Jump to content

User talk:MB: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Informing edit
Informing edior of my edit and thanking him for showing me the right way.
Line 146: Line 146:


:{{u|Stretchrunner II}}, there is nothing wrong with using accessdate; I would not have even changed them to access-date had I not been making some other changes to the article at the same time. All articles should have a short description. If you don't add one, someone else will eventually come along and do so. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 15:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Stretchrunner II}}, there is nothing wrong with using accessdate; I would not have even changed them to access-date had I not been making some other changes to the article at the same time. All articles should have a short description. If you don't add one, someone else will eventually come along and do so. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 15:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for correcting my edits on the Roberto McCausland Dieppa inbox I did include Paulina Vega Dieppa after I saw your notes. Thank you.[[User:Deanna Coakley|Deanna Coakley ]] ([[User talk:Deanna Coakley|talk]]) 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for correcting my edits on the Roberto McCausland Dieppa inbox I did include Paulina Vega Dieppa after I saw your notes. Thank you.[[User:Deanna Coakley|Deanna Coakley ]] ([[User talk:Deanna Coakley|talk]]) 18:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:52, 29 December 2021

DYK-worthy topic: recycled stained glass from churches bombed in WWII, used in ND Episcopal church completed in 1949

Hi there, I haven't been very conversant, and not super-active, for quite a while, and particularly not in DYK area. But the topic of Draft:St. George's Episcopal Memorial Church seems pretty interesting, and I wonder if you'd like to develop it and submit it to DYK, either by yourself or with me too? It is mildly newsworthy/timely for DYK in that the church was just now (October 5, 2021) listed in the NRHP. But the interesting stuff is the windows. The source from around its 75th anniversary details which stained glass window derives from, or at least includes fragments from, which (bombed out) church in Kent, etc. I am hopeful we could link to the specific English churches/parishes whose buildings contributed. I think I saw one window was from 400 a.d. or 800 a.d. or the church was from that time. It is asserted this is only church in the US with windows like this; I have not ever heard of anything like this myself. Not sure if the stained glass designs copy the original churches' designs or not, or if they just include fragments. There is also assertion this is the "first building in the northern U.S. to use pumice concrete", whatever that is. Have a lot of sourcing, though have not found the NRHP registration document for it, but that could be requested, old-style from NPS, and/or found by contacting people in Bismarck, e.g. the named news reporter(s) or the church itself or the Bismarck Historical Society (about to have its annual mtg Nov 10). I would be happy to make those calls if we can't find it online somewhere first. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, here is the form (or at least a preliminary version, but in glancing at it there are two churches in England that "donated" glass. [1]. I don't have a lot of time right now, but can work on it as time permits. MB 04:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just found that too. I could email the author to confirm it is final or obtain the final version. So with the old source from 75th anniversary, there is a lot available. Seems like there are no photos at Commons; it is not in Media related to Churches in Burleigh County, North Dakota at Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for taking a look and responding so quickly. No rush at all. DYK clock has not started as it is in Draftspace. Okay by me if you want to copy it over later and leave edit history behind, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram Done with first pass. Take a look, fix any problems, give feedback, etc. Took some info from the draft nom form, assuming there weren't significant changes made before it was finalized. Took hours of tedious searching to find the links for all the English churches that "donated" glass. Now that I have done that, I'm not sure they will survive - someone else might remove them as overly-detailed???? It looks like the architect is worthy of an article (there is a lot on him in the nom form). There are two links in See also section to things related to the architect - but there isn't really much there to see. Would be nice to expand those articles before we sent this to DYK (and maybe write one on the architect). Help out any way you can. MB 06:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously well-researched, well-written by you; you do great work. IMO the biggest remaining need is to assert importance/uniqueness of church in incorporating stained glass from bombed out English churches into the lede, and I just took a shot at adding that. But I don't recall, and I think it needs to be explained, what is symbolized by this. I expect it has to do with expressing solidarity with church-going people of southeast England, who had just suffered. Or something about assertion of strength and longevity and we shall overcome, about sweep and solidarity of Christianity in English empire and English-speaking Christian world, I dunno. Or is it explicitly or implicitly about common sacrifice in our "beating back the Hun" (loosely, as that was a WWI term), overcoming anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-religion Nazism. But what was said at time and later? I think the intended meaning needs to be expressed in the lede, as well as in the stained glass section.
And mentioning in the lede that the churches dated as early as 1100 A.D. would add, and/or how many were thereby represented, would help. Basically what is the most "newsworthy" or significant/unusual like in terms of what would be said in a DYK nomination, should be in the lede. I rather expect you planned to expand the lede along these lines, but were focused properly on developing the well-documented body of the article. But you/we do want readers to be excited to read through the article to get to the stained glass stuff. Not that that is the only subtopic of interest here. The lede should be longer than it is now; this is a significant article with multiple good sections and more of the ideas should be introduced or at least hinted at in the lede, IMHO.
Relatedly, I think the booklet/pamphlet/whatever it should be called, titled "St. George's Episcopal Memorial Church: A Memorial to the Pioneers of the Dakotas, 1873-1949", could/should be explicitly mentioned. Besides being used as a source, its writing and its publication and presumably wide distribution (was it sent to all the English church parishes, by the way?) seem likely of importance, as part and parcel of creating the church and communicating something to England and to the U.S. and everywhere.
I also wonder what acknowledgement/reaction from Kent/southwest England might have been, or what note was taken from any of the churches. Was this understood as a respectful gesture, or could it be just crazy American whatever not sanctioned or recognized at all, or worse actually scorned? If the point was to recognize the bombings / the suffering/damage there, was the point received there? Sorry this may be asking for something difficult to ascertain, but I would think that the local newspapers in England around 1949 or before would have covered the glass collection effort and the building and dedication of the North Dakota church. Basically, whatever was intended, how was the gesture received?
Minor thing: this is an Episcopal church, but it took glass from non-Episcopal churches mainly, I suppose. Did it take any glass from any Episcopal churches? Maybe/probably this is covered in effect by your coverage of the churches, but IIRC you did not comment explicitly about this.
I wonder, will a small see also type note be appropriate in all of the English church articles? The importance of an AD 1000 church in England derives hardly at all from some of its fragments being memorialized in North Dakota. But maybe it can be useful to communicate something about world-wide acknowledgment of the loss of the given church. And in Wikipedia we do include memorial type sections in bio articles, about what schools were named after a person, etc.
I suspect the pumice concrete thing is not really important, and perhaps the claim is not true, as, like for many other assertions of first or oldest surviving or whatever made by NRHP nominations, how would the authors know about all other churches ever constructed in U.S. history (or whatever exactly is in the claim), given that they did not have an internet and a Wikipedia to be able to know things like that. I think your coverage mentioning the assertion but not making much of it is fine. I dunno if pumice concrete should be mentioned in the lede or not; it is not what interests me anyhow.
A minor thing is that I prefer in lede to state this is North Dakota's capital and to drop Burleigh County mention, and i edited to that effect, IMO slightly better for the hopefully wide audience to this article as a DYK item and otherwise. --Doncram (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[This discussion copied to, and continued at, Draft talk:St. George's Episcopal Memorial Church. thanks, --Doncram (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)][reply]

DYK nomination of Barton, Kinder and Alderson

Hello! Your submission of Barton, Kinder and Alderson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Reviewing!

Thanks for your Continuous Support in Reviewing my Articles; written for WAM 2021. Saad Ullah Bhatti 10:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Contributing to the Miranda Brawn Article!

Hello, thanks for your contribution to the Miranda Brawn article from last week! I contact you for two reasons:
I was pretty sure that I remember right, that being a Non-Executive Director is rather a business relationship than an employee/employer connection so I googled it and found the following: "A non-executive director (NED) is a member of the board who is not part of the executive management team. They are not an employee of the company and a NED typically does not engage in the day-to-day management of the company." Founders and presidents of charities are usually also not employees of the organisations. Would you mind, if I take out the "Employer" section of the infobox? Or should we change the title "employer" to something else? <be> Another thing, I would like to ask for your thoughts and opinion, about what do you think if I should improve the article in case of neutrality? I think I have written it from a completely neutral point of view, also referred to reliable sources and verified every single statement of the page, but today the article has been tagged as "written like an advertisement". I asked the editor who placed the tag to tell me which part of the page is wrong in their opinion, as I am happy to improve it, but also happy to hear the opinion of others. Thanks, DillonPalm (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DillonPalm, The infobox can only use the fields that are defined in the template. In addition to |employer=, there are |boards= and |organization=. I've made use of those instead of employer since they do seem to be more appropriate. As far as the tone, the one thing that stands out to me is "is an expert media contributor" unless a source describes her as an expert, that should just say "a media contributor". Otherwise, it does appear factual. However, it only contains info that you would expect to see on a resume, which is probably why it is tagged as promotional. It would help to add more background info that you would expect to see in a biography (birth place, undergrad education, etc), but that may be unavailable. Perhaps the editor that placed the tag will respond with more. MB 22:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MB, thanks for your contribution again. I agree, |boards= and |organization= are more accurate. Thanks for your review, agreed and took out the word "expert". I have no information about birthplace, exact birth time and early education, otherwise, of course, I would be happy to add them. I'm looking forward for their response too. Thanks again, DillonPalm (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with an edit request for Dahua Technology

Hi MB. I am Caitlyn, and I work for Dahua Technology. I noticed that you recently edited on the Dahua Technology article, and I was hoping that you would not mind taking a look at Talk:Dahua Technology, where I placed an edit request. The request is a simple addition, including a reliable source, which adds useful information to the article. If you agree, I would be much obliged if you can make that edit. Thanks so much. Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn23, you should follow the instructions at WP:EDITREQUEST to make a formal request with the proper notifications. MB 19:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

Did you find the answer to this question?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee it looks like this edit fixed the problem. If I am wrong about that my apologies. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a note in the archives in case that helps anyone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Faezeh Shahriari article

Hello @MB:, I thank you for editing, but I have a question for you. What do you mean by setting an orphan pattern? More than 10 related articles are linked. Why did you delete some external links, what were their problems? P@yam (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Payamkermanshahi, the article is an orphan because there are no links TO it FROM other articles, so no one will ever find this article by reading another article (they can of course search for it directly). The tag can be removed if links to the article are added in other articles if there are places where such links are appropriate.
I removed the social media links because of the policy WP:NOSOCIAL. They are considered promotional - there is already one link to this person's website. Someone looking for this information could go to that website. WP does not consider a list of social media links to be encyclopedic. MB 22:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got it, thank you

P@yam (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Schools at War

The article Schools at War you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Schools at War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

URL template added to infoboxes in error; please be careful and use preview

This edit and a few like it added a URL template to an article that does not handle it well. Please use preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, Sorry, it never occurred to me that IB US county would want a bare url. That is different than most other geo-type templates. I know that there are a bunch of sports-related and TV/radio templates that work like that too - so I always preview with those. I wish there were more consistency. Same with module=, embed=, embedded= child=; image=, Image=; image_size=, image size=; etc. We could all be more productive if we didn't have to deal with this stuff. MB 22:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with that sentiment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So do I ;) - I use the url template in infoboxes, not bare urls, - wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bare urls are wrong in some infoboxes. If you click on the first link in this section, you will see what happens when you use the url template in an infobox that is coded to apply the url formatting internally. MB 23:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help

please I need help in changing user name, please help me Joni-bema (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joni-bema, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask questions. MB 02:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK if I do they can help me on it? Joni-bema (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joni-bema, certainly, that is why I referred you there. MB 02:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover

Hello, MB. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – bradv🍁 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesmond

Apologies but I removed your tweaks to Jesmond because of extensive wikifiddling and block evasion by persistent sockpuppet Politialguru. Do you want to revisit the article and see if any of your previous changes are still needed? Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t see any justification for the editor changing the infobox from academic to person on the basis of “newer information “. I would have changed it back except for your edits. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference which infobox is used, what is important it what information about the person is key/relevant for the infobox. They wanted to add Wang's political party to the infobox, and I agreed it was relevant since Wang is predicting US presidential elections. I cleaned it up so party is displaced via IB person and the other academic fields are all still there in the embedded academic infobox. MB 23:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do cleanup, on following articles?

MS Dhoni, Sachin Tendulkar have some trivia issues and other issues. These articles needed clean-up and can we creat public image or image section in these articles ? If yes how should have to write it, it's templet. Where, someone can create portal templet, I mean which section on the article. Holland Tok (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Isabella of Jerusalem" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Isabella of Jerusalem and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Isabella of Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jane Furst for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane Furst is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This autobiography/article has not improved since you tagged it back in April. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Faridpur Polytechnic Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faridpur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Jayant Varshney, her son. So I have right to edit her page. Kindly don't revert my edits.Ravindra Jain Bengali (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Barton, Kinder and Alderson

Hello! Your submission of Barton, Kinder and Alderson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Schools at War

The article Schools at War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Schools at War for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your touchups etc. on my new article. Much appreciated. I'm embarrassed when I think about my hundreds of references using "accessdate" instead of "access-date". Also, should I always be putting in a "short description" for a horse with each new article plus for other articles i.e a horse race, or an individual's bio? Stretchrunner II (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stretchrunner II, there is nothing wrong with using accessdate; I would not have even changed them to access-date had I not been making some other changes to the article at the same time. All articles should have a short description. If you don't add one, someone else will eventually come along and do so. MB 15:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for correcting my edits on the Roberto McCausland Dieppa inbox I did include Paulina Vega Dieppa after I saw your notes. Thank you.Deanna Coakley (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]