User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:31, 31 December 2008

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Review block of User:DreamGuy

See User talk:DreamGuy. Normally, I dismiss such unblock requests out of hand as themselves rediculous, however, I feel as though he has a point here. There does appear to be a clear consensus established at the talk page via several days of consensus building discussions, including an RFC. The other editor blocked in the dispute is the only one who seems to dispute the inclusion of the material, and does seem to be clearly editing in contravention of an otherwise established consensus. Could you perhaps review this block in more detail, and see what you think? Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He's emailed me requesting an unblock, and I think that he edits are covered by 3RR exceptions and would like to see him unblocked. dougweller (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein, after review the case there appears to be rather strong consensus to unblock, so I have done so. Please do not take this as an act of wheel warring, and by no means do I feel this block was abusive or improper just not needed. (We all make mistakes). If you have an issue, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or shoot me an email. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but I disagree. Reverting someone else while screaming at him is, in my eyes, the "confrontative use of reverts" that we commonly describe as edit warring. Sandstein 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and that was portrayed to DreamGuy. But I am not sure a block was the correct course of action. Maybe a warning? Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others would have given a warning, possibly. For my part, I seldom issue warnings for something the user in question has already been blocked for several times. At any rate, I am very surprised that several administrators appear to condone his actions because his reverts were made in accordance with a perceived consensus (I've not really looked at the actual content being warred over.) I had thought it to be common knowledge that edit warring is not the way to go about enforcing consensus. Moreover, the other principal edit warrior was also blocked (and I declined his unblock request). I'll not continue to argue over this unblock, which I continue to believe was ill-advised, but I don't think that I'll act differently in a similar situation. Sandstein 22:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Iross1000

Hi Sandstein,
with regard to the block of Iross1000, I would like to direct your attention to the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Indef_Block_of_Iross1000. WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation is used to dealing with disruptive editing in this area, and Iross1000's behaviour is in the opinion of some regulars to that project not worth a block. Since he is a newbie, probably from Sri Lanka, I feel that he might not really understand the procedure to appeal a block, which is why I would like to ask you to review the block in the light of the arguments given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Indef_Block_of_Iross1000

Regards Jasy jatere (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. An admin will review his most recent request shortly. But the admin you should be talking to is Khoikhoi (talk · contribs), who issued the block. He's the one to decide whether it'll be lifted. Sandstein 18:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Sandstein, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 12:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sandstein 12:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and to you too, of course. Sandstein 12:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haefely emc

Dear Sandstein, Regarding the article for Deletion: haefely emc.

I don't understand your comment that "no sources are found in the article or on Google to prove that this is a notable company", what exactly should pop up when you do a search because there are hundreds of articles and information that pops up when you do a Google search, could you please clarify? Do you need some further references from us? (please help us understand). The reason we want an article about our company, is because there is a list existing in the "Electromagnetic Compatibility" article with the main EMC Test equipment manufacturers, a few of which are only small players in the "test" manufacturing business. We proceeded to enter our name in the list, and we wanted to add an article about our company. Understanding that Wikipedia is not used as a promotional tool, we understood that we should just enter some basic info about our company, what we do, our history, information about EMC with links to other articles in Wikipedia, and a link to our page if someone wants to find out more. We actually used the Rohde and Schwarz article (listed also in the manufacturer list, this is a company we also partner with) as a guideline on how the article should look like, and we don't see any difference. We want to make the changes that are necessary to keep an article on our company in Wikipedia, but we are finding difficult to figure out what exactly needs to be changed. We are finding it difficult to figure out what exactly needs to be changed, as the guidelines on what shouldn't be included and what should be included is complicated. Who can help us on what needs to be changed? Thanks, martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinyiap (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was written on behalf of its subject. Our conflicts of interest guideline strongly discourages companies writing articles about themselves.
It does not reference reliable published third-party sources for its content. That's a problem because:

The lack of such references makes the article unverifiable as defined by our policy WP:V.
The lack of such references makes us unable to determine whether the company is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, as described in our guideline WP:ORG.

