User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

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

A little Keeshond puppy

Archive of my Did You Knows

The wise page

Pius Walder has been nominated for Did You Know

Think poachers are the new trouts. No probs, no comments, just a review and moved to prep area. Georg Jennerwein is on my list ;) Serten II (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

:D What an end. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Redacting edits by 72.68.240.215

Thanks for hiding the offensive edits on my user talk page. Can you see if you can make it work here, here, and here too? Epic Genius (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Epic Genius (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need your help to redact more edits by this user. They started vandalizing again after their block expired. Epic Genius (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

invitation to discuss Serge Guinchard rewrite proposal

As a contributor to Serge Guinchard, you may be interested in discussing a rewrite proposal on the Talk Page. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Bolonkin

Dear Yngvadottir:

Thanks you and your friends for your help in writing the article about well-known scientist and human right activist Alexander Bolonkin. I am very gratefull for this.

I have only two small remarks: 1) You mentioned that Bolonkin was in Gorky in exile. He was in Siberia in exile (in small village Bagdarin).

2) If it is possible, could you please insert some of his well-known scientific monographies (books) and articles published in famous publishing houses and scientific journals, for example (some of the 250 published scientific articles and books):

Monographies (in English):
1. Alexander Bolonkin, “Non Rocket Space Launch and Flight”. Elsevier, 2005. 488 pgs. ISBN-13: 978-0-08044-731-5, ISBN-10: 0-080-44731-7 . https://archive.org/details/Non-rocketSpaceLaunchAndFlightv.3 , (v.3) http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0174

2. Alexander Bolonkin, “New Concepts, Ideas, Innovations in Aerospace, Technology and the Human Sciences”, NOVA, USA, 2006, 510 pgs. ISBN-13: 978-1-60021-787-6. http://viXra.org/abs/1309.0193, http://www.archive.org/details/NewConceptsIfeasAndInnovationsInAerospaceTechnologyAndHumanSciences

3. Alexander Bolonkin, Femtotechnologies and Revolutionary Projects. Lambert, Germany, 2011. 538 p. 16 Mb. ISBN:978-3-8473-0839-0. http://viXra.org/abs/1309.0191, http://www.archive.org/details/FemtotechnologiesAndRevolutionaryProjects

4. Alexander Bolonkin,. LIFE. SCIENCE. FUTURE (Biography notes, researches and innovations).Publish America, Baltimore, USA,2010,208 pgs.16 Mb. ISBN: 978-1-4512-7983-2, 306 Pages, 6x9, $15.95. http://www.archive.org/details/Life.Science.Future.biographyNotesResearchesAndInnovations,

5. Alexander Bolonkin, Innovations and New Technologies (v2). Lulu, 2014. 465 pgs. 10.5 Mb, ISBN 1-312-62280-7. https://archive.org/details/Book5InnovationsAndNewTechnologiesv2102014 /

My best wishes,

Boris,

ABA888 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ABA888: I'm glad you like the rewrite; I'll have a look at what I can add about his publications. There are two problems. One is that an editor has said he has published with unreliable publishers; some of the above, such as Publish America, look as if they may be publish-on-demand. But I see at least one with a major publisher, Elsevier. The other is that it's obvious that a scientist will have published, so we prefer to list only books and articles that have been reviewed or much cited in peer-reviewed journals. So I will have a look on JSTOR and see whether I can find reviews of his books. If you know of any mentions of them in articles in the press, particularly in Russian, which I don't have the knowledge to search, that would be helpful; we would need the author (if any is listed), article title, newspaper name, and date of publication, but it could be in any language and does not have to be online. However, interviews and articles by him in the press are not nearly as useful as independent articles that evaluate or otherwise give a long mention to something he wrote. (I've redacted your e-mail address; we don't use those here and listing it may get you a lot of spam.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Help

