User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

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

Archive of my Did You Knows

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)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 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:

• ref>[[Franz Josef Worstbrock]], [http://www.jstor.org/stable/20658954 "Mitteilung des Herausgebers]], ''Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur'' 126 (1997) 494 {{de icon}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

• the district of Heilbronn, on the valley of the [[Schozach]] near the point where the Gruppenbach]] flows into it. Parts of the town fall within two [[Natural region|natural area]]s: Schwäbisch-
• und Seetham; auf Markung Auenstein: Finkenbach (in Helfenberg aufgegangen) und Kapfenhardt.[ -->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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

• Cargo Security International |date= |accessdate=2013-10-15}}</ref> and Rear Admiral Joel Whitehead (USCG-Ret.<ref name="cargosecurityinternational" />.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Yea, I decided to make more. Here. Epic (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

[Breathing out a light spray of {{brownie}} crumbs as she speaks :] Darwinbish has stolen your brownie! The brownie made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for leaving it where she could reach it. Spread the WikiLove by giving her more {{brownie}}s, unless you want her boys to pay you a visit! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC).

LOL do you like lutefisk, too? Lovely lutefisk, come and get it ... Yngvadottir (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

[Darwinbish avoids eating her relatives. But Bishzilla tucks in.] Nom nom! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC).

Yesp

Ok, I understand. That was my first edit ever and I was experimenting with the edit feature. I am sorry for that. It won't happen again. Pompidou Centre (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

I did B, you did R, so I started D at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks for letting me know, but I saw and was hoping others would weigh in. Since it was not a 100% shutdown, I regard "partial" as more neutral, but I'd like to have more than two voices involved :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! I think the other way around, but I won´t leave Wikipedia over it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I have no Idea what this is, So you can have it. Epic (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It's actually extremely yummy if you like sweet stuff - made with dates and honey. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

N94228

I think that N94228 misunderstands one of the criteria for speedy deletion. (It isn't clear whether he or she understands anything about Wikipedia.) Articles written by banned or blocked users can be deleted. N94228 apparently is concerned that he or she is about to be blocked, which may happen if he or she continues making idle accusations. However, the deletion rule does not apply to users who are blocked or banned after writing the articles. It only applies to users who are already blocked or banned, and so never should have written the articles, but were evading the block, typically by sock-puppetry. Now that reliable sources have been added, the article should not be deleted either for lack of notability or for sockpuppetry. Thank you for adding references. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, being a teenager is not an excuse for N94228. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixing references

YOu have been very helpful to someone still learning! Please fix up references formats for 2 pages - 1) Conyers Baronets 2) 5th Earl of Orkney, Thomas FitzMaurice thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.10.139 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the first, can't find the latter - if you mean Thomas FitzMaurice, 5th Earl of Orkney, all I was able to do was change it from unreferenced to refimprove - I can't find the second reference and doubt it is reliable anyhow. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

speaking of Pratham...

