User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Crisco

Bonus picture

Crisco, tell me, what does this means: **As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.**. I want that exception. I want images that are an exception to the general rule, I wan't them big. I wan't them to show up like 280px and I want that it should work for everybody - well if it is possible. I experience preference and image chaos, se talk page Tadao Ando. Also if this is possible, will you make a comentary on talk page, please. Bless, Hafspajen (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC).

• You already know how to make the exception... and it forces the size for everyone. Now, getting people to accept this is a different story altogether, and you can't really force acceptance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

.No, I really don't undrstan what's happening. At a time I belived that using upright will be good for everyone. I do not understand this.

• First, there is the 280px. This looks like it is not alowing those preferences whatever that is. ( I guess people go in to their so called preferences in their OWN computer and make their OWN images look differen from the ones the standard image would be, but this is something I don't know about, and I guess quite a lot of editord don't - but I am only guessing)

• Second, I thought if I do the upprighr=1.35 that will make those people whith the mystical preferces happy, and will show up like big on standard.
• Third - there is this wide range of screens nowadays, on top of everything.

All these are only my guessings, because I used the same kind of computer since like 2000. I tried to discuss these thing here and there but I still don't get it . Hafspajen (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Have you ever tried accessing Wikipedia on a mobile phone? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. I don't have any ... I digged down my last into a flowerbed. Well, accidentally. So, I said better without. While I do things I do, I wan't to feel free. Like in old times. Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. Give it a shot. Or try adjusting the size of your window. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Nobody cares about me, this horisontal situation is very unconfortable.
Not anymore

Hi Crisco, I think I may be about to add to your woes - so apologies in advance! Hafspajen needs to have the DYK check tool added so he can use it for reviews; the link you gave on my talk page looks as if it has some added bells and whistles that perhaps he might not need? Would you be able to give him easy instructions (while he's here on your page anyway) to install the very basic DYK checker - or would you rather I drag him kicking and screaming back to my page? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• What bells and whistles would he not need? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops - sorry, after I'd pressed "save" I managed to work out that the link was showing the whole coding rather than the simple quick installation script. Do you want to guide him through which of his pages to add it to? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Hafs, you need to copy the line importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); to User:Hafspajen/vector.js, then save. Purge the page, and it's installed. It will show up in the bar at the left-hand side. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK, Haffy (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am an artist, forChristsake, not a programer- what have I done NOW wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hafspajen/vector.js Hafspajen (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• You had to copy the whole line, not just the bit in the parentheses. I've fixed it. Try purging your cache (CTRL + F5 in Firefox). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Did that. Hafspajen (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Do you see the tool? It should show up as "DYK check" in the sidebar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean in between the What links here; related changes, Logs, ... or above between Wikilove, sandbox, twinkle and so on? Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• After "What links here", in the "Tools" section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is here, but why is all the rest here? talk pages and stuff? like User talk:Angusmclellan , I am not even watching his page. Don't even remember talking to him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:Hafspajen Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huh, what? No, the tool is not through the "What links here" link. The link is called "DYK check" and should be immediately after "Cite this page" in your sidebar. ("What links here" shows pages that link to the page where you clicked on the link, so this is picking up all the times you've signed your name). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Re: Angus: It's picking up your comment "You may wish to expand wally dogs or 'Wally dugs' or Staffordshire dog figurines. New article. Hafspajen (talk) 6:23 pm, 31 May 2013, Friday (9 months, 19 days ago) (UTC+7)" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Did that, but am I going to be linked toghether with him forewer? And if so, where are the pages I use most like Phils, Drmies and yours , for example? WHY IS those pages linked? How did I managed to get linked to them. I don't wan't to be linked to those pages. Hafspajen (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is just showing that there is a wikilink from that page to your user page. The list is organized alphabetically (A, B, C, D, E and so on) so Drmies and myself are much further down the list. It's not really something to be worried about; I've probably got tens of thousands of backlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Who linked those. It was not me. Wan't to delink. Hafspajen (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's linked automatically every time you sign. The only way to delink would be to go through those... hundreds... of pages... manually, to remove your signature. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to images

OH; no. that I don't care. Crisco, can you tell me how is possible to make a page layout that satisfying everyone+ WHAT IFsome pics are really no good at thumb. Obviously gives some guys the creeps, if they are 280px. Looks like the same for upright =1.35. For me it sounds like a labyrint all this preferences and sizes. there is the 280px. This looks like it is not alowing those preferences whatever that is. ( I guess people go in to their so called preferences in their OWN computer and make their OWN images look differen from the ones the standard image would be, but this is something I don't know about, and I guess quite a lot of editord don't - but I am only guessing) , as I said.