Good Day Yngvadottir,

I would like to nominate one of my click for FP, if you don't mind, please have a look at this and confirm this photograph is meeting the criteria for promotion. It is having good EV and good quality but still lacking the courage to ask somebody or nominate directly. I hope you won't mind for giving a small support for promoting the photograph as FP. Blacknclick (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Blacknclick: I'm afraid I don't do GA, FA, or FP at all. (I also don't have the eyesight to judge the quality of digital images, but that's a lesser point.) You would be better off either just nominating it, or asking someone who participates at FA, like Hafspajen, about the nomination process if you're not sure how to. As to getting support for it, I wouldn't worry too much - not many votes are needed at FP, and there are people who watchlist it. But again, someone who participates in the process would knpow better than me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice Yngvadottir. I will be contacting somebody else soon. Blacknclick (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

help with translations
Thank you for helping us Germanic contributors to fluent idiomatic articles, with your detailed explanations and admirable patience in copy-editing dedicated to precision, and thanks for covering a broad range of German topics, DYK? - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Three year ago, you were the tenth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Aww, thanks Gerda :-) <blushes horribly> Yngvadottir (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "tenth" is awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Things that make you go "hmmmm"

I smiled when I saw the original hook. I laughed out loud when I saw your correction: [1]. Who vets the vetters? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Source #1 is so jargonish I'm not sure the article is correct; I can only hope I and the article authors interpreted it correctly :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I thought that was rather nice smartassery. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Valentine hugs and , bigger on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh that lily is gorgeous. Gerda, I would love to celebrate spring in Germany. Can you invent a conference or something like that so I can get my boss to pay for it? Drmies (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• No really, sorry. Will sing a new mass in June (50th anniversary of church building), but probably not what your boss would like to pay for. - Do you like a protected Chopin? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Best known for" IP at it again

Hi Yngvadottir. Per Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, could you take a look at Special:Contributions/200.83.101.199, especially to Tosca, a featured article, where he has twice reverted, followed by this very pointy disruption of the article. Pinging also User:Drmies. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose that's pointy alright, though I would also have removed "famous". And the commas around "La Tosca". Drmies (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, see Talk:Tosca#Peacock words for the discussion. Do chime in if you feel it should be removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which diff I was looking at--I'm actually typing up an argument for keeping "famously". Drmies (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say what's worth looking at is whether "forgetting" a 0RR agreement[2][3] 1 week after a block for "forgetting" a 0RR agreement is likely. Whether or not you agree with the edit and revert and whether or not the IP has a point are separate issues. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, Summer. Run for admin and block them. I'm a volunteer here and am under no compulsion to block anyone. I don't even like blocking, and I don't care much for this entire issue anymore, nor do I think that the project should be declared a failure if the IP isn't blocked soon. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: I think events have moved on from the agreement I brokered and from the one Drmies put in place with 0RR. The IP editor has subsequently been blocked and rapidly unblocked by two other admins, and in this latest dispute is discussing at the talk page rather than continuing to revert. I wouldn't block anyone for doing what they're doing now, although along the way they provided a textbook example of WP:POINT with one Tosca edit and both Drmies and I have said so. We got the clock reset we wanted, the IP has improved his/her behaviour, I've agreed with his/her edits in a preponderance of cases and disagreed in some (and currently differ with them at Tosca and to some extent at the Russian town article). I think we're in a new stage now and that the old agreement has been superseded by a normal situation (including an apparently over-hasty block for different issue). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So, to sum up: He agreed to 0RR. He broke 0RR. He was blocked for a week for breaking 0RR. He went an entire week without breaking it again, so now the 0RR doesn't apply. Is that about right?

I am certain " Please do not revert to name calling, like "such an idiot" in the future" will ensure a quick end to that particular problem.

Now that you've both told him not to disruptively edit to make a point (somewhere...?), I'm sure that won't happen again.

No, of course admins are not required to block anyone ever. In fact, they are expected to defend highly disruptive, edit warring, block evading, personal attackers from having their good names smeared by anyone daring to imply their behavior is "vandalism". That is what the mop is for. Thank you for your tireless efforts protecting this poor, defenseless, misunderstood champion of all that is good and right. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I put my quarter in the sarcasm jar a long time ago, Summer. You could have left that abusive vandal sockpuppeteer etc. alone a long time ago, but you chose not to, so boohoo. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a competing summary. This editor fixed Wikipedia's prose for many years, but for reasons known only to them, didn't register an account. When they got reverted, they edit warred and slung insults. They took unpopular hard-line positions on things like "best known for". Because of this and a bias against unregistered editors that I am sure we can both agree exists - and because unregistered editors on dynamic IPs are only recognizable by their editing/commenting traits - they got blocked a sufficient number of times to acquire a long-term abuse page. They were both taken to and went to AN/I a number of times. (They also hit a really raw nerve with you in particular over their use of insults, including one particular one that I've thought of writing an essay on.) I tried something new and got them to agree not to edit war, but to take the issue to talk pages - and user talk pages - instead, and to stop with the personal attacks. And we reset the clock on all the heap of blocks. It was rocky but they improved steadily. They got blocked again a couple of times, and unblocked again. The most recent block was made in complete ignorance of the past history and was overturned in I think 5 minutes. The block before that, they sat out. At present they are discussing on an article talk page after making no more reverts than any other common-or-garden editor, are slinging no insults I consider grave (calling something the silliest argument they have seen in 12 years editing Wikipedia doesn't trip my personal attack circuit-breaker, but I grant you mine may have a thicker fuse in it than others') ... and yesterday did make a textbook pointy edit, so there's that. Other than that, I think what we now have, as demonstrated by the block and the equally fast unblock, is an editor among editors, not an abuse case. I can't tell you not to follow them about; there are several editors I check on from time to time. And by the nature of it, someone on a dynamic IP who doesn't register an account will get extra scrutiny because a significant number of registered editors don't like our policy of allowing editing without registration. But this person has decided to stop pinging me and Drmies, and I kind of agree, I don't consider they need my special attention any more. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: By breaking 0RR then avoiding 0RR for one whole entire week before breaking 0RR again, they have now "moved past" their agreed upon 0RR and are no longer under 0RR. Right?

Yes, they were blocked again for a personal attack and the block was lifted by someone unaware that the editor has a solid decade of warnings and blocks for personal attacks. How that demonstrates that they are "an editor among editors" is beyond me. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

When are you going to stop your stalking and harassment? If the answer is never, then, as I've said before, eventually you'll get what's coming to you. Even the anti-IP bias that pervades wikipedia doesn't allow indefinite harassment of anonymous editors.

And when is someone going to delete that ridiculous attack page which contravenes policy and is only used by people who want to harass me? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Keith

Hey there! I noticed you edited the opening of Hurricane Keith. I understand why you changed the first sentence, but there was a reason it was styled differently. If you were to look up any random hurricane, you could get the same generic opening. In my opinion, it's more useful to say what the storm did in general than say it was the 11th named storm of the season. That doesn't help anyone. It could've been the first storm of the season, but it would still have an article due to the damage, which is why the effects are more important. Does that make sense? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a point, and I'm not as adamant about it as the IP, but I do disagree. We have established a house style on the encyclopedia of almost always starting with what it was. Although we are told not to tiue ourselves in knots to create such an opening, that makes it a bit disorienting to instead read "Hurricane Keith caused X amount of damage ..." at the very start of the article, and only thereafter, "this is what it was." "Hurricane Keith" as the title does establish that it was a hurricane. But it's still slightly clearer to the reader to say "It was a hurricane in 2000" before saying "It impacted these countries and caused this dollar amount of damage", and it's that that causes me to prefer having the "nth storm of year X" material first, not the ordinal number in itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I still slightly disagree. The fact it was in 2000 is kind of inconsequential. For instance- hurricane names are repeated every six years, and Hurricane Ana has been used seven times since 1979. To differentiate them, it's more useful saying the area affected, especially as there was one in 2014 and will be one in 2015. Regarding Keith, it was a retired storm, so I think what it should did should be emphasized first, not some generic "nth storm of year X". But this does affect every storm article, all 1245 of them (or so). The standard is to describe the storm first, and later mention its place in the season. See Hurricane Sandy or Hurricane Andrew. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

But both of those do begin with what it was: "Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy") was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season." "Hurricane Andrew was, at the time of its occurrence in August 1992, the costliest hurricane in United States history." It isn't the number within the season, per se, that I think should come first, but some statement that it was a hurricane and what year it occurred in. An alternative solution at Hurricane Keith would be: Hurricane Keith was a storm in October 2000 that caused extensive damage in Central America, especially in Mexico and Belize. It was the fifteenth tropical cyclone, eleventh named storm, and seventh hurricane of that year's Atlantic hurricane season." Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, I see. Yea, I'd be fine with something like that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and shaken-and-baked the 2 sentences that way. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! And thank you for the feedback you've provided to the project as an outsider. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The intro as now written is good in my opinion. Generic openings are a feature of encyclopaedias and it seems very strange to argue against them. If a biography of an actor, for example, started by saying what productions they appeared in before it said when they were born, that would be weird and surprising to the reader, and that's exactly equivalent to how Hurricane Keith was written. I am interested to note that an anonymous editor gets reverted and criticised for making a change in accordance with encyclopaedic style, while an editor with an account gets thanked for their feedback when making the same change. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! I don't think you got enough credit for making the initial change, but as you see above, Hink didn't understand what we wanted; so I shook it up. A matter of explaining and looking at examples, apparently. Hopefully if there are any others this will serve as a model. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting on foreign Wikipedias

Hello Yngvadottir, How are you? We did not communicate for a while. I have a question: What is the procedure if I would like to translate and post Blatt's bio that is on the English Wikipedia also on the Romanian Wikipedia? Please let me know if possible. Thank you (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

New message

Hello Ingvadottir, I left you a message on my talk page. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

Deletion

Hello, no problem, thanks very much! I was myself trying delete it, when I notice the mistake. I got a good translation from my fiancé, that was my first try (I used it here for mistake also in the incorrect wiki) before four people correct it, and he was the last one to transte it (He is German native). But When I tried associate it to section of legends there they said they do not want, because it is not scientific... blah blah blah... When I try explain it was in cultural section and I was trying link the file that was a translation from wikipedia, they said "you should not talk in English, if you do not speak german you have anything to contribute here", well I am volunteer, english is universal, if the reviewer is racist I have nothing to do with it, I speak three languages, and at moment am intermediate german level (4th language), so all I can do it is keeping working in the other three languages.

Kind Regards,

Taemaya (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sharplaninac

Thank you for improving this article. I noticed you moved information about the country of the origin and the history of standardization to the reference section. Normally that would be the proper place. However, the situation with Sharplaninac is specific because the relationship with Karst Shepherd and Illyrian Shepherd. Not every Illyrian Shepherd was type A (Sharplaninac). Also, for over 50 years Sharplaninac was mixed with Karst Shepherd and the offsprings were classified as type A or B based on their appearance. Dogs from the very same litter were classified differently. Do you think that should be part of introduction, or it would be more appropriate for that information to go to the separate section (History)?--N Jordan (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see such a move in my edit; I believe that was someone else. But the place to discuss what should be in a reference/note and what should be in the article text is Talk:Šarplaninac. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Defence and Garrison Museum

Would you double check and see that I did not inadvertently delete some of your additions in Defence and Garrison Museum? :) Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory

...and Draft:Anne Rudloe look pretty interesting to me, but both need cleanup of various kinds. If you could help out some, that'd be great... Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I have a few plates already in the air, so I'll be slower than you would wish, thus no promises of being useful, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just think of that lovely Florida climate... Hey, whatever you can do, and whenever. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Neither was bad, and apart from mining the cited refs for more biographical information on her, including her year of birth, you seem to have done pretty much all that's needed at the Annbe Rudloe article. (You may have finished that one while I wasn't looking.) I did a basic run-through at Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory. It could use ISBNs and there may still be some wording that could be improved, but it was already not bad. This, on the other hand, was bad, but hopefully I've done enough to save it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--I hope you added some more tags to that article. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I removed great swathes of them after working like a navvy to render them inapplicable. I am after all an inclusionist. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafz

I've finished for now, maybe you'd cast an eye over it again and do any necessary polishing. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I just did :-) Hopefully didn't re-amateurise it. I did change the infobox description of the kind of collision. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles

If you have time for it, please take a look at the articles Tina Leijonberg and Gunilla Backman. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rhineland-Palatinate

Hello, Yngvadottir -- If you have time, would you look at this edit to Rhineland-Palatinate and determine whether it is appropriate or not? [4] CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't pass the smell test, reverted. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. I just saw your pictures of dogs. I'm just curious why you call the older dog your "ersatz cat". CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have just the one ersatz cat pic, tho Hafspajen left a puppy to guard my talk page :-) I am really a cat person, but he was very special. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

New message

Hello Yngvadottir. I left you a message on my talk page. Thanks (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Additional message

Hello Yngvadottir, I left you an additional message on my talk page. Thanks. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC))