User talk:Yngvadottir
Archives (Index) |
speaking of Pratham...
ancient 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)
|
older stuff
|
---|
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?
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)
|
- 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)
- You hit on a lot of points here, which I'll try to touch briefly. Knowing my knack for verbosity, that won't work too well. :-)
- 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)
quick listing of many of the various and sundry problems wikipedia faces, often perennially
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NPPs, wikiCops, AfC-reviewers: on the front lines to *protect* wikipedia... and *serve* when not too busy-busy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
template-spam: how 'polite' with-all-due-respect messages killed actually-WP:NICE messages of authentic respect
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
in which a solution is suggested, the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, for the good of the wikiverse
| ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Later update -- well, it was pretty damn verbose. So I'll chop it up into
threefour mini-tables, rather than one huge honking big table, and collapse each of them separately. Hope this helps clarify. And, as usual, although this is obviously a blow-by-blow reply to your specific question, with footnotes to justify my answers and everything, I'm really writing it for *my* use, not just for your edification. If your wiki-gumption, or your desire to be edified about my sekret skemes to revamp the wikiverse, is drained by looking atthesefour massive walls, then you are WP:REQUIRED to totally skip reading them. :-) I will not be offended in the least. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Later update -- well, it was pretty damn verbose. So I'll chop it up into
Well, Pratham has returned, so that's good... more than once... but the flip side is that he now seems resigned to avoiding talkpages entirely. He knows *how* to use them, but sees engaging in dialogue as pointless, presumably. Is there some way that we can force him to the talkpage, short of actually blocking him? The copyvio-templates are harsh enough, but the block-template is positively eeeevvviiillll. Not sure we have another option though; maybe we can replace the stock you-have-been-blocked template, with something like the pratham-please-respond-to-the-question-about-how-many-students-are-in-the-school template? Or maybe, you have some trick up your sleeve, that we can pull? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, I'm glad he returned. Some of your suggestions scare me, personally - too much software, not enough accommodation for personal styles. And have you seen the Village Pump: Proposals proposal for a Draft space to replace AfC? More thoughts tomorrow, particularly on the assumptions aspect; I am in the middle of rewriting Mogden before bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:38, 13 November 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)
- Well, per WP:IAR, *I* discussed it on a personal talkpage, *and* in an edit-summary. :-) See the User:Thomas.W talkpage, and my insertion of a qualifier after the see-also link in Charles IX of Sweden. Nobody has reverted me yet, but the day is young. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, the Kvenland article is where you'll find the summary of the historians' argument. Personally I dunno - I know a lot about some things, and have a couple of fancy pieces of paper, but unlike some academics I admit when I'm not very up on something '-) I've responded to you on one minor point at User talk:Thomas.W, but on the way to finding that I saw you say you got blocked??? I'd been wondering why I hadn't seen you around recently. Ouch. Sorry that happened. (For talk page stalkers I should note I just finished an exhausting work week and then I had to try to figure out what on earth to do about Passage du milieu. Bed soon, after I do an off-wiki task involving Old Norse.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read through the Kvenland stuff, that's how I wrote up my see-also portion, which explains that Kings of Kvenland is included in the Charles article because he called himself King of the Caij from 1607 thru 1611 (but the successor dropped the title). I *believe* that was the underlying objection Finnedi was making: that Charles never called himself of-the-Kvens specifically, and thus the see-also was misleading. Anyways, you at least know *something* of the matter, whereas I know nothing.
- I'm just going on general principles, which you brought up over on the Thomas-page, namely, that in Ye Good Olde Days there was often not a very firm distinction between Kvens and Kvenland, or between Cajuns and CajunCountry. There are Some (still-anonymous in the prose I point out) Historians that claim Caijainie==Kven==Finnish and therefore CaijainieCastle==Kvenland==Finland, fair enough. But we should not oversimplify, and list Charles IX as flat-out one of the 'Kings of Kvenland' which is what the bare-see-also implies to the everyday reader ... unless we have WP:RS which says flat out "Charles IX was the Nth king of kvenland" in exactly those words, scholarly consensus with no conflicting sources saying otherwise. Anyways, my drive-by-editing career in ancient swedish-and-maybe-finnish royalty is over now. I leave it in your capable hands. :-)
- p.s. Appreciate the talkpage ping, and the wish-you-were-here-concerns; on the former subject, I'm about fed up with lacking an automated watchlist (as opposed to a list of URLs maintained and polled by hand) that I'm planning to write a wikipedia-javascript-gadget to do it for me. If I can write it, are you willing to be the 'owner' of the gadget-code, under your username? On the latter subject, I've actually been writing you not one, but two walls-of-text for your very own, offline. Bet you just cannot *wait*, huh? :-) Don't worry, you'll get to open at least one of your presents before Kvenmas. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, the Kvenland article is where you'll find the summary of the historians' argument. Personally I dunno - I know a lot about some things, and have a couple of fancy pieces of paper, but unlike some academics I admit when I'm not very up on something '-) I've responded to you on one minor point at User talk:Thomas.W, but on the way to finding that I saw you say you got blocked??? I'd been wondering why I hadn't seen you around recently. Ouch. Sorry that happened. (For talk page stalkers I should note I just finished an exhausting work week and then I had to try to figure out what on earth to do about Passage du milieu. Bed soon, after I do an off-wiki task involving Old Norse.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, per WP:IAR, *I* discussed it on a personal talkpage, *and* in an edit-summary. :-) See the User:Thomas.W talkpage, and my insertion of a qualifier after the see-also link in Charles IX of Sweden. Nobody has reverted me yet, but the day is young. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 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)
- 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)
p.p.s. the sad tale of when 74 was oh-so-wrongfully banned, woe is moi, woe is moi
|
---|
|
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RubinkumarTalk 15:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you plesae check Gibside page and Family of Duchess of Cambridge page Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mogden Sewage Treatment Works, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sewer (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) 12:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 Valdresekspressen hijacking may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
- 30156082/ "'Tilfeldig' at asylsøkeren drepte tre kvelden før tvangsutsendelse"], ''Dagbladet]], 5 November 2013 {{no icon}}</ref> He hijacked the bus the day before he was to be returned to
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
so do you know the server-lowdown? and care to tell?
We know, we know. We still don't have deleted edits. Try annoying Coren to tears and pressure labs into speeding up the process if you want to see it happen since toolserver is shutting down on 1/6/14.
- ...toolserver is shutting down? What is the replacement? Are the tools being moved, or what, exactly? --74
- Hi again 74, you get around :-) WMF labs. It is a tortuous tale of politics and funding. The current edit counter is at labs, see the url and the message at the top. /me waves to Coren.Yngvadottir (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this tale is unwritten, or maybe there is a WMF document that explains such things. But I would like to know at least the rough outlines, I guess, of the story. As you know, I have it in for some of the bohts around here. But besides the installed-in-mediawiki-itself extensions like AbuseFilter, there are also plenty of 'actual' bots such as SineBot, which run on the main wikipedia servers from what I can tell. Then there are semi-off-wiki things like toolserver, which I always assumed were privately funded, but it sounds like not. Finally, there are "rogue" bots like the one being run by archiveDotIs folks (semi-allegedly). Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again 74, you get around :-) WMF labs. It is a tortuous tale of politics and funding. The current edit counter is at labs, see the url and the message at the top. /me waves to Coren.Yngvadottir (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry 'bout that. I'm known to be a little bit of a troll.BuBBLeSGiRL209 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)