If these problems are addressed before the ongoing deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haefely emc, concludes in about five days, it ma be kept. I advise you, however, to wait for someone else to write an article about your company instead of doing it yourself. Your company may help Wikipedia editors to do so by reporting substantial press coverage about your company on your website (which will help to establish notability) and by publishing content on your website under the CC-BY-SA licence, which will allow it to be reused on Wikipedia. Sandstein 10:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haefely emc

We have made several changes to the article "haefely EMC". Please let us know if it is ok now. We appreciate any support and advise from your side to help us keep an article about us on Wikipedia. We are new at this and we are doing our best to follow the wikipedia article writing rules. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinyiap (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these changes do not address the problems outlined above. No reliable sources have been added, and the article is still written by a company representative. Sandstein 10:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Berner Haselnusslebkuchen

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berner Haselnusslebkuchen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tirggel

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tirggel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Heap

Angels Heap is a single and I think is notable enough to have an article. If you think it is badly written re-write it rather than simply redirecting it to Finn! This is the same template as I used for Suffer Never and you have no problem with THAT! Will (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a problem with that, too, but frankly I don't care much. If you want to write articles about songs, please first check whether they meet WP:N and whether there's actually something to say about them. An article that just says "this is a song from album X" isn't really worth creating. Also, "their" is spelled "their", not "there". Sandstein 14:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header inserted here

You put a comment on the bottom of my talk page which I am responding to. I genuinely don't understand why you put that comment there, could you please explain to me what you believe is problematic about the edits I made? You said that the edits I made to the Bat, Generation, and Dream articles bordered on vandalism, but I have no idea wht would give you that impression. I believe that the facts I used in those edits were correct, and reflect common usage. The facts for the Bat and Dream page I found on this web page: http://www.davesdaily.com/interesting/40-interesting-facts.htm. I have no reason to believe that the facts on this page are innacurate. I think interesting but relatively unknown facts like this are helpful contributions to Wikipedia articles. The edit I made on the Generation page reflect what I believe to be a consensus about these generational demarcations. Even if I accidntally got one of these facts wrong, I was certainly acting in good faith. I just checked on Wikipedia's vandalism article and it says: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I want to continue to be a helpful editor on Wikipedia, so if I am somehow inncorrectly editing, please tell me specifically what I am doing that is incorrect. I don't believe that I have engaged in vandalism of any kind here, but just in case I have, I would like to know how, so I don't do it again. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your talk. Sandstein 08:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and to you as well! Sandstein 15:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Badger Drink

May I ask why you deleted User talk:Badger Drink as G8? I'm slightly confused. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G8 of Badger Drink's talk

~~Seriously, what? G8 doesn't even apply! — neuro^(talk) 16:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

That was a misconfiguration of WP:TW. It also deleted the talk page after I deleted User:Badger Drink per G3. Sandstein 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, although I might add that blaming the software does not exempt you from policy. Have a nice day! :) — neuro^(talk) 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it did, of course; it was a mistake. Sandstein 16:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if my previous comment (16:38) may have came across as a little too harsh. If so, sorry, it was only intended to be a reminder, not a slap on the wrist. — neuro^(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks. Sandstein 17:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISMB

Sorry about the ISMB apparent copyright violation.

I did have permission from ISCB to put text from the ISCB web site into Wikipedia, but the ISCB website admistrators have not updated the copyright notices for the "press-release" material yet.

I should have put the stub under the full title "International Society for Computational Biology" anyway. I'm putting an edited stub there (one that shouldn't trigger any copyright problems).

The ISCB is starting a project to add content to Wikipedia about our conferences, our prize winners, and other subjects of interest to our members. Much of this material is currently on the iscb.org website, and we'd like to get it into Wikipedia without triggering speedy deletion. Any suggestions?

Kevin k (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To begin with, we strongly recommend that organizations do not write about themselves on Wikipedia; see WP:COI. Accounts that are determined to be dedicated solely to promoting someone or something, even a non-profit organization, may be blocked from editing. Articles should also contain references to third party publications to prove that their subject is notable.

To allow others to use the content of your website in Wikipedia, please add a disclaimer to the website stating that the content is licenced under the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licence (a permission just for reuse on Wikipedia is not enough because we only accept freely licenced content; see WP:C.). The website must then be cited as a source in the article, with reference to its copyleft status. We particularly appreciate high-quality images or other media suitable for illustrating encyclopedic topics. Thanks! Sandstein 17:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we've got a group of bioinformatics researchers who want to improve the bioinformatics content of wikipedia, including adding entries for the main bioinformatics organizations, some of the notable bioinformaticians, conferences, and journals, as well as improving some of the pages on bioinformatics topics. For example, we want to put up or edit bios for the annual winners for the ISCB Senior Scientist and Overton Prize awards (several of them already have Wikipedia entries, though not all mention these prizes). I believe that the intended edits do not trigger any conflicts of interest.

Question: does the license used by PLoS meet Wikipedia standards? Some of the material we want to post has previously appeared in PLoS Computational Biology articles---it would save time if some of that could be reused without extensive rewrites.