• Second, I thought if I do the upprighr=1.35 that will make those people whith the mystical preferces happy, and will show up like big on standard.
• Third - there is this wide range of screens nowadays, on top of everything.

SOLUTION=Nobody is happy. Hafspajen (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• • The problem is there is no way to make everyone happy. If you force all images to be bigger (say, upright=1.35) then people on smaller displays will have issues. If you keep images the default size, then people on larger displays will have issues. If you force them smaller, then everyone except cell phone users will have issues. If you remove images, everyone will have issues. To see why forcing images to be larger is an issue, try adjusting the size of your browser window; see how the images don't resize, and take up an increasing amount of room? Anyways, I am off to bed (gotta go to campus somewhat early tomorrow). Sorry I can't help more with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like somebody (programer) made a bad job here. Hafspajen (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, just butting in here, but I don't think it's a programming issue. It's a layout issue. One way to tackle it could be to resize the images 'on the fly' using Javascript or something but this wouldn't necessarily work well either. The bottom line is, Wikipedia is (potentially) viewed on so many different types of displays with so many different aspect ratios that it will never really be completely solved. I think 250-300px wide is a good size for most desktop (non-mobile) displays, personally, but I'm quite image-centric. Others seem to think less than 200px is ideal. Pff to them. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, I think also a 250-300px wide is a good size, personally, because I'm quite image-centric too. Question is to use 300px or to use the new upright= 1.35. Does it make several or more people happy using upright= 1.35? I met a lot of people just go and stripp all the layout and replace everyting with plain upright - and everything looks just weird, really. And if I put back what it was before they tell me I am forcing them to experience ... something that gives them the creeps. So I thought, maybe upright 0.1 or upright= 1.35 makes them happier? But I cant't check. Hafspajen (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I personally don't mind larger images, but (as Diliff mentions above) there are so many people reading, using so many different kinds of displays, that there are bound to be people who disagree with an image's size. You can't please everybody, especially on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• The person arguing against bigger size said: but don't you think we should try to choose the option that inconveniences the least number of readers? And do you think forcing everyone to view one particular editor's preferred size rather than leaving it up to individual preference really is the option that inconveniences the least number of people? My question is = do we know that standard screen are in minority? Hafspajen (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Right now the safest bet would be to try to discuss at MOS:IMAGES and put forth your arguments regarding why higher resolution images should be used. Unilaterally changing the MOS will not work; it needs to be based in consensus. That will take a long time, and may not even be successful, but it's essentially the only way to avoid arguing at every article where you change the image size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Image use policy say: Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default; see the Manual of Style for guidance.

• Manual of style: **As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). 'If an exception to the general rule is warranted', forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.

• The exception from the general rule is most art and art related articles that they do fall into this cathegory, and they are this exception to the general rule .

• See here art and art related articles, and architecture articles. These articles do use images larger than thumb. Michelangelo, Ancient Greek architecture, Anglo-Saxon art, La maja desnuda, Stained glass, Sandro Botticelli, Yixian glazed pottery luohans, Wells Cathedral, Romanticism, History painting, Romanesque architecture, Ambrosius Benson, Portrait of Francesco d'Este, Andrea Mantegna, Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce), Danaë (Titian series), Cambrai Madonna, The Werl Triptych, Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin), Léal Souvenir, Braque Triptych, Death of the Virgin (van der Goes), Miraflores Altarpiece, Madonna of the Dry Tree

• See here also featured articles - art and art related articles, and architecture articles do use images larger than thumb; as exception to the general rule : Early Netherlandish painting, Holy Thorn Reliquary, The Magdalen Reading, Royal Gold Cup, Madonna in the Church, Stanford Memorial Church, Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents, The Entombment (Bouts), Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, Las Meninas, Dresden Triptych, The Garden of Earthly Delights, The Magdalen Reading Funerary art