older stuff

Actually, since you asked, you might be able to help me convince him to sit down and chat. Maybe leave another message on his talkpage, saying thanks for helping improve wikipedia, listen the the wise words of 74-whatever, their method may seem unorthodox but that is just pillar five of the foundations of wikipedia, lend them your ears.....  :-)   Thanks, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC) ((IMPORTANT: NAME IS SPELLED like this: Pratham. My bad, I started off right, then got confused at some point, and confused you. I've fixed up his personal talkpage where I confused you, and my own goofs on the article-talkpage. Sorry.))    Appreciate the help. Of course, I actually don't have much experience with this sort of thing, although it is nice of you to say. And looking at your userpage, you in fact do. Have a ton of experience, that is. Come visiting, if you like. WP:RETENTION, the talkpage of that project-page is where all the fun happens. We can always use another inclusionist that supports anons, and Mark will be *thrilled* to have a philosophy PhD who went to Cornell with us. However, I must warn you, we're not starting a cabal or anything, so if you're into that kind of thing, there's nothing to see here, move along.  :-)    No problemo, whatever you end up doing. Thanks for improving wikipedia! See you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) And feel free to wax this if you need space. I usually assume people will do so, since it's there talkpage after all. From what you've seen, is it actually considered impolite when somebody cleans up like that? I actually just leave mine around... should my IP address go out of style, the old talkpage "cleans itself up" after a fashion, and I can start fresh. However, usually people can tell my by my calling card, the dreaded WP:WALLOFTEXT. Not very many anons have an official policy named after them, you know. <preens> Anyhoo, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC) While I do take your point on not wanting to embarrass Pratham someday... the truth is, he is totally completely not at all in any way at fault here. WikiCulture is at fault. A new editor shows up, ready to tell the world about a *completely* legitimate and encyclopedic topic, out of nowhere WP:NINJAs start deleting images, deleting text, drastically rewriting Pratham's carefully tuned prose, and in general screwing everything up! With nothing but inscrutable talkpage jargon, primarily composed of three-letter-acronyms which lead to maddeningly inscrutable wikilegalese, page after page after page of it. There talkpage is first template-spammed to welcome them... oh and by the way 'helpfully' give them links to the five bazillion policy-pages ... then quickly fills up with *much* more template-spam, telling them it is *their* fault when somebody *else* deletes their hard work! That's adding insult to injury, and not helpful.     WikiDan is trying their best to help, and in fact *is* helping 100% pure and simple, but with all the officious accusational template-spam flying around, Pratham just sees WikiDan as a distraction to be ignored, HIS WORK IS BEING DELETED AND JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED!!111!!! Anyways, I hope someday Pratham does read our disjointed conversation, once he's accustomed to surviving in the wikiverse. Aside: Pratham, if you do see this someday, when you have a thousand edits under your belt and are an experience pro, go ahead and chuckle a bit. But remember what it was like, when you were inexperienced and frustrated, and try to be kind to others you see in the wikiverse -- maybe they are also just inexperienced and frustrated. Anyhoo, that said, do feel free to clean this up if you the screen-real-estate, Yngvadottir. (And do you have a nickname? That username is a mouthful. :-)   Pratham can always nostalgically review his First.Article.Evah someday in the future, by pulling it from the edit-history, if he wishes. By then he'll know how, which is the whole point, for me -- WP:NICE as the key to WP:RETENTION p.s. I feel I must say, no offense intended, but clearly we do not want any loose cannons in the cabal we are not starting. And as for the WP:RETENTION project, please, if anybody were starting a cabal, which of course we're not, involving loose cannons publishing propaganda like the pocket wikipedia guerilla warfare survival manual, which of course we're not, that bunch of 150 people with the wise and famous Dennis Brown, Dirk Beetstra, Rich Farmbrough, Dougweller, Kudpung, HeatherWalls, and other luminaries of the wikiverse would be an unwitting vehicle to cloak our nefarious schemes in a facade of respectability. Any cabal members would, if such a thing existed, be far down the list, buried and effectively undetectable, or in some cases unlisted. Nobody is making waves about template-spam, either. Don't rock the boat, that's my motto. Loose cannons are a disgrace! We have strict rules around here! You should straighten up and fly right, Yngvadottir, before you get yourself into trouble.  :-)     Thanks for the pointer to Drmies, they just left me a note. Perhaps I'll seek out some respectable not-at-all-loose-cannon-types over there. See you around. If you see any beginners struggling, please ping my talkpage, or direct them to the teahouse, I guess. Pratham actually tried that, but they reverted him, how rude... and somebody from WP:RETENTION at that, who ought to know better. So much to do, so little time. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Pratham has not logged in again. Maybe they are just discouraged, and will come back later, but methinks not. If they never login to their account again, but merely browse as an anon, chances are good they'll never see the messages we left on the talkpage. There are a couple options we have in a case like this. Zeroth, we can wait it out ... like we have been doing ... but how long before they forget their password, or their initial frustration hardens into bitterness-and-evergrudge?

1. First, we could try leaving a message on their IP, but in this case that's not obvious to me from the edit-history, and wikipedia has pretty strong restrictions against trying to figure out a registered editor's IP/location/name/etc. (Which I agree with... and think they are in fact too weak. But we know Pratham's full name, and where he works/somesuch, and all that, so maybe we can ask some super-admin with access to the username-to-IP-tools, and they can post a message for us?)
2. Next, we could -- but will not -- try to figure out Pratham's personal email, or whatever. I'm very much against that; bad precedent, and not what they came to wikipedia for.
3. My actual plan is somewhat dramatic, but under WP:IAR might actually be acceptable. Before I bounce it off of wikidan and eastmain, the two folks that cleaned up the initial article, I figured I would bounce it off you. Is it okay, temporarily, to put a big billboard smack dab in the middle of the article about the school, saying "PRATHAM -- HELP HAS ARRIVED -- WE CAN SAVE YOUR IMAGES -- PLEASE CLICK HERE" with a hyperlink over to the now-collapsed version of Pratham's personal talkpage? Sometime they'll probably browse the page -- or somebody else in the school will browse the page, and tell Pratham.

Anyways, I hate to disfigure mainspace with what boils down to a classified advert, but it seems a shame to lose an editor that had moxy and wikithusiasm, signed up to be an admin, and a teahouse host, contested deletion, and fought for page protection. All mistakes, of course, but beginners cannot help it nowadays. Do you have any alternative suggestions, or thoughts on zero/one/notTwo/three? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I saw, and was sad, but since he did not enable e-mail, any attempt to figure out who he is is outing, and that's wrong. In any case it's up to him - he may just be busy with school right now, or he may be holding off till he can get a picture ... he may even have to wait till the picture is developed before he can upload it. Who knows and it isn't our business. And we mustn't disfigure an article with a personal message. What we can do is see if references can be found for the school (and info like you highlighted on the talkpage - which may well be on the school website, and it can be referenced for things like that). I'd have a look today, but see the other sections on this part of this talk page and then add two three tasks not mentioned (I almost forgot this); this is my "weekend" but I have tasks stacked high. It saddens me that we have people leave and it also troubles me that sometimes people come back under a different account and just start afresh, but that's what it is - it's an anonymous internet project, so everyone has the rights of an adult to just walk away or to do it the wrong way. Hopefully no one will AfD the article, because it's comparatively hard to find Indian sources, but I recently did find sources for this unpromising school article (see latest version). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda knew that. Well, okay, I *did* know that, but was resisting acknowledgement of the reality. Sometimes life is not fair. Option zero is our only option, for this case. Maybe we'll luck out, and they'll come back.

   But you know, and I know, that the article was effectively killed. Even if you find out the student-count... which I don't want to discourage you over, Pratham will appreciate it if somebody else answers one of the questions that will *help* the article via adding something useful rather than 'help' the article via deletionism... but the figure will go out of date next year, or the next. Nobody *truly* having zero WP:COI problems cares deeply enough about this particular school-article to keep it up-to-date in the long run, yourself and myself included... nobody but an insider can do the necessary legwork easily enough, which would keep the article correct and up-to-date. It will just languish, in the form it is now. Which angers me, and frustrates me, because if I was just a little quicker on the draw, I believe the situation could have been controlled and calmed, without driving away Yet Another Beginner.

    Nobody did anything wrong here (well -- Pratham did plenty of things wrong, because of WP:NOCLUE mitigating circumstances albeit). You did fine. I did fine, excepting my transient desire... not acted on... to post a personals-advert in mainspace... sigh... thanks for your calming advice. EastMain did fine. WikiDan61 was *very* patient, and kept their obvious frustration with Pratham's shenanigans from doing any harm; WikiDan deserves a cookie. People who marked the copyvio for speedy, did fine. WP:SNOW on the RfA, better than fine. I might grumble about Pratham's teahouse-host-sign-up getting ninja-reverted, but even that is fine per the letter of WP:BRD procedures. I also might grumble about *every* *single* article ever created being nominated for deletion, as a matter of course, and nobody apparently thinking it the height of rudeness save myself, but that is the way things work nowadays, and changing that will take a fundamental change in WikiCulture, not one grumble. Everybody did fine, and the system worked the way it was supposed to, the article is now a reasonably-encyclopedic one... but with no sources... and no real maintainer... and effectively a stub... which prolly started as a pure copyvio of the school website (even if Pratham works there he does not hold copyright to that text and thus cannot relicense it as GFDL)... and thus will probably be deleted at some point, on the Immovable Object grounds you were worried about. Worse, instead of having +1 editor to swell the ranks of the 30k on enWiki[2][3], we had +1 and then -1 for a net gain of zero... and the bitterness[4] makes it overall *negative*.

    So. We follow option-zero with Pratham. Going forward, though, what lessons-learned do we have here? I'm already busy elsewhere trying to change the rudeness of template-message-wording. But how do we lower the response-time of WP:NICE folks? Pratham got into trouble way before you heard about them at RfA (by chance), and before I heard about them at the xLinkBot talkpage (also by chance). Is there some wiki-tool that will give me the list of newly-created-accounts (or even better first-time-anon-editing-attempts), with a count of their edits, and a count of their templates-on-the-talkpage, so we can nip the frustrations of future Pratham-equivalents in the bud? There's probably ten similar happening now, but I don't know how to find them. (And p.s. if this discussion about meta-helping has little interest for you, then no problemo, just let me know. No worries... I'll find somebody to whine to.  :-/    In the meantime, I'll change gears and write something about dogagory, so you'll have yet another wall-o-text to chew through.  :-)    If it becomes too much, please say. p.p.s. I expect my captcha-words will be the word of the day, which is Rrrrrgh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And, you can just reply over here if you wish. Anons cannot have watchlists, as far as I could figure out -- one of the few punishments that stings -- so if I don't respond promptly, feel free to ping my talkpage. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question about seeing newly created accounts and first edits. Ask elsewhere. But I'm sure you realize what a flood of both there is, and that it includes people who do mean mischief. On nominating new articles for deletion: I've found my own most useful roles are through AfD watchlist categories and WP:Pages needing translation into English. The Article Rescue Squadron made too many enemies and was done away with; a net loss from my point of view, but I'm not a pure inclusionist: I've nominated some articles for deletion (mostly with success) and I often stand back and let the process take its course, particularly with articles about companies. The project is attracting an increasing amount of promotion. I also have a great deal of sympathy for new page patrollers. The speedy deletion categories are an alphabet soup and I personally find disconnected letters and numbers hard to remember, plus there are types of article that some speedy categories don't apply to - I always double check before I speedy delete, making me a very slow admin indeed. And a couple of years ago there was a breaching experiment that led to the resignation of a large number of experienced new page patrollers - that was one of the first things that soured me on the WMF, but more importantly, new page and vandal patrol have a tremendous potential to damage the encyclopedia if done badly, not least by driving away good-faith contributors, and experience is really to be desired there; since that breaching experiment NPP has been mostly inexperienced, trigger-happy people, despite intelligent and caring efforts to fix the problem, and vandal-fighting will always be that way. Yes, we have a problem. But we also have a problem with new articles that probably are not notable remaining because everyone's busy - I can sort of understand making it their main activity to nominate things for deletion when I consider the promotional company articles, including things like this - I translated it, removed the promotional inline links and links to where to buy it at the end and tagged it as of dubious notability, but I should maybe have PRODded it. We have to recognize that some people do not wish the best for the encyclopedia. I use the warning templates you object to, for two reasons: first, a standardized process of escalating warnings provides a clear basis for an admin to determine whether to block; second, the wording has been decided on by wise heads over a long time and is both as polite and as clear as we can make it, and the escalating levels of warning provide an alert to someone who may just be having fun and may not even have thought about the consequences of putting silliness in an encyclopedia article - most vandals who get the full series, or the "stop now!" BLP warning, do indeed stop short of the blocking point. But perhaps you didn't mean those, but only the "marked for speedy deletion", PROD, and AfD templates? Those could probably be made kinder and clearer, yes. But do look at Special:New pages and see the silly stuff that's mixed in with the premature saves and the purely bad English notable topics. And at the sheer speed with which pages are being added, at least at some times of day. It's ... daunting when you look at the top of the queue. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral major deletion of content from MV Seaman Guard Ohio page

Hi, can you do something about the major deletion of content [5] from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio page by a user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. This was done with total disregard to the comments left by several users including yourself on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident. Thanks. 109.128.150.134 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I see the AfD ended as keep. I feel strongly that that material belongs in an article on the company, with only a short summary in the one on the ship. I also have to tell you that it will need to be thoroughly rewritten. You'll see in the history that I made a tiny first step along those lines after first finding and adding some information on the ship itself. But one is not supposed to blank an article while it's at AfD, plus it would be fairest to pass the AfC on AdvanFort and thus give credit to the editor who's worked hard on sourcing it. I have some other tasks I must do today, so I'm going to tell you to sit on your hands - the info that was in the article is still in the history and it's not going to be deleted - and I'll either do that or help do that as soon as I can. But. It will probably not be the article you would like to see - it will probably be shorter, it won't attack anyone in the administration of the company, and it won't forecast how this might become a legal precedent unless I find at least one unimpeachable source (such as a major news outlet) has published such speculations. I hope that satisfies you; remember, we're an encyclopedia, not journalists or an NGO ourselves. Thanks for working on this, but the ideal encyclopedic article is a lot more boring than activists or other enthusiasts might like (I've also made archeological evidence of cannibalism boring, for example). Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thanks Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir (talk) & @Drmies (talk): In order to avoid a revert-war, I have NOT reverted the article to it's previous version and instead flagged the deletions by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom as inappropriate on the talk age of the article. I'll take the cue on the editorship style and also help with sourcing the text to prominent news sources.

I trust that you will do the needful as best as you see fit and in the mean-time will sit on my hands and not update the page anymore till you folks are finished with it. Thanks for your time & have a nice day ! 109.128.150.134 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• A new editor is edit-warring to keep all that content in. I reverted; I think it should go and I think that the AfD gave enough reason for that. Have you had another look at that AfC? Drmies (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It got bumped ahead in my to do list by today's events (fortunately I see someone already merged List of Channel Awesome Shows); I just confirmed my earlier impression of the AfC submission and created the AdvanFort article. Must now feed dogs, then I think I will draft the new incident section in Word. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Woof! Drmies (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Karen Aabye

Might interest you...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Linked it to the rest on Wikidata and added a couple of sentences from the Danish article, but I'm afraid I have a massive to do list right now. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sicced

You know, the OED supports "sicked", not "sicced" (though "sic" is given as an alternative for "sick"): "He had cleared away some underbrush, for instance who had sicked the cops on Laidlaw"; " Why should you barge in here, gnashing your bally teeth, just because Horace sicked Claude Polt, private investigator, on to you?" (P.G. Wodehouse!); "Seems some of the boys..sicked the dogs on him"; "He sick-ed him on all the time". Google Books suggests (OR alert!) that "sicced" is the more vernacular form. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the verb is irretrievably vernacular and that was the IP's problem; note that Wiktionary gives "sicced". I went with that as clearer, since I couldn't think of a good paraphrase. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I only used it as a kind of joke in the first place, given the completely vernacular nature of the myth. That picture is just wonderful--I mean the modern one. No, the IP just misread the grammar, I think. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Charles IX, "King of ???"

You edited the article about King of Kvenland but your given source does not write anything about Charles IX calling himself with the title "King of Kvens" as you claim. Would you please include a source where the given information can be checked? Thank you in advance.Finnedi (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I do have to say you need to read the section. It argues that he used a term that some historians have considered a synonym of Kvens. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, a claim that the word "Kven" has something to do with "Caijaners" - something we don't know - does not entitle anybody to write that Charles IX would have called himself "King of the Kvens", which of course is an entirely different title. I'm sure everybody agrees here.Finnedi (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Look again at the scholarly argument referred to - and the sources cited. There's more on it in the Kvenland article. Then take it to one or both article talk pages. I referenced the actual title adequately; beyond that, it should be discussed there, not in edit summaries or on personal talk pages. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

TheGeneralUser has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Hi Yngvadottir! Wishing you a very happy Halloween :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Om nom nom! Thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

	Hello Yngvadottir, Hafspajen has given you some lovely Pumpkin cupcake, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Pumpkin cupcake ! Enjoy!

LOL, thanks! (Gods, that's humongous!) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hafspajen (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilsfeld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eberbach (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) 09:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding changes made to the article on the National Security Agency

Hello. I noticed you've reverted the changes I made to the aforementioned article, and would like to say the following:

The subject of the sentence in question, pasted below for your convenience, is "bugging [electronic systems] and [allegedly] engaging..."

"The agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through clandestine means, among which is bugging electronic systems and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software."

The word "and" requires that both verbs — "bugging" and "engaging" — be considered the subject of the sentence.

When it comes to recognizing the subject of a sentence, I've always found that rearranging words, as well as disregarding prepositional phrases and other supplementary information, is a useful strategy.

For example, the sentence can be reorganized such that it reads, "Bugging electronic systems and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software are among the clandestine means through which the agency is authorized to accomplish its mission."

Again, doing so allows for much easier identification of the subject within a sentence; however, the sentence can be simplified even further, as is demonstrated below.

"Bugging and engaging are among the clandestine means through which the agency is authorized to accomplish its mission."

Hopefully, this lengthy explanation of my edit has proven comprehensible.

I'll await a response before I revert to my edit.

Thanks,

~zziccardi (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right of course - I didn't see the "and" and second subject after the ref. I've reverted myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, again. ~zziccardi (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please could you check my references fo 2 pages Lupton family and Conyers baronets cheers Mike