed them? Hafspajen (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In my case mainly wine, sometimes other forms of alcohol - others in the household set aside fruit and vegetables, and yes, occasionally oatmeal. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

- It should probably be noted that our vaettir article is the most relevant to this household. We don't honour them only at Yule, and we honour outside ones as well as inside. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• You know, the funny thing that this husband, Carl Larsson, was extremely fond of the National Romantic style, but he never really was recognised for those murals - and they are not so good as the home paintings - I say - and that house was made and furnished together with his wife! She designed furniture, textiles, lamps and clothing. Hafspajen (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I see that in the materials you've found for me, but I won't venture a theory about how far ahead of her time she was :-). As I understand it, a big problem with his murals was that this shocked people with the nakedness (and maybe a bit of lèse-majesté ?):

Yngvadottir (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, who cares about naked people. Not in Scandinavia. I would say, with the artist judgment - (that's me) - anyway, my judgment is that he wasn't as good at the monumentality of the composition, and the rhythm of the greater scale, as he was at intimacy in art. Compare for example with Michelangelo. And you would be surprised how difficult it is painting in the larger scale, it is not an easy thing, I tell you. What I mean, looking at it now. Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares... who cares ... whaddya MEAN who cares about nekkid people?!? I like 'em. Count me as caring. Those poor anti-cultural Scandinavians that don't care for nekkid people... who cares what they think, I say!  :-)   p.s. The_Agony_and_the_Ecstasy_(film) is a dern good one. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

An aside comment

We all need to put on our clothing and start behave civilized :)

• It makes me happy that you like them. I think I messed up your talk page.Hafspajen (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, you didn't mess it up, you just forgot to close the <div...> <div...> tags above your bespangled pointy... spiky... very tall... hardwood ... uh, tree ... with some matching </div> </div> stuff at the end. Sometimes, an obelisk is just an obelisk, as Freud might say. See HTML#Markup for some example-syntax, look for the colorful monospaced fontface. Also, see the diff,[6] I added the divs back in, with matching slashdivs, so the blue-border and the custom-fontface are restored. As the saying goes, it is the thought that counts, thanks much. I've returned the favor, with some pics for your enjoyment, see below.74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Where? Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apropos nudity I am not sure I like this article. Depictions of nudity. We have Nude (art) and Nudity and Nudity and sexuality and Nude photography and History of nudity and Public nudity and Naturism and Nudity in sport and Nudity in combat and Clothed female, naked male and Naked marriage (silly) and Naked party and a very weird article called Buck naked sorry to put all this on your page, but do we really need even an article that is not telling much more than is already told - and has a big part on Children as subjects. Hafspajen (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• When you list the articles like that, it does seem as if we have rather a lot. I notice that you made a couple of edits there. I'm inclined to leave it alone, because it is a topic that has been of major importance in art on all levels - and that has generated libraries full of books discussing it. But there will always be a titillation factor, if only for some viewers. If you're still concerned, you might look at the talk pages to see whether any of these have previously been nominated for deletion (AfD); sometimes the decision was "no consensus" and that would mean the article could be nominated again. Or propose a merge. You never know, people might agree; there is little planning involved in how the encyclopedia grows, so sometimes we do wind up with overlapping articles one or two of which can be merged. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hafspajen, you have such a large supply of naked ambition, cleaning up wikipedia of WP:POVFORKs and such! Soon you too will be an admin methinks, staring into the abyss, like the king of the kvens only with more lewdity. Speaking of POVFORK, see also the discussion at WT:Drafts for keeping material that should not be deleted really, but does not yet belong in mainspace. There is some possibility that *multiple* drafts can exist, for one particular name-in-mainspace. Of course, Yngvadottir is correct about the vast amount of library-content which has been generated, over the years. There was even a painting by the Great Jimbo himself, which was uploaded back-in-the-day™ during 2009 methinks. WP:WikiSpeak#J Maybe it will be featured in the revised article history of nudity, perhaps in the infoboxen? That might be proxy-editing-by-telepathy, though, because I strongly suspect Gerda_Arendt wrote the caption of this particular oil painting, what with all the references to obscure composers. See also, WP:WikiSpeak#Flow for a discussion of important new features. Hope this helps. :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• That page is sick! Sad how much is true ... Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Hafspajen (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am not against nudity. I am concerned about that Depictions of nudity - has mostly nothing that other articles do not have + has a big part on Children as subjects, Where is the line there between Children as subjects - and something much more unpleasant? A subtle or slight degree of difference? ... especially how it was put. (naked young boys). Here -> I removed a commons that was posted in the middle of the article, in the section. Hafspajen (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I know you aren't. I saw your removal of that Commons link, and I do think we have one or two articles too many in that list. However, the line is indeed hard to draw: there have been artists who specialized in young boys bathing (you cut a sentence about that), just as there have been artists who specialized in nubile female nudes, and in both cases there are both recognized major artists and a fair number of purveyors of what I believe used to be called "gentleman's pictures". (Commons doesn't appear to have any examples by the Meister des deutschen Schamhaares, who is better known than the Victorian exponents of the genre; and then again there are the putti ...) The thing is, titillation is part of the topic and definitely part of how it's been discussed. That's why I'm not suggesting posting to the article's talk page. You could run your observations by someone else, but Drmies, who's usually ready and able with the scythe, doesn't do much with the visual arts. And there is an argument that articles with different emphases are useful to readers who come to a topic for a variety of reasons. (And attitudes to portrayals of unclothed young children have changed hugely in some places over the last few decades; then there's the gay rights/equal objectification aregument; it's a bit of a quicksand in which such paintings and photos have been hugely discussed, albeit often with illustrations avoided, so there is a legitimate topic or several. There's even the distinction between "nude" and "naked".) Sorry, I am apparently wishy washy this morning. Maybe someone else will weigh in. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't care about gay people either. I mean, gay adult people doing whatever they like with each other, it is just fine. As you know, in Sweden most people are quite tolerant about nakedness and gay people and whatnot. But this naked child thing is not exactly something I am tolerant about. Children should be children and left alone. I have never ever got across any university subject like nude children depicted during the centuries. Hafspajen (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Too late for DRmies scythe, I tried to hit them in their own field and filled the whole article with Greek deities -AND made the section into a controversy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good for you! Some of those Greek statues are very naked indeed ... and discussion should ensue, out of which will come a more solid article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• If you have some spare time... I am afraid my sentences can occasionally sound kind of distorted. Could you please take a look at them ? Hafspajen (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, but not for a few hours; absolute chaos here and I have to sleep soon, hence you see me just responding on talk pages and noodling around. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

rolling interviews for new ExecDir of WMF are continuing

Since you've expressed interest in WP:FLOW and such in the past... you might be interested in participating in this not-a-club activity... User_talk:Ahnoneemoos#redux, search for "Since the WMF is" just below the big green box. In a nutshell, the person with the *most* control over WP:FLOW in summer 2014 and also the future of VizEd, is going to be whomever is chosen as the new ExecDir.

  Therefore, I suggest that we seek out some nominations from DahCommuhnity™ using the scheme described there, in order to give ourselves the best chance of keeping the WMF from imposing madness in the form of a technological terror.  :-)   Whether the WMF-approved committee (see list inside the green box at link above) takes any cognizance of such vox-populi-generated nominees, is another matter entirely. But methinks it is worth doing, even if — perhaps especially if — the result of the effort is ignored. Sound like more fun than a barrel of monkeys? TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but probably not for me ... I don't know much about business executives, and while it would be nice if we got someone who actually wanted to help us make an encyclopedia, it's quite apparent that that's not what the WMF cares about. Even if by some miracle they choose someone who does care, they won't let them do so. Hopefully at least one person better networked and less despairing has this page watchlisted. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Everybody is welcome to pile in, certainly... even those who can only countenance such an action from within the pit of despair.  ;-)   No need to stop despairing is implied; the point of building the list of on-wiki nominees, and ranking them by their on-wiki bangvote-counts, is not really put forth in the hope that the process will have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of the WMF-executive-search-committee-decision. It is more of a protest vote that demonstrates two things: first, that we ... or I suppose, whether we ... can use on-wiki discussion in a reasonably mature fashion, to crowd-source a decent set of worthwhile candidates, and bangvote that list into a sort-order that is not laughably ludicrous.