None of these articles was my work, by the way, Hafspajen (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I know that it is a recommendation, but you are not going to convince some editors that it's allowed. I tried to put Streatham portrait through FAC with a 300px infobox image, and it ended up killing a lot of bytes which needed not have died.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ä* Well, I don't know. Here are some guys convincing someone, succesfuly, about galleries. See what other editors working with art articles were discussing , here at Talk:Charles Marion Russell. with Montanawb. Sometimes I think people read the Manual of style like in 2008, and since then they don't realize that things the changes. I still meet people who tell me galleries are dicouraged, like the teddy bear article - issue. They are not, not any more. Hafspajen (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nom: Ike Altgens

Please accept my apologies if I'm spamming. This nom has been active for 38 days. The initial concerns with Ike Altgens have long since been addressed, and a great deal of additional work has been done, including a recheck of its sources and the addition of a free image courtesy the subject's nephew. I believe this article is ready for promotion and would greatly appreciate any attention you're willing to give its nom. Thanks in advance. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

r

tks. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• ) Ceoil (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

D'Oliveira affair

Another favour to ask! I've got this article at PR here; it is technically another cricket article, but this one is a bit different. Any comments appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

• Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects?

• WikiProject report: We have history

• Interview: Nate Ott: the writer behind 71 articles in the largest-ever good topic

• Featured content: Spot the bulldozer

• News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny

• Traffic report: Into thin air

• Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nom still open

Hi Crisco, I see there must be a bot issue, but in this edit you closed an FLC nom for List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars, but it's still showing as open, and has no delegate comments either, the nominator still believes the candidate to be open, despite it being closed over a month ago. Suggest that something is done, even manually, even if it's just to leave a closing note, so this doesn't happen again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam

Why did you interrupt me when I was fixing up the article and then ban me?

Jdogno5 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are supposed to discuss, which you were not doing. Now you've been indefinitely blocked for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

AP ?

Mau nanya, artikel ini udah layak jadi AP belum ? --What a joke (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• AB mungkin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dipodium punctatum

It looks like someone expanded Dipodium punctatum last month. It might not be enough to get the picture off of the hold list, but figured I'd let you know anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Armbrust, did you get any news on this? Enough to run, sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well actually the species was previously misidentified, and the image was in the Dipodium roseum article. (Didn't see this earlier.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand it was previously misidentified. I meant, was this done as part of your reward board posts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, I added it to the list after the file was renamed on Commons. (Because the article is marked as a stub.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alrighty. Anyways, scheduled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Just saw List of literary works published in Asia Raja: excellent work, as always. Thanks on behalf of the world. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Homme au bain (painting)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Gustave Caillebotte -Man at His Bath.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• IMO this should run on an Aprils Fools Day as a POTD. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Next year, maybe. This year's is scheduled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know, and IMO the empty map is a very good choice. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Triumph International

Hi Crisco. Over two weeks ago I submitted a draft article on the Talk page of Triumph International, where I have a COI and advertised my request at COIN, where it was archived without response. John Broughton reviewed the article and said he supported moving it into article-space, but I'm still waiting for someone to actually fulfill the Request Edit by moving it into article-space per WP:COI.

I was wondering if you had time to take a look. The Talk page discussion is here and the draft is located at User:CorporateM/Triumph. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try and have a look later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Crisco! They confirmed that "sloggi" is with a lowercase "s". Let me know if there's anything else! CorporateM (Talk) 12:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging

Crisco, O'dea has responded to you on this nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak

You were among the discussants at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1 in January. There has been a WP:PR and I hope that you would re-evaluate the the current nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• We'll see. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion, please

Red Skelton--good enough for GA? Had a little surprise the other day Talk:Red Skelton, as when I started working on it again, I found that the official Skelton website had borrowed most of the radio section and copyrighted it. The original problem with the article was that someone had taken material from there. ;)

You offered to look at Perry Como a while back--not sure if you had time or not. As per your advice, one of the non-free photos is now gone; haven't yet found a free one to replace the remaining one. Know I need to do a LOT of work with the refs because when I started working on it, I didn't note the page numbers (EEK!!). So it's back to doing a lot of lookups for starters. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm recovering from a fairly bad case of the flu (which has led to two almost Wiki-free days for me), so I can't guarantee it will be right away. I hope to help though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A "feel better" gift. :) Take your time. Know it takes a bit to get back "up to speed" after a run-in with that! We hope (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fulvous Whistling Duck

I've got this to the stage where all the text is in place, although I haven't even begun copyediting or checking. Since you were involved with the image discussion, I wonder if you had any views on the current selection and placement—note that I've moved the FP to lead image. This is quite short for a bird article, do you think the lead is long enough? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly long enough for GA. I'll take a looksy tomorrow, hopefully (it's getting on midnight here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alright Jim, I've added some comments on the talk page (sorry it took so long!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, both fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sega Genesis

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sega-Mega-Drive-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sega-Genesis-Mk2-6button.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Jokowi

Crisco, Anda berminat tidak untuk menerjemahkan & mengembangkan artikel Joko Widodo dari Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia ke Wikipedia bahasa Inggris. Udah dikembangkan & diusulin jadi AP tuh disana. --Erik Fastman (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Tidak, apalagi di saat2 dekat pemilu seperti ini. Terlalu banyak POV yang masuk. Saya merasa lebih baik mulai dari nol. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lha, kemarin aja waktu pemilihan presiden Amerika Serikat yang jadi FA malahan kandidatnya kok (Obama & McCain): Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008. Hehehe --Erik Fastman (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dan itu 1) kedua kandidat utama dan 2) dikerjakan oleh lebih dari satu orang. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am uploader of File:Daedongyeojido-full.jpg

I've noticed Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 March 5#Transcription and translation of Korean markings. The identity of red stamp that you guys all wonder about, is "서울 大學校 圖書", which is pronounced "Seo-ul Dae-hak-gyo Do-seo". It means "Seoul National University's book".

Daedongyeojido has three version and all of them is designated as secondary national treasure of South Korea. The scanned verison(File:Daedongyeojido-full.jpg) is treasure item number 850-3, which is owned by Seoul National University Kyujanggak Institute for Koreanology Studies. The stamp shows that it is possesion of SNU KIKS institute. If you visit the institue, you can see Daedongyeojido in the institute museum. Just like the picture on right side.

Best regard, ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 22:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(+ addition) The rust color stamp which is upper side of SNU stamp is "朝鮮総督府圖書之印", which means "stamp of Governor-General of Korea". ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 22:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'll add that to the file description (there were questions owing to the file's recent Featured Picture candidacy). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 March 5#Transcription and translation of Korean markings. Korean wikipedians has been noticed and explained other stamps also. ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 05:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Zim hockey team

Hi Crisco, how are you? I hope you are well. I'm sorry to bother you but I was wondering if you might have the time to help out at the FAC I have going here for the 1980 Zimbabwe women's hockey team. The article has support from three editors of good standing but needs image and source reviews. I know you are familiar with this kind of thing so I thought I would mention it to you. If you could spare a few minutes to have a quick look I would be very grateful. Thanks and have a great weekend! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have a go at images in the morning (my time), as I am likely to tuck in soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this. I appreciate it very much. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

D'Oliveira affair

Just to inform you that the article is now at FAC here, and any further comments would be appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alrighty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

• Comment: A foolish request

• Traffic report: Down to a simmer

• Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

• News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

• Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

• Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

• Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

• WikiProject report: From the peak

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lisa del Giocondo

jika Anda tidak keberatan, bersediakah Anda untuk memperbaiki sedikit artikel id:Lisa del Giocondo terutama pada tatanan kalimat & terjemahan agar serupa dengan yang ada di en.wiki karena konon katanya masih ada bagian yang membutuhkan perbaikan. Artikelnya pendek kok. Terima kasih --What a joke (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Saya sedang menyunting terjemahan dari Rasiah nu Goreng Patut; maaf. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Roll, Jordan, Roll

Cheers and thanks, hope you are having a good weekend Victuallers (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And another DYK

Could you do the honours on Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar? I think the hook should have to do with it being the only "two-headed" American coin. Also, could you find a way to have the paintings of Lewis and of Clark side by side? Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Will have a looksie later (I'm copyediting a translation of a novelet right now, and I want to make sure I've done at least 20 pages today). The pictures will be easy; we just need to upload a collage showing the two of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, I have nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar and am currently playing with the image / will do a QPQ review. I've added an April Fools' hook if you want to have a gander. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, but why not show both sides of the coin?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• If we go April Fools, that would give the joke away. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK April Fools hooks set timing

Crisco, if I recall correctly, you typically assemble the April Fools prep sets. At the moment, we're at two sets per day, which clearly won't do the trick given that 21 are approved and another eight (or nine, if the one you mentioned on WT:DYK is added) are awaiting verification. Even with 21 you'll want three sets on April 1; the key thing is the timing since we're currently