User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

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

Archive of my Did You Knows

Gladsaxehus

Hi, you might be interested in translating from Swedish. External sources are in Swedish too,♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, done - the first ext. link does indeed have a lot of potential info, and Gladsax itself should be written. But it should probably be moved to Gladsax Castle or Gladsax Manor. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Will try to get it sourced and the other started over the weekend. Burchard Precht is a link I cleared from the Uppsala Cathedral article, can you translate?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No promises, this is the middle of my work week and you wouldn't believe the chaos of my home life :-) But I've been meaning to circle back to the ruined castle and use that external link, and will try to help with that as well as Precht. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave Gladsax Castle in your team's hands now; note the name issue raised on the talkpage, I have not looked for English-language sources but I'd rather not have to use that arcane referencing system, so after milking the village page this is a good moment to bow out :-) I'll be correcting the year of poor Ide's will (I do regret calling her a man!) on sv.wikipedia; I thought it was too much of a coincidence that both the archbishop's ruling and the will were dated 1322. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You guys did some good work there, so I thought I'D nominate it for DYK. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've improved the sourcing and added to the lead on Precht. Thanks for that. You might translate Malören, if you're busy, don't worry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

i got the information

I copy information from Dillards website on its press release section. If you guys weren't so lazy on to update articles. I wouldn't be doing this myself some articles I really I was deleted Saulalvarez (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• [this copied from a now-deleted test page, Talk:Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)]

the URL

WWW.Dillard's.com Saulalvarez (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeta Nemeth 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=September 26, 2013}}</ref> Currently she is a co-founder of [Intrinsic LifeSciences]],<ref name=intrinsic/> and is an [[associate professor]] at the UCLA Center for Iron Disorders.<ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malören 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:

• lan-bd/maloren/ |title=Malören: Hästskoformad ö i Bottenviken |publisher=Statens Fastighetsverk (Swedish Bureau of Real Property |accessdate=30 September 2013 |language=Swedish}}</ref><ref>{{cite

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

X

Am I missunderstanding things? [[1]] ? Hafspajen (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My eyebrows rise at the thought of a rapid cancellation making a show more notable, but the issue is really how much independent coverage exists (unless someone finds evidence that it was important in the history of national TV there, the first instance of something or other). So let the people who turn up to discuss the issue - and the research some of them will presumably do - decide the matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• My eyebrows rise too, but OK. Let the people who turn up to discuss the issue. Hafspajen (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise ship case, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NTV and RIA (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the welcome! also, I recently made a page about the list of users on wikipedia, and it got deleted. While I know some people didnt see the logic in it, You guys KNOW something like that would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that page was that it went against our mission: we are not a social network. (Although you will make friends and have good times chewing the fat on user talk pages, that's like water-cooler talk at a workplace, it's an extra.) And we have user names so that those who don't want to disclose their real identities can preserve their privacy; if you look at some user pages, you'll see there's a lot of variation in how much personal information editors reveal, whether in text or in userboxes. As you must know, this is a venerable and important internet tradition. So asking people to add themselves to a directory is kind of pushy. Besides, the database already does contain a list of all the millions of names; you may have passed through the relevant page if your first choice of name to register was already taken (as happens quite often). Here it is. But finally, as I pointed out on your user page, such a list is not an appropriate article topic because there are no independent reliable sources that have discussed the list of user names on Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry..

I wanted to make a page to contact the fellow wikipedians but not for SOCIAL interaction. for telling them about edits and stuff like THAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, do some reading in that welcome template I gave you, and consider joining some WP:WikiProjects; those are where people gather to discuss particular kinds of topics and the articles about them. Other than that, the Teahouse folks can probably give you some pointers about other forums for the kind of discussion you have in mind; unless you mean problems, which are handled on the article talk page or if involving more than one article, at noticeboards or help desks. We also have the WP:Village Pump, which was set up in the early days of the project as a general discussion space, but the project has long since outgrown it and various subordinate boards have been created for technical issues, proposals, and so on. A lot of these spaces are linked from the community portal, which is one of the links in the sidebar on any en.Wikipedia page. Without knowing exactly what you are thinking of, I can't make more specific suggestions - but I suspect you need to do some of the reading first, because it is a big and complex project and few new editors have prior experience with encyclopedia writing. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck

How do you propose to mention treatment of nationalities by Bismarck in the lead? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is important enough for the lede. You should start a talk page section if you disagree, but if it is to be mentioned, it must be without POV adjectives. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe Bismarck's treatment of second largest group in German Empire is important for the led. How do you propose to describe his ethnic cleansing and discrimination policies in neutral terms? I suggest:Bismarck led a campaign of ethnic discrimination, cleansing and eradication of culture against non-Germans in his state. What do you think? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this belongs on the article talk page, but personally I still find that terminology POV, quite apart from the issue of whether it rises to the level of significance to be mentioned in the lead. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you find the terminology POV? It is used by mainstream historians.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That would require citations. But in any event, your addition to the lede has now been reverted twice by different editors. Take it to the talk page, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	A little digital material culture for your excellent ongoing work on Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe. I really appreciate the work that you do here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww, thank you! I just asked an archeologist to check it in case I mucked anything up ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's not the easiest topic to dive into! It seems most of the information is pretty scattered.

By the way, come December I intend to get the Odin article up and running. I would love to rewrite the Frigg article at the same time. Your assistance is always welcome.

I may also rewrite the witchcraft article as soon as time permits as well, if you're interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I keep meaning to go back to that Odin rewrite ... I think Frigg would be easier, but too much for me, since I am obviously overextended, and witchcraft way, way too much :-) I bowed out of mucking about with hamr as invited to by Drmies on grounds of conflict of interest, and that aspect is also very much on my mind. But mainly, every time I turn around I see another article we are lacking, and meanwhile I really must rewrite Dís even if I have to break into a decent academic library to get that Motz article. Gah! ... OK. I will see what I can do re: Odin. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I know how it goes, no worries. :) By the way, there's a reconstructed sacrificial bog that features a few reconstructed wooden figures at Land of Legends (Sagnlandet Lejre) near Roskilde in Denmark. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, really?! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep! Last I was there it was quite a sensory experience: a plaque about Nerthus, a few rotting, fly-attracting horse heads on beams, and a bunch of crying children. Surreal. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Activity tracker 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:

• of sharing via [[social media]] and resulting rivalry.<ref name=Wired/><ref name=CNET/><ref>G. F., [http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/quantified-self "Quantified self: Fit, fit, hooray!",

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

http://reftag.appspot.com/ :-) Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Old grad school habits die hard, I just type it all in '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

hey

hey.

Koy Hoffman (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Awwwwwwwww. Thanks :-) I'm going to reply on your talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Yea. It's what I do. You desrve it since You were the only one nice to me so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koy Hoffman (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My Newsletter

Hey, I've made a little section on my user page devoted to something called: Wikipedia: In the eyes of a Wikipedian. It's a newsletter with me describing hat it's like to be here. The first one is done, So you should read it!--Koy Hoffman (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but don't go overboard with it. Remember, we're not a blog. Have you found any refs yet for that Wii hack thing? (And by the way I have to go to bed. Complicated schedule. I'll be back in a few hours, when I have something I have to do off-wiki but will double-task here.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines of Central and Northern Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sternberg (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Indeed Norse deties are complex, but are Greek and Roman deties not? I don't see why the ancient Mediterranean religions can have infoboxes for their deties if the same thing is rejected for Norse deties. Infoboxes can give you a quick understanding of a character (or in this case, a god) without forcing you to read a massive amount of text. I think that the introduction of infoboxes like I tried to do would make the articles easier to understand? Ninja of Tao (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC+1)

The introduction is not "massive amounts of text" and this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. Wikilinks, and explanations later in the article, serve to assist the reader. I have no opinion on articles about Greco-Roman deities; they are written and maintained primarily by those with expertise in the area, and there are active wikiprojects there, which presumably decided to use infoboxes. There is a very recent ArbCom case on infobox addition, which affirmed the principle that the projects and those maintaining particular articles should decide whether to implement infoboxes. In the case of Thor, the article was judged a Good Article without an infobox, and the addition of one was previously reverted on Thor and other articles, probably including Odin (I'm not sure, I don't have that one watchlisted). My personal stance on infoboxes is that they are useful for scientific-technical topics - species, which is where they were first developed, and ships, where the technical specifications and the career under different names and flags are usefully tabulated in a standard format, are two examples - and traditional in certain other kinds of articles, such as films, but forcing a second, briefer summary of arts topics often leads to invidious decisions and has no commensurate benefit to the reader (as opposed to to companies trawling us for machine-readable data). You are welcome to open a talk page discussion of the issue at Talk:Thor and Talk:Odin, but there's where I am coming from. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(watching) You summary on the arb case is a bit too simple: it resulted in that you as an author get protection from the arbs if you don't want an infobox, but not if you want one. (See my talk.) I can't add an infobox to an article where I am the main contributor, does it make sense? Andy can't even add an infobox to his own articles, how is that? My personal stance on infoboxes is that a minimum box telling a reader what an article is about helps a random reader of any article. (Example Odin: simply say "North mythological figure" on top of the pic which suggests that it is an article about a painting otherwise.) This is not the same as mandating it. My latest GA about a work of art comes with an infobox, another one was even approved as GA by a sceptic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally strongly oppose the use of infoboxes for articles such as those about deities. They're frequently overly simplifying and misleading. Anything the infobox can provide will be provided in the opening paragraphs of the article itself. Mineral classifications, yes; abstract figures over long periods of time, no. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, your liking for infoboxes is well known although inexplicable to me. If you look through the articles I have created and listed on my user page, you will see that some - including the first, which was a bio - have infoboxes. I submit that a work of art is in no way comparable to a deity, least of all to a deity in a religion where the number of recorded sobriquets/alternate names/heiti serves as a rough indication of importance, i.e., where complexity was valued. Infoboxes are by their nature reductive; reducing Thor or Odin to any set of "god of" formulations is already highly misleading (and anachronistic; this is a tendency born out of modern comparative and functional analyses), and as such the further reduction desirable for an infobox is retrograde. (Perhaps this also makes it clearer why I hope Richard Wagner never gets crammed into an infobox, but that's up to those who maintain his article). But you and I also disagree on the fundamentals of the benefits of infoboxes, so it's not surprising that we come at this from different angles. I thought you deserved a specific response here; if I could find an appropriate infobox userbox I would add it to my user page, but I believe that to be another case of reduction to the available space being not useful :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Perhaps our stance is not quite as different as you think. Did you read how I came from opposing infoboxes to liking? Did you see my talk, Identitybox? Did you see that about Odin, I would not even say "God of ..." but only something like "North mythological figure"? I compare an infobox to a book cover, - the book is not "crammed" into it but the "cover" shows something essential about it. The random reader of an article who perhaps arrived there by some search should get info about the topic of the article + key facts like time and location, as a theatre program tells you where and when an action takes place. The excitement against such a thing is inexplicable to me, but I respect it. Wagner is past, but we will celebrate Verdi's birthday soon. - I don't use userboxes, the one exception is on my talk, for (a) reason ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This book cover analogy sums it up very nicely because I think that even complex articles can have their key facts listed in a table without being crammed or reduced to a machine-readable format. Not to mention the editorial inconsequence of having some articles with such a box while other probably featured articles don't make use of this tool at all. So, like Gerda I can't really understand the profound aversion against infoboxes that some users displayed in the arbcom case and elsewhere. But then I do use userboxes like this one. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything but ... I think it's a bad analogy. The person is already looking at the article, whereas the cover encloses the book. The text of the article starts with a lede, which serves to introduce the topic and set it in context. The best argument for infoboxes, in my opinion, is as a collection and standardised tabulation of technical specifications and other details - dates, engine data, lists of people involved, the stack of classifications for a species, the genres for a band or a song, the reissues for a recording. Stuff that doesn't fit well in prose and is clearer at a glance. Some readers read them first (especially I suspect those educated in the US system, where textbooks often have box summaries at the start of segments), some refer back to them to set a particular segment of the article in context. But book covers do none of these things (except where the illustration and/or the publisher identifies the genre; I used to look on the library shelves for the yellow covers of Gollancz books because they indicated good science fiction) and the article intro or lede paragraph in most cases will make what the reader needs to know at the outset much clearer. So no, I do fundamentally disagree. In my view the case for infoboxes from the reader's point of view depends to a huge extent on the category of article. And I don't see any benefit to standardisation: it makes us look more like a textbook and it leads to misapplication of things that suit one kind of article but not another. (We already see this with the generalisation of sectioning as an ideal; in a short article that just breaks things up, making the article look too short, and obscures connections; and with citation templates, which emphasize what in some types of articles may not be the main piece of information and make it hard to fit in relevant information - such as what pages an article is found on as well as what page the particular piece of information is found on; exact status of revised versions/translations; updated versions and new headlines of news stories; and type of publication - exhibition catalogue, catalogue raisonnée, pamphlet). Article length is supposed to be commensurate with notability, with allowance for additional explanation being required for some topics (several Norse-topic articles are tagged as being written at too expert a level); I see infoboxes as a similar issue. And even publishers these days do not standardise their covers as they once did! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Different edit war, I don't want to revert again, perhaps admin help is needed? - I will reply to the above later, possibly tomorrow, guess what, I want to write articles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, me too - and not collections of data for Google et al., which may be the elephant in the room. I had a look at the reverting on that user talk and others seem to be involved, don't worry :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My data are for everybody who cares, which includes "Google et all". Search for Rigoletto on Google, an infobox will tell you as the first character Sparafucile. I wish we had a infobox they could use, to improve. - Back to the "book cover" image: yes, a reader is already in the book. I would still like to show him at a glance what that book is about. Look at L'Arianna. A female name, could be a dancer, a poem, you name it. The text then helps you to a translation of that name, a catalogue number with an abbreviation that you can look up, a composition time (Ah! it's a composition), then "opera", then a country and finally the composer. The identitybox gives him "opera" and the composer right away. Perhaps join the linked discussion on my talk, where I feel unrestricted. (Did you know: I may offer only two comments to an infobox discussion on a given article? The fathomless wisdom of our arbs ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

All of that information, even the number, is in the well written first sentence of the lede: "L'Arianna (English: Ariadne) (SV 291), composed in 1607–08, was the second opera by the Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi." That's where I expect a reader to look - and a trolling bot too! (By the way, it has L' at the start to distinguish it from "a female name", right? I wouldn't expect all readers to notice that, but opera fans, yes.) As I say, my impression is that infoboxes are justifiable for lists of stuff like taxa, engine specs, name changes and dates - footballers' career stats too - but otherwise they just interpose a "Look at me instead of the article!" The picture is essentially neutral, except that infoboxes often require a smaller pic or put stuff ahead of the pic, like two versions of the name. I don't like this apparatus in books except for technical subjects, it doesn't look encyclopedic to me, it looks like a textbook for 10-year-olds, and as a reader I automatically start reading at the first line of text. So we really do have entirely different expectations, as I have been saying. I do think the data mining thing is the elephant in the room, because I for one can see absolutely no justification for making it easier for companies to scrape our work and digest it so they can monetise it. They have algorithms to derive data, let them do that; pre-digesting our writing into pap they will find easier is an insult to everyone who has worked hard to write accessible, informative, and nuanced articles. This is a project to write an encyclopedia. Its being on the internet is the publication vehicle, it does not mean we have to kowtow to internet companies. So I am afraid I find neither argument justifiable and the pushing of infoboxes on articles that are not of those types where they are de rigueur - ships, football players, species, etc. - yes inexplicable and yes based on assumptions I do not share. I use them on a case-by-case basis and am very much saddened by the push to have them on all articles. As such, no I won't clutter up your talk page with my point of view on the issue; there it is. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. I saw your message about the list being nominated for deletion. Now, I'm probably not going to cast my opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, however, I am not really experienced with the deletion process on Wikipedia. The reason I bring this up is because a few days ago I came across Synthesizers.com. It really doesn't look like it deserves a page of its own but I don't know how to start an AfD. Could you look at it and give me your thoughts on it? GamerPro64 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does look like a page created by someone affiliated with the company that does not demonstrate notability. But I'd have to search for sources to see whether there are any; sometimes people simply don't realize they are needed. I will poke around and maybe tag the article. Let me encourage you to participate at the deletion discussion; the issue really is whether there are sources independent of Channel Awesome itself. The info about the deletion process - including how to nominate an article, what to consider first, and guidelines for posting in AfDs - is here, and I notified you because you had contributed substantially to the article, so you have every right to express an opinion and it would in fact be good for as many people as possible who know the topic and the field to do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your prompt response. Amandajm (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you don't like cupcakes.......

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you for prompt response on Gehry! Amandajm (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, dinner and dessert! Om nom nom nom. You're welcome :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

I know a very little about wikidata and to say the truth I have enough creating articles and maintenance of +1500 articles: I did notice of some tools which created sections or add interwikis on wikidata, this is the main reason that I add at least one interwiki in each article and leaving the work to the bots. Having a 18 months baby limited my time around! p/s. Yngvadóttir = Yngvi's daughter, nice. Are you related to ásatrú or Norse/Viking articles? I am speaker/lagman of my community and proud to create the biggest documentary resources about Norse society, vikings, kings, warriors, battles, sagas, heathenry, Prussian/Baltic heathen history in Spanish wikipedia. I'm actually trying to complete the articles concerning Þáttr, too many red links in the beginning but very few left right now! ;) Take care. --Gilwellian (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No word on identities, but bravo for what you're doing :-) I understand lack of time, but Wikidata is just as quick as ading an interwiki the old way - once you have registered your username there (for some reason it's not automatic as it is with other Wikipedias). Also, please include in your edit summary that you translated the article from en.wikipedia when you create a new one on es. by doing that - attribution requirement. Thanks again! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Karl Schlabow

Thank you for translating the article ;-) --Bullenwächter (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was yours! You're very welcome :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Yea, I made some of these, So I thought you might want one but in case you don't want that............. Koy Hoffman (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just feeling peckish after work :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A portal gun for you!

	Portal Gun Award
	Yes. Take it. Go have fun with it. Sorry. can't find the picture. Koy Hoffman (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

Do you like getting sent these things?