  Second, and less important but not of negligible importance, is that if we do manage to generate a credible nominee-list, but the dozen folks on the Official WMF Secret Nominations And Secret Interviews Committee ignore that list and pick somebody else by fiat... we get to say, don't blame me, I bangvoted for Honorary ExecDir Linus Torvalds, all hail Finland.  :-)   Which is ha-ha-only-serious. WMF devs could use some management by perkele methinks, that would get the feature-set of WP:FLOW into shape right quickly. But I'm quite sure the last thing wikipedia needs is a "business executive" acting in the leadership role... unless you mean The Great Jimbo, by that phrase. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

this user can read some Russian words

  :-)   So, comrade, feel like helping translating (for talkpage wikiNotability-assessment purposes only!) some newspaper-articles[7][8][9] about some software written in Poland, which is now being used by the Russkies, Merikans, Chineze, Brits, and possibly Aussies (HiLo48 will be thrilled) in all their respective sekret aerospace laboratories? We are trying to roughly gauge whether these three sources help achieve SORCER/FIPRE/exertions/service-oriented-architectures in-depth, as opposed to mere WP:NOTEWORTHY, when considered as 'single' Russian source (we have other RS for the aussie/uk/zh/usa efforts). Da? Nyet? Dosvidanya! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I am a good choice! I'll have a look when I get home from work, off-wiki chaos permitting. But you would do better to ask someone like Ymblanter. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, way beyond my ability to intuit. It doesn't help that I am a notorious technical incompetent. Sorry. It is clearly notable! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, machine translation is not too painful... you visit translate.google.com or bing.com/translator, paste the URL you want mangled into the box on the left, and hit the enter-key. A few seconds later, you see the gawdawefull result, and you can hover the mouse-cursor over individual sentences, to see a popup of the original russian or chinese or german or whatever. Here is one such translation — http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://vestnik_old.ulsu.ru/issues/878/4 — typically you can use this URL, and paste in your desired ending. Note the fallback to latinized words like "ulianovtsev" when the machine-translation-software fails, and of course, there are butcherings, like translating the acronym for Russian Academy of Sciences as "wounds" for some reason. One trick I use is to break up troublesome sentences into single-word-sentences, and then translate across multiple engines.

orig	goog: one-word-at-a-time trick	bing: one-word-at-a-time trick	goog: one full sentence	bing: one full sentence
Ульяновские.	Ulyanovsk.	Ulyanovsk.	Ulyanovsk	Ulyanovsk
ученые.	scientists.	scientists.	scientists	scientists
побывали.	visited.	visited.	visited	travelled
за.	for.	for.	the	( see below )
океаном.	ocean.	Ocean.	ocean	overseas
вместе.	together.	together.	together	( see below )
со.	with.	with.	with	with
своими.	its.	your.	their	his
коллегами.	colleagues.	colleagues.	colleagues	colleagues
из.	of	from.	from	of the
СГАУ.	SSAU.	SGAU.	SSAU	SGAU
и.	and.	and.	and	and
Института.	Institute.	The Institute.	Image Processing Systems Institute	image processing systems Institute
систем.	systems.	systems.	( see above )	( see above )
обработки.	processing.	processing.	( see above )	( see above )
изображений.	images.	images.	( see above )	( see above )
(ИСОИ).	(IPSI).	(ISOI).	(IPSI)	(ISOI)
РАН.	RAS.	RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.	RAS.	wounds.

Reading back to find out what "СГАУ" stands for, in this case Samara State University, we can write a reasonably-translated gloss, at the end of the day. " Ulyanovsk scientists traveled overseas with their colleagues of Samara State University (ru:СГАУ) and [the] Image Processing Systems Institute (ru:ИСОИ) [plus the?] Russian Academy of Sciences (ru:РАН)." Obviously, this is a ton of work, and we're *still* not sure that anybody from the РАН actually went on the trip, as opposed to other possibilities (maybe the ИСОИ is a subsidiary of the РАН?)... but we're pretty close. Anyhoo, thanks for taking a peek at the sources, HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Fredrik's music school

Dear Yngvadottir,

You were more than helpful with the article Erika Sunnegårdh a few weeks ago, so I thought I might test my luck asking for a piece of advice on another article that has now bounced twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adolf_Fredrik%27s_music_school

The reviewers don't like the article but I can't quite understand why. The way I see it this article has more and better references than 95% of the school articles I find on Wikipedia and I try to keep an objective tone. I have nothing whatsoever in common with Adolf Fredrik's music school other than our nationality. So, what is it I don't understand about writing articles? Andersneld (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a bit of a puzzle; I don't see why the second reviewer finds the tone too informal. Have you asked him for examples? I do see a bit of a whiff of promotion - for example, there is no source that I can see on the statement that those who do sing barbershop prominently in Sweden all have a connection to the school. You might want to shorten the article by removing not very relevant things like that. Also most of your references are not very impressive - things like Facebook - on a quick glance I saw only one newspaper article. Can you find more newspaper and tv articles about the school, or if there are already more than I saw, make it clearer in the reference that that's what they are? (Write out name of newspaper in full and link to Wikipedia's article on it). A very well established rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that senior high schools and institutions of tertiary education are presumed notable, but schools for younger students have to demonstrate notability like any other organization. And this is a junior high school. So this article has to meet a notability/referencing standard that many school articles we have don't have to. I'll go ping 74, who is active in trying to get AfC articles accepted via collective effort; he/she may have some useful thoughts too, but unfortunately IPs don't have watch lists and I doubt he/she obsessively checks my talk page :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Wrong!  :-)   I actually came here to say, that Andersneld is on vacation for the next three/four days, per the note they left on my talkpage, and has given us carte-blanche to rewrite the article as we see fit. Methinks that what GorillaWarfare was prolly concerned about was the non-inline-cited superlatives, including several one-word-puffs in the first couple paragraphs. I also have a scheme in mind of using efn style "notes" section for all the WP:ABOUTSELF cites, so we can separate the independent third-party refs from the other stuff. (Also, many of the refs are doublets... google books in one place, and isbn in another place, for instance, which need to be condensed into a singleton.) If you get a chance before me, please feel free to dive in and start massaging the article. Thanks as always for improving wikipedia. And remember Wazowski... always watching, always watching.  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Yngvadottir and 74, I'm back from my vacation and ready to edit :-) As an aside here is a quick summary of the classical music scene in Berlin:

• Go to Berlin to listen to opera (all three opera houses)
• Go to Berlin to listen to the Berlin Philharmonic
• Go to Stockholm to listen to choral music

First question, do we discuss the Adolf Fredrik's music school article here or on 74's talk page, or perhaps elsewhere? I have read your comments and tried to fix the article:

• Whiff of promotion. I plead guilty. My first version had none of this, but I got confused when the article was first turned down because of lack notoriety. I have now tried to be more impartial. Should I take away the second paragraph altogether?
• one-word-puffs. Guilty again, for the same reason. Now corrected I think.
• Barbershop references. Now added, and the text modified to reflect that there were two singers that I couldn't verify as having attended the Adolf Fredrik's music school.
• Oral sources. My source for the statement that all the members of the Swedish barbershop quartets have attended the Adolf Fredrik's music school is a well-known Swedish choral director, Bengt Ollén, that I met recently at a private party. Would this qualify as a reference? If so, how should the reference be phrased?
• Consider removing the barbershop reference. I'd rather not. Bengt Ollén tells me that winning all these barbershop prizes has put the school in the limelight of at least the US barbershop community.
• References not very impressive. I have deleted all Facebook references and tried to be clear on the rest of the references. They look a bit more impressive now, don't they?
• Doublets. How do I condense "google books in one place, and isbn in another place" into a singleton? Pls advice!

Cheers! Andersneld (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• separate the independent third-party refs. I suppose this refers to references #8, 10, 13 and 16 that link to the school's own home page? I look forward to learning what to do about this! Andersneld (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Andersneld, I'm going to ping 74 and get him/her here :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I clearly have a lot to learn: How do you ping someone on Wikipedia? Andersneld (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

With a registered editor, you link to their username and they get a red number at the top of their screen from the notification system: Andersneld, for example (I used the {{U|name}} template, but we used to use the longform like one sees in a signature). But since he/she is an IP, tehre are no notifications and I have to jump up and down on his/her talk page instead :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Yngvadottir is down with the worst case of the flu in six generations we should move this discussion to the AfC page, but the short answers are, oral sources are not WP:V but we can put *facts* into the article, inline citations are only required if somebody challenges the statement. That said, anything especially positive ("100% of the members of 100% of the barbershop quartets in the entire country of Sweden attended AFMS") are 'likely to be challenged'. I expect Yngvadottir already knows about the ref-condense and the WP:FOOTNOTE stuff, but the easiest way is showing you how, by doing it and then letting you see the result. Talk to you soon, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yngvadottir. You have new messages at Ujjwal234goel's talk page.
Message added 10:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ujjwal234goel (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Hope you are having a wonderful time!!!! Fixed the challenge, thanks to you. Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) We still have a while to wait, here (backward environment '-) ) but all the best for 2014 to you, too. (And to any friendly talkpage stalkers!) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Can't help it, I just get more and more ideas. It is getting out of hands somehow... Hafspajen (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your courage and for exceling at maintaining civility in the midst of well - heated situations. Hafspajen (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Aww, thanks :-) Kind of ironic for someone who swears as much as me off-wiki tho' '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• But you should do that too. It is healthy to do so, in private. Nobody will hear that, eh? Hafspajen (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

More advice please

Rays of light, symbolically represented as horns on the head of Moses (Michelangelo), can be a graphic symbol of Wisdom

Do you have any suggestions about how to deal with the continued attacks from Beyond My Ken. His latest action was quite offensive. I went to his talkpage to ask for help with understanding his mysterious attitude towards me, and he deleted my contribution without any response and with the summary: "I don't allow trolling socks to post here". Isn't that a gratuitous contravention of both the "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" principles? And that on top of his other attacks elsewhere. Jaggee (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker):Listen, I would leave him alone. People do have the right to remove things from their own talkpage, you know. As Drmies said, try to find something else to do. Or try to forget the whole thing. Yngvadottir is probably not available because it is night in Europe now. There is plenty other things to do on the Wikipedia. Just take it easy. People were trying to tell you the right way to attack the copyvio problem, too. Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Get wisdom, because it is better than gold: and purchase prudence, for it is more precious than silver.
  • The Bible, The Book of Proverbs 16:16 Hafspajen (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• @Jaggee: Having dealt with BMK before, and knowing editors who have dealt with him, I suggest you ask Drmies for help. Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I got little to offer. If BMK doesn't want someone's comments on their talk page, they have the right to say so. One could call "trolling socks" a personal attack, but BMK believes, no doubt, he has good reason to say so, and thus one could argue it was a personal attack made in good faith, as odd as that may sound. We don't make the world and its inhabitants: we have to do the best with what's there. (For the record, BMK is a valued editor and has contributed greatly to our project.) I can't make someone behave, whatever "behave" means, according to whose standards. If I could, this place would look a lot different--and Yngvadottir would be in charge. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And there is an old party rule to keep in mind: If everybody is telling you you are drunk, you better belive it, go home and sleep. This is just a joke, but what I mean, sometimes is better to listen to what people say. There are a bunch of people here telling you the same thing basically: take it easy and drop the thing. Hafspajen (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I gather then that people who the administrators are afraid of can do as they please, as rudely as they please, despite what the policies may say. OTOH, no doubt, if anyone else behaved half as badly they would be harshly dealt with. Jaggee (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That dismissal on his talkpage was rude, yes, but as Drmies told you, editors have wide latitude regarding their talk pages (some forbid unregistered editors to post there, for example, which is also contrary to our overall philosophy). To some extent it's personal space. I'm sorry you ran into so much hostility, but as I explained to you, your report came at a bad time when emotions were running high, and you escalated unwisely fast and used words that others found rude. To be frank ... while some editors have indeed built reputations here and are accorded respect for it, the overall situation is that this is a massive project that brings together many different kinds of people, from many different places, and with a surprisingly wide variety of interaction norms. Our philosophy is that one way of dealing with this - turning the environment into a massive bureaucracy - would be deleterious, so we try as far as we can to rely on people to be aware that there will be differences and disagreements, and to maintain a fundamental respect for their fellow editors. This is expressed in the civility requirement, and as I've said, I am sorry you were treated rudely, but you were also seen as being unduly brusque and then rude to the other editor. Now I'm asking you to please model what you are asking for, which is respect, and set this nasty interaction aside for now. It's a big project and you will meet many interesting and kind collaborators here; don't let rancour about a couple of people's interaction style fester, rather show them a better spirit, would be my counsel. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind advice and for your welcome. I decided to be bold and create that page according to the instructions that you provided, the article is basically a translation from de.Wikipedia. Regards. :) Nikolas Tales (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks....

...for fixing the author field for that ref on The Kitchen. I looked and looked, but couldn't find the name. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

np, it was lurking at the end of Page 2 in the form of an e-mail address @ the publication. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, Sent you an e-mail. Thanks. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

scientific misconduct article

Hi,

I suspect you misunderstood my condemnation. Cluebot has been systematically deleting quite legitimate articles and I no longer care to contribute to Wikipedia because of this.

Separately, I have complaints about how the scientific misconduct article is composed. I could say a great deal about hand picking what one chooses to call suitable 3rd party references. I am convinced that stating the existence of signed documents that demonstrate how ethics committees and chancellors disagree is crucial to public perception. It calls into question how reliable some 3rd party information is or can be. — User_talk:79.102.63.209 at 21:09, 5 January 2014‎

I'll go have a chat with 79 about this rogue boht. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah.

How I hate people doing this. There are those butchers who run over lots and lots of peoples work, that they added and start shouting, no refs, and bucher away everything. As long as nobody starts asking for refs (as far as I know) so there is no need to ask, if it is not a controvery. This is one of the nice thing about Wikipedia that one can read about how other people do with they Christmas, breakfast and so on. Here went half of the breakfast article, for somebody found it unsupportablen not to have refs.->Unsourced_content_removed_from_article in most uncontroversial stuff. Things that are difficult to find in other places. And here we go, deleting lots of peoples work just because someone starts questioning stuff like this. Is this really so disputed? Why not find some refs before start deleting everything? This is just cruelty. Most probably finding refs for stuff like this is not hard at all. Is this really building a Wikipedia, deleting half of the the Chrismas worldwide? This guy is editing since 27 November 2013 and already deleted half of the article, "good job".. How really nice and cute... Hafspajen (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Finealt is blocked for an unrelated issue. Your restoration said "vandalism" and I don't agree with that term, but I do agree with your revert. It is, BTW, a really long article. God Jul, Drmies (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry about that Drmies, realised that myself, but I did belive that at the time thought it was unnoticed vandalism, thinking that it might be some high Chistmas traffic incident. Later when I went back to check who did it, thinking I need to leave a message on their talkpage and noticed this editor. But then it was to late, I was not able to undo my comment, because of the many edits I made, so it was "too late, that's it". Hafspajen (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that was a bit of butchering of content. Like it or not, we have a lot of legacy content - some of it from before references were required - and it would be better for the encyclopedia if people looked for sources, added tags to some of what they are unable to source, and were more judicious in what they outright cut. You appear to have done a good job finding references. But I did restore one later bit of pruning in one section - I agree with Bonadea that it's undue to make a big deal out of an alternate date for Christmas in one particular country when several Eastern traditions share it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly, it would be better for the encyclopedia if people looked for sources, added tags to some of what they are unable to source, aren't we building here an encyclopaedia wot or what? And if they were more judicious in what they outright cut, the Breakfast article would be still there, istead of like half of it, as it is now. A little pruning is fine with me. I restored the content by clicking on an older version, dec 18, so some of the good or justified additions went too, as it was wery difficult to see what happened and what not, due to the large removals all over the article. Hafspajen (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Let Yngvadottir Sleep!

How's your flu now? Hafspajen (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Yngvadottir has the flu she says it's only a bad cold, and she keeps fretting about stuff on Wikipedia. I'm trying to make her go to bed and stay there. Please don't encourage her bad habits. Kobnach (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Kobnach, pleasure to meet you, please call me 74. You can just twist Yngvadottir's arm, or earlobe as the case might be, and have them full-protect their own talkpage.  :-)   That should do the trick. But personally, I recommend a more drastic solution — just go to the basement, flip off the appropriate circuit-breakers, swipe the batteries from their computer hardware, to include phones and tablets and wii/xbox/ps4 and whatnots that might have internet access... finally, tell them to take two of these, drink plenty of fluids, and call you in 36 hours. Then barricade their doors and windows from the outside. (And don't forgot to leave them this for dealing with WP:FLOW.)

  If you really insist on being WP:NICE, you can leave them with a pencil (tape the word "save" on one side and "edit" on the other side of the pencil's body), and the hardback volume 'M' of the 1988 World Book print-encyclopedia (explain to them it uses an upgraded PhysualEditor software interface), plus give them a little spiral-bound notebook with TALKPAGE written on the cover. That way, they can WP:IMAGINE they are still editing an encyclopedia, and WP:RELAX enough to get better. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia, tell Yngvadottir no worries, the wikiFauna got things under control. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We will manage without for a while. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you 74.192.84.101. The problem with disabling the household internet is that I've got just as severe an internet addiction, and if I merely disabled her machines, I'd come home and find her using mine ;-) I was happy to find her asleep when I got home from work. But she immediately bounced out of bed and the next thing I knew she was telling me to check this thread. Kobnach (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Out of sympathy with Yngvadottir, I might just turn off the netbook and crawl in next to Mrs. Drmies tonight, looking to flip that circuit-breaker. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

All right, all right, I'll go back to bed. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Natti natti--naptime here! Let Hafspajen hold the fort. Mrs. Drmies made a kind of orange roll, with a dough full of butter. Next time we'll thrown in some cardamom and pretend we're all Scandinavians called Ingrid. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh :-) I feel really strange and I find I forgot to do two important off-wiki things yesterday. Kobnach is trying to get me to go back to bed. I hope nothing complex comes up, wrestling with citation templates appears to be about my maximum level today. Sorry all. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• My name is not Ingrid, dear Ingrid Drmies. Don't worry, Yngvadottir, Drmies will resolve everything, in his new Swedish mood. Hafspajen (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bed! Now! Git! Kobnach (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Drink lots of warm drinks like hot tea with lemon, eggtoddy and eat garlic or if you don't like that eat lots of gorgonzola cheese, it is the same penicilin like the penicilin mould ordered by the doctors - and read a good book. Hafspajen (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nice bed! Hafspajen (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lara Bingle 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:

• accessdate=17 June 2011|newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph (Australia)|''The Daily Telegraph'' (Australia]]|date=11 August 2010}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Pertaining Time: Thanks be the Width, for I need know naught of the Length

I am a new author and you are the first "seasoned" contributor, which I have had the joy of stumbling over. I feel as someone who might have said, "I knew, but now I see. This life, in vitro, tis' in front of me".

~I believe that nothing ever happens and is random, but that everything is random en route; Playing host to many connections all at once, where all are able to happen. SecondBorn2BLikeMe (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) You'll find this is a very large community with some wonderful people in it. I'm going to put a welcome template on your talk page that will give you some links to read more about our rules and guidelines and where to look for ideas for what to work on. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaudiya Nritya

See Wikipedia:AN3#User:RupalDel_reported_by_User:Drmies_.28Result:_.29: the plot thickens. I think there's obvious socking going on. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmm yeah, definitely an edit warrior; I cannot see why on earth my edit merited reversion. But I've now involved myself and besides, I freely admit I know next to nothing about Indian classical dance. Sigh. How they think this will benefit the article even before they started socking/meatpuppeting is a mystery to me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor you. But the problem is solved. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Obiwan Bish :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could be a nice new name for bishzilla and company... Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gaudiya Nritya, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vandalism from different IDs, Destructive towards a public article, what more!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sogkol (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)