Kevin k (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the Public Library of Science, they use the CC-BY licence, so that would be OK. Wikipedia uses a slightly different licence, the GFDL, but I believe that should not be an obstacle in practice, especially as Wikipedia will probably soon chance to CC.

Note, though, that scientific papers may need changes (apart from wikicode formatting etc.) before being imported: Wikipedia articles (or at least their lead sections) should be written at a level accessible to the educated layman, which may not be the case with scientific papers. Sandstein 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlangSlang

Did you read my talk page? I've noticed you've yet to delete the entries for other dictionaries found under slang. I was curious what makes those articles different?? Snowmaninthesun (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the article at issue; see the box at the top. Sandstein 18:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionandbabylon

Hi there, I am fountainsofwoodvillewake. Recently you blocked my other account Zionandbabylon, stating "vandalism" as a reason. I would appreciate it if you could unblock zionandbabylon, along with my other accounts: samthemaniloveut, alowciousbeaudelay and marcustheostrichfamer. Thankyou

Fountainsofwoodvillewake (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Italic text[reply]

Please request unblock with your principal account. See WP:GAB. Sandstein 20:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

db-r3

Hi. I found these as part of a pattern of strange redirects from bizarre titles. There is no CSD criterion per se for these (since they were not recently created) however I would have expected you to use your admin discretion which you have been entrusted with. Consider whether these redirects serve any value whatsoever or whether they are simply placed as an act of vandalism or mischief. I rest my case. Zunaid 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not subject to a CSD, there's no discretion to exercise and you are generating unnecessary work for admins. Please use WP:RFD if you think these redirects are useless. Sandstein 08:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about an abrupt response. You could have instead looked at the merits of these redirects rather than the mere technicality that they weren't found out recently enough after their creation. It just means that they were missed by RC Patrol on creation and that they've been sitting undetected for far too long. Imagine we had that attitude to other types of vandalism too? Nonetheless I'm not here to argue, you may wish to comment on the rfd's at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 28. Zunaid 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge adminning

First Lankiveil, now you? When will the rougery end? Badger Drink (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain more fully...

You deleted the article Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami early. 5 x 24 hours is the rule. I was working on my opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I have undone the closure. Sandstein 10:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!

Thank you for reinstating my editing privileges! This marks the end of a sporadic but lengthy battle. Thanks! (tobobo (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ettore Pozzoli

Hello Sendstein. I have re edited the page Ettore Pozzoli changing the text according to the indication that came out after you saw it. The text I used was the only one in english that I had found. Anyway, I hope that now it is acceptable by Wiki. Thanks. --Vpower1962 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ettore Pozzoli doesn't seem to be a copyright violation now, so it's all right. Sandstein 13:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Transfiguration

Hello! If you have the time please take a look at my nominee for DYK, the Church of the Transfiguration. Thank you! --Fipplet (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK credits not given

Hello! The previous slate of DYK candidates from today, including one that included my article A Daughter of the Congo, did not receive DYK notices around 14:51. However, the articles did receive templates -- I assume there is a bot problem. Can you please send out DYK notices to the editors whose work was honoured earlier today? Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wouldn't know how to do so, or which articles are concerned. I don't think that I have had any involvement with the DYK processing of A Daughter of the Congo. Sandstein 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles involved are from 20:55, 28 December 2008 -- all are listed in the archive. I am not certain who is responsible for this -- User:Dravecky put the list together, but I am not certain whether this is his bailiwick (he has not been online for several hours -- I only contacted since you appear to be the only DYK-related admin online at the moment). Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inre my DYK entry

The article on Daniel St. Pierre has now gone through some substative changes and additional sources have been added. I would ask you to consider either removing the notability tag you have placed on it or send it immediately to AfD so this matter can be resolved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soemone seems to have removed the tag already. Sandstein 07:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I noticed. It happened a few minutes after I posted a response update at the DYK page and my notice above. There are a few admins and project co-ordinators who keep a watch-eye on my work and I appreciate their proactive assistances. However, you have ensured that I will never do a DYK submission ever again. Happy Holidays. See you at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing intentions are none of my business, but I think it's your loss if you take disagreements with respect to the application of our guidelines that seriously. I don't intend to AfD the article; the notability tag has served its purpose in that the notablility of the subject is now a bit clearer. Sandstein 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging the improvements. However, and with respects, I'll stick to the occasional article and continued rescuing and forego any further considertaions of DYK submissions. Best regards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email ping

Hi there Sandstein, I've just emailed you - it's nothing important, but it'd be great if you could have a read when you've got a spare minute. Regards, --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblock notice on B'command

Hiya. I was wondering if per Nixeagle the indefblock notice could be left off for now? It's sort of inflaming the situation, and I'm trying to help BC calm down a bit and find a way to return productively. I don't want to just revert because I don't want to start an editwar. // roux 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, this was previously done - which drew this response from me. While consensus seems to be heading in the indef block direction at the moment, it may be acts like this that may reverse that position. I would prefer if you were to undo the edit. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; done. Sandstein 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. // roux 23:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecco

Impressive work! :) Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sandstein 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add back the Miss Pakistan World document. Here are sites for proof:

http://misspakistanworld.com/ http://misspakistanworldofficial.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.210.90 (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the article at issue; see the box at the top. Sandstein 09:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

found the article... miss pakistan world

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Miss_Pakistan_World_(deleted_17_Jun_2008_at_18:39)

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Ahmed

(Sonisona (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please see my request above. Sandstein 10:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Meldemannstraße dormitory

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meldemannstraße dormitory, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK process

I apologize if I disrupted the DYK process. The source in question uses the wording "perhaps" the name relates to the growth pattern. That didn't seem convincing nor did the explanation. So I was curious if there was a good source with a better explanation, perhaps supporting the very reasonable idea that the kidney shaped mushroom with a distinctive appearance that to my eyes resembles a brain cross section might have been named "clever" for its appearance. The editor didn't seem to agree or be interested, so I've gone looking myself. I'm learning more about the mushroom genus in the process, but haven't found any sources that indicate any reasoning behind the mushroom's name. As the DYK process is related to the encyclopedia, I treat it as part of the effort to build a better encyclopedia. In my experience this is often achieved by asking reasonable questions. In answering them, clearer more complete articles are often a result. I'm sorry if I erred in this case and I will try to do a better job in the future. "Perhaps" the explanation that is offered from a single source and inconsistently explained in the article and the DYK hook explanation is right. I don't know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I would point out that I didn't propose my explanation be added to the article. I was proposing an alternative explanation that made sense to me and would need to be sourced. When I read an article and I have a question about it I ask. Often there's a reason it's not clear or the original author didn't realize how it came across. Other times editors don't like to be questioned, so typically I leave it be. The best editors welcome questions because it hones their editing and offers an outside perspective. In this case, the author of one source made a speculation, which seem bogus to me, and it's being reported in the introduction to an article. I questioned it, and when the answer came back, I followed up. Had a better explanation been found in a good source, that would have been a good outcome. I can't find a better source, and I'm not an expert in the field, but I don't think pursuing enquiries to make sure articles are accurate and use the best sources is disruptive. I still think the "perhaps" speculation is dodgy. In my opinion it's been given undue weight in the article, and frankly I was mostly curious and wanted to find out if there was support for a better explanation. There isn't. So no harm no foul. I'm not especially worried about it. I've seen your work on Wikipedia and I've been impressed, so I take your criticisms seriously. Take care. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Sandstein, could you do me a favor and look into the AfD on Centrist Party? It doesn't appear to me to be listed with the other AfDs. As it's a couple days old, I'm not sure where to add it. Maybe I'm just missing where it's listed? It's from a newish user, so they'd be happy to have help if they didn't do it right. Anyway, I'm going to try not to make a fool of myself again until at least until 2009, so your help is appreciated. ;) Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pakistan World cause for deletion

Problem with the article was the people who were writing it started adding only the controversies.. and not the idea and the idea of the event. they did not want anything with a blalance besides saying that its controversial. So it was deleted... and no one has written an article on it with a balanced note. (Sonisona (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

That also does not address the issue of its notability. Sandstein 12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Historiography of Switzerland

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Historiography of Switzerland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
 :That also does not address the issue of its [[WP:N|notability]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
+== DYK for Historiography of Switzerland ==
+{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
+|-
+|[[Image:Updated DYK query.svg|15px|Updated DYK query]]
+|On [[31 December]], [[2008]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with {{#if:|facts|a fact}} from the article{{#if:|s|}} '''''[[Historiography of Switzerland]]'''''{{#if:|{{#if:|, |, and}} '''''[[{{{4}}}]]'''''
+}}{{#if:|{{#if:|, |, and}} '''''[[{{{5}}}]]'''''
+}}{{#if:|, and '''''[[{{{6}}}]]'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
+|} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> [[User:Cirt|Cirt]] ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)