::Thanks, and looking forward to seeing you next week! [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, and looking forward to seeing you next week! [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Will reply on your page, thanks, [[User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis|Maculosae tegmine lyncis]] ([[User talk:Maculosae tegmine lyncis#top|talk]]) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Will reply on your page, thanks, [[User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis|Maculosae tegmine lyncis]] ([[User talk:Maculosae tegmine lyncis#top|talk]]) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Have added a gallery of the images you asked for, please arrange as required and thanks again for coming along. [[User:Vicswift|Vicswift]] ([[User talk:Vicswift|talk]]) 12:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Thanks a lot. Not science though, it's from the Aeneid - 'the hide of a dappled lynx', supposedly worn by the virgin huntress sister of Venus - and from there is borrowed for the Inferno for one of the three beasts symbolizing concupiscence...
Your work is the best thing I've found in Wikipedia - though I hope you will be doing the same for ICPs shortly... I've found it a fantastic resource as I've tried to find my way around and would be very pleased to help where I can, especially on populating the intangibles. Thank you for the invite, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egg and spoon DYK
Hi: You wanted this to run in the evening on 27 July, but it's already in a prep. In case you'd still rather it run at the start of the Olympics (I presume that's the idea but I'm honestly not sure of the exact dates of the pesky things), I wanted to give you a heads-up to ask for the nomination to be unclosed and put in the special occasions holding area. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Daughter of Yngvi (er, perhaps your Latin's better than my Icelandic); yes, that was my original hope - but it looks like there's pressure to keep the number of sporty hooks down over the period, so I'm not going to kick up a stink; thanks though, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Yngvi-Freyr '-) Your Icelandic/Old Norse may well be better than my Latin :-) OK then, pity, but it does make a fine picture hook. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Portillo
The case pages should now be locked, since the case closed, so I thought I'd answer here. I picked Portillo deliberately - his timing was exquisite. That interview with the Times badly took the wind out of the sails of the rest of the press. Much better than trying to get a superinjunction, which just guarantees that whatever you're trying to hide is plastered all over the entire internet for weeks. Portillo must always have known that some day it would come out - realistically, Fae should have not expected to be able to keep his pre-Fae activities separate from his post-Fae persona once he had achieved a Wikimedia profile as a 'real person'. He was just too late in acknowledging this. Maybe Portillo just had better advisers. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to drop by; interesting parallel - perhaps a greater understanding of how bloodlust is unlikely to leave any skeletons in the closet and lesser expectations of privacy; I know nothing of User:Fæ's misdemeanours, just have come across some of his articles and once spent a happy afternoon in his company plotting things GLAM; since blocks/bans are preventative rather than punitive, I just wonder whether it really is in everyone's best interests to ban someone sufficiently knowledgeable and capable to appear in Parliament, especially since he's explicitly undertaken to leave any more questionable activities behind; when searching for the diff for his apology I chanced upon some of the vile abuse his page attracts; I guess in the end it boils down to compassion, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the chap really, and wouldn't like to say whether he was trying to avoid old problems coming to light or avoid being connected to the photos of himself displaying his more unusual - but perfectly legal - interests, or what his concern was. But he seems to be such a flamboyant and outspoken character that it was pretty inevitable that some faction would come after him - there's way too much politics on the go in this project. It is his attempts to keep a lid on it that blew up on him, not the original problems (or even the photos). There's a six month 'break' clause in the ban - hopefully putting six months distance between himself and all this controversy will allow him to return to editing and be left alone by both his current opponents and the peanut gallery. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited does not exist. I believe its premise may have failed fact checking (but perhaps only after it was initially put online, then immediately removed?), in either, I hope you agree it is not a good source if it has been retracted by the publisher. 60.224.166.33 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response - but you can find the article here [2]; just a quick word of advice: this general area is, as you can imagine, fraught with difficulties - and blocks and bans of editors are two-a-penny; it was partly to save you from being given a warning for being a vandal or sock puppet or something that I descended upon your page; in general, be doubly sure what you're doing abides by the rules bandied around here, like Neutral Point of View and Reliable Sourcing, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good question - per The Rest Is Noise[3] it's The Flying Dutchman Overture as Sight-Read by a Bad Spa Orchestra by the Village Well at Seven in the Morning; per the recording I have knocking around somewhere [4] it's Overture to the "Flying Dutchman" as played at sight by a second-rate Concert Orchestra at the Village Well at 7 o'clock in the morning, but that seems to miss out the Kur bit, which I think's related not to Cur but to thermal cure; please, pretty please... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article is missing in English! "Kurkapelle" is a standard term for an orchestra playing in a spa to entertain the "Kurgäste". The first translation is better, but this English capitalisation makes it look less funny, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps: looking closer: "village well" may be the typical translation for "Brunnen", but I don't know a village that is a spa, "second-rate" is wrong, German has "zweitklassig", but this one is plain "bad", "vom Blatt" might be "prima vista", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts; the first looks better apart from the over-capitalisation; re Brunnen, "village" seems to be a slight embellishment/poetic license to emphasize the mediocrity and suggest this isn't a leading metropolitan ensemble - certainly sounds better even if not strictly accurate, and there's now good precedent... (or "local" as an alternative if there's an issue with spa-towns being towns? a nice point that could easily be missed by those without the relevant cultural background); "bad" seems much better/more accurate, and I think there's little risk of it being misread as the orchestra of a bad spa; and I really like prima vista for vom Blatt, although I guess it's going to have to stay as sight-read; The Flying Dutchman Overture as sight-read by a bad spa orchestra at the _____ well at 7 in the morning ? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watching with pleasure, you don't need me ;) When one of my red links was born, Hindemith, a friend of the Jung family in Rüdesheim, composed a Rag, music lost, but entry in the guest book, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks; I'm sure you're right about further expansion potential and I'll probably come back to it at some point, if and when I stumble upon something; I never lose hope that one of the purposes of dyk is to draw people into expanding and improving works very much still in progress, even if it doesn't often happen while on the front page, in my limited experience; sometimes, as here, there are big improvements while on the nominations page, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like Schon gewusst - but shouldn't there be an umlaut? I hadn't realized you were so active in both directions - and so many views for the Safir! Interesting picture, but including the Raphael is too distracting; as for altos - looks like you've unearthed another form of WP:BIAS, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reverted your addition to the Parthenogenesis page for biological reasons, and wonder if you have ideas about how this can be dealt with in a more satisfactory way. It has long been a problem that people want to add the virgin birth of Jesus to the Parthenogenesis page, but biological parthenogenesis in mammals cannot produce a male offspring. Would you be happy with what I've just added to the page, a hatnote as follows:
"Not to be confused with the Virgin birth of Jesus, sometimes called parthenogenesis, but unlike known biological processes"? (Please pardon my ignorance of theology.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an excellent way of addressing things - and perhaps also gives a succinct and easy-to-understand introduction for those who are looking for "just" the biological term, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your goood-faith edit, and it is possible that other editors would have liked this title as well. But as far as I can tell, there hasn't been any agreement on the talk page about this, except for 1 editor named Nishidani. Can you please explain where you got this, as you wrote "per talk page?"
Not at all - that's why I asked you. Look, I'm not interested in an argument, I have no need. I just want to discuss in a friendly and cooperative way here. I suggested one thing, and another editor Nishidani suggested another. You chose the latter to name the title as. If you felt "there's reasoning enough," then that's wholly different than "per talk page," which implies it was agreed upon there, and it'd be more appropriate for you to add your comment to the talk page itself, so we can see how many editors support that naming. But it's not self-evident at all, since only 1 other editor, Nishidani, simply stated that's the title he/she likes. Why his/her title, why not mine? Why not wait till mor editors can contribute their opinion? That's what is not self-evident. Thanks. --Activism123401:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Margarita Luti, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Flaubert wrote of Raphael's mistress-model (pictured), "Fornarina. She was a beautiful woman. That is all you need to know"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margarita Luti. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 7 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludwig van (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fragments of Beethoven's music in the soundtrack of Kagel's film Ludwig van are modified to imitate the way the deaf composer heard his own work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwig van (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I read your Ludwig with great interest while on the nominations page; by coincidence I'd been swotting up a little about the ruins of the Frauenkirche preserved as a monument to barbarism that very day; interesting parallel with the Parthenon here, apparently left in ruins for a generation or so in accordance with the "oath of Plataea" before Pericles came along; I spent a weekend with an old flame in Dresden a while back, squeezing in Die Zauberflöte at the Semperoper while we were about it, but am not entirely convinced it's an improvement on ? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
You edits at The murder of Yehuda Shoham is WP:OR as sources doesn't contain any of the things you added to article. Such behaivor may lead to sanction please read this warning.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Returning the compliment of MTL's bookmarking my page, I bookmarked his and saw this. I read the article. Its creation violates WP:NOTABILITY and specifically WP:BLP1E. The irony in this, dear Shrike, is that at Shlomo Sand you suggested a few hours ago that the article be eliminated and its contents merged on the grounds of WP:BLP1E since in your view ‘Sand not famous for anything else but for his book.’ I.e. the link refers to ‘Subjects notable only for one event.' It doesn't apply because Sand is a distinguished scholar with decades of work in the public purview. The article The murder of Yehuda Shoham does fall under WP:BLP1E as do sister articles like The murder of Shalhevet Pass, created solely for the purpose of highlighting some putative Palestinian thirst for Jewish infants' blood. Given this new article, I look forward to seeing this put up for Speedy deletion. You should certainly in any case not go round waving policy on one forum for non-notability, and then ignoring its application to an article just created which you appear to approve of, which contains the very vice you deplored a few hours earlier.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"highlighting some putative Palestinian thirst for Jewish infants' blood" - can you please explain where the article describes the Palestinians as drinking the child's blood? Otherwise, you're assuming too much. Thanks. --Activism123415:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Flattered, thanks, and quite; not quite sure what you (Shrike) are on about - is OR not about mad professors bubbling up nutmeg and lemonade in their garden sheds? My tweaks per talk are immediately verifiable in the cited sources. Nevertheless I skimmed the page you link at your bidding: seems the only possible issue relates to degrees of "explicit", but we already had "made headlines", the equivalent? I tidied the chronological confusion, clarified the context, reduced the emotive fluff; the "id" and "war" points are already there in the infobox and category, as discussed in talk. I hoped my wording would be clearer, read better, and most importantly provide greater insight to uninvolved readers about what makes this incident notable, namely how it serves as a reminder that even dying and dead babies may be hijacked by political and commercial interests and sold to the devil by their families. On a personal level, is there any need to start squealing about policy rather than discussing content? This warning notice seems tailored rather than an FYI - am I right about that? Finally, is there any reason why any of this discussion is happening here rather than on the article talk page, if at all? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources didn't said that "unknown assailants" committed the crime and that "stone which chanced to ping off the back seat into his head; and also that "death were exploited by politicians " these is clear source misrepresentation to promote certain POV such edits may be considered disruptive.Please include in the article only what sources actually say now you own interpretation of events--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX17:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but these provocations - there was absolutely no vandalism, and the threatening templates posted here falsified what happened - nor the response, blowing off steam, should smudge the page of an excellent editor. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No vandalism?
Mac wrote that the stone "chanced to ping off the back seat into his head." Completely false, and the refs don't back that up.
The fucking passage MTL used is in your own refs. What on earth are you trying to fake here?
As they passed the village of Luban a-Sharkiya, Arabs suddenly appeared from behind a building close to the road, and hurled stones at the car. From almost zero distannce, one managed to hit the front windshield with a ten-pound stone. The stone passed between husband and wife, hit the back seat, and rebounded with enough force to destroy the base of the brain of Yehuda, asleep in his child seat, facing backwards.Note 3 = Yehuda Shoham". Shilo. http://www.shilo.org.il/shoham/yehudaShoham.htm. Retrieved August 07, 2012.
'chanced' interprets the report to mean that the stone wasn't thrown directly at the child but at the windscreen. 'ping' is rebound, and 'into his head' is where the stone ended. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mac wrote about Yehuda's death, "exploited by politicians and the media in Israel at the time of the Second Intifada and is still advertised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." Completely false, it was not exploited, and saying so is an extremely biased opinion. The part about the ministry is WP:OR (and unreferenced), a personal opinion, and neglects that most government agencies keep archives for people to have information from.
Yes, that's vandalism, and inserting personal biased opinions.
I believe the second part, even if true, not documented, but I haven't checked round. It is called, not vandalism but WP:OR or editorializing, and what you do here is put that in your edit summary as you elide the WP:OR. You do not go round smearing pages with wild accusations.
As you will see from the first example, which you call 'vandalism', MTL paraphrased the source you yourself entered into the page. So, as it stands on count one, you and Shrike are repeatedly calling him/her a vandal without even troubling to read the evidence. So retract the first part of your accusation immediately.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first example, meaning the first bullet point? As I said, I went through each reference and couldn't find the word "ping" used at all. And I used ctrl-F just in case. Per WP:VANDALISM, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It seemed pretty clear cut that was Mac's purpose - to add unreferenced personal opinions into a properly referenced article. Whether it's vandalism or not I don't really intend on arguing, the warning still stands, and the warning is a generic one created by a gadget I use, so not much I could control there. --Activism123418:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Activism. You persist in not recognizing what all native speakers of English know, that ping means to knock something, and in computerese, to ping is to bounce a message back. I might contest the choice of synonym, but it is perfectly obvious that this was quite a straightforward paraphrase of what the source you guys have cited, but not for this piece of information (which is quite specific), actually says. The child was hit by a rock that bounced or pinged back from the seat and crushed his brain. Technically, that is not an act of murder, but second degree killing. I don't know how frequent this is in I/P, but such acts are common where I live, especially in summer from flyovers. You guys classify it as terrorism, fine. But outside of the highly charged ideological world we're editing, these acts of juvenile violence are not considered political acts of terrorism. MTL was, I presume, trying to tone down the political slant you and Shrike, using your local sources, imposed on the page. That is why he made the pissed-off comment. You couldn't see the merit of the first part of his suggested rewriting, but merely ganged up to slap charges of vandalism on an editor who, elsewhere, has done consistently good and distinguished work for wikipedia. He's a newbie here, and this kind of intimidatory overreaction is not appropriate (unless of course the point is to deter newbies). Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah as far as I know, throwing rocks at cars with the intent to harm isn't taken as just a joke or a prank. Sorry. The article, as far as I know, doesn't mention it as terrorism though.
The Washington Times - says "striking him in the head." Doesn't mention "pinged" or "bouncing."
MFA - says "A large rock crashed through the front windshield, striking the infant in the head."
Jerusalem Post - "A rock had smashed into the skull of the infant, sitting in a rear car seat next to his mother Batsheva, 25."
The Independent - "who was hit in a Palestinian stoning attack in the occupied territories. The case of Yehuda Shoham, and his six-day battle for life, has made headlines in Israel, since the car in which he was travelling was hit by a large stone last Tuesday."
Shilo - "rebounded with enough force to destroy the base of the brain of Yehuda, asleep in his child seat, facing backwards."
The Yehuda Fund - "striking their only child, five-month old Yehuda on the head."
The two books used as references don't mention "rebound" or "ping" either. One mentions "critically injured by a rock," and the other mentions "struck in the head by a rock."
So out of 8 references, only 1 of them says that it "rebounded." And I don't know how trustworthy that reference is either, as I don't know whose website that is (technically, the reference isn't that necessary, since it's always used in conjuction with other references). If we discount The Yehuda Fund as well, that's 7 references. So why choose 1 over the others, reliable or not? And if you are going to write rebounded, why not include the whole thing - "rebounded with enough force to destroy the base of the brain of Yehuda?" Why change the wording? Why choose 1 ref over 7/8? --Activism123421:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an admin said it's not vandalism, but rather, I believe, source distortion (correct me if I'm wrong), so I retract what I said about "vandalism" and will keep this in mind for the future. I thought it was vandalism, but I now understand why it is not, and I appreciate that clarification. --Activism123421:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, snow yourself under with googling hits. The site both MTL and I cited is one hosted by the community where that family resided. It was written by people who knew the family, and were intimately informed of the forensic details. It therefore contains material which generic outsider sources fail to mention or overlook. And, nota bene, though as a local community source it was in a position to give very specific details about the incident, you ignored them, unlike MTL. When he appeared to have read this closely, and corrected the vague standard terrorist version in the broader sources by basing his paraphrase on that close source, he got the standard treatment. Some advice. Over a hot summer, the quality of edits drops as the external climatic temperature rises. One should remind oneself of this over these months, when switching onto wikipedia, and keep some scotch and ice on the table nearby the keyboard. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, we have 7 or 8 reliable references that report it as either a "smash" or a "strike." A "rebounded" stone would still result in a "smash" or a "strike," so writing "smash" or "strike" and complying with 7 or 8 references is not wrong. You're assuming that they knew the details about the attack and we should trust them. We don't know that's the case. Unlike The Jerusalem Post, The Independent, Ha'aretz, etc, which are reliable sources, we don't know anything about this website, and generally, reliable media outlets are preferred over people-created websites. I could easily say that The Yehuda Fund, created by the parents, simply said that it struck the child, and did not mention it "rebounding" or "pinged." --Activism123422:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, the huge amount of personal detail on that page comes from family and community members of Shilo (you've forgotten to disambiguate that). The site it is on is hosted by the settlement of Shilo, where the child and her family were based. The family thanks the Shilo settler website for hosting those pages. What more do you need to understand that the information you don't want to include comes from the family, and the community where that family lived? You really believe a snippet edited and shorn to the sparse generalities of all those 7 articles by reporters far away are more reliable than the detailed testimony of parents and friends. Hmmm.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Do you happen to know how often the database is being updated and/or when the last update was? I am updating the lists of cultural properties mentioned in Template:Cultural Properties of Japan and would like to write the date of last database update in sentences like: As of February 20, 2012, 94 districts have been classified as Important Preservation Districts for Groups of Traditional Buildings,bamse (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, it doesn't seem to say (and as you've noticed it doesn't yet include the latest designations); however this page, which lurks behind the 文化財指定等の件数 link on the database front page, might help with that kind of statement, as it gives both a count and a date (eg 98 Important Preservation Districts as of 1 August 2012); on a more prosaic note, I don't suppose you still happen to have that email I sent you a few weeks back with those attachments and so know my email address? I'm somehow locked out of the gmail account I use for wikimail and don't know whether I've misspelled my username or what... Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and sorry for this late reply. As for the email address, that appears to be the same as your wikipedia user name, but without spaces and "ci" -> "ic" in the last part of your name. Does it work? bamse (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Back in July, you graciously undertook to check the DYK-nominated Alfredo Zalce article for close paraphrasing with regard to its Spanish sources, since the article had contained significant close paraphrasing in its English sources, and did a fabulous job.
Can I ask you to please take a look at another such DYK nomination? There have been close paraphrasing issues with the English sources for Template:Did you know nominations/María Soledad Iparraguirre, and while they have been solved, Nikkimaria thinks it's important to have someone who knows Spanish to check the sources in that language to make sure there are no paraphrasing issues with them. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited María Soledad Iparraguirre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marisol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm just doing some of the advanced work for next week's event - have you decided which day you might like to come over? If you can let me know a couple of days in advance I can arrange a security pass. (Note that you won't need to register for a readers pass)
One of the other things we're looking at is images. The IDP has a very large collection of manuscript and artefact images, as well as a lot of site photographs, historic material from expeditions, etc. We're hoping to upload a lot of this during the week, but if there's anything specific you'd like to request, please let me know and we'll bump it up the list.
Since objects held by the Imperial Household are generally not included in Cultural Properties of Japan, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in sharing work to create list(s) on such items. This is very preliminary, as I would first like to complete this article which I started a long time ago, and I haven't really looked into the topic: How many such "treasures" are there? What are they called? Are there any distinctions like ICP, NT,...? Are they listed online somewhere? Perhaps creating a List of Treasures of the Shōsōin ([6]) could also be useful. What do you think? bamse (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I am not sure it is such a great idea to base the list only on ownership as there would be plenty of "boring" items in there. So, unless there are some selection criteria for "better" items, I am not that eager anymore. bamse (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bamse, sorry for the delay; according to Museum of the Imperial Collections and related info on the Japanese and kunaicho pages it looks like there's many thousands of these objects; I'm not aware of any ranking system; I'd basically be interested, but in the v.distant future. Detailing the holdings of the Shosoin would be extremely appealing, although again the holdings are super extensive (thanks for the link; hadn't seen that before); I've checked out several books in the library and there's the same issue as with the NTs etc, of one entry comprising multiple items; apparently fragments of cloth run into six figures; one categorization gives c.900 headline items; guess it could make sense to work in accordance with the way your link works; however, while I am super interested, time is all too short, and I've already made a start on listing the monuments by Prefecture and would like to continue with the lists of ICP structures by period (have got as far as mid-Kamakura period as far as I recall); so in short, I fear time may be short; I found a bilingual dictionary of Shosoin treasures giving what seems to be semi-official names, so if you are interested I could photocopy and send, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Ichirizuka at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The murder of Yehuda Shoham, you may be blocked from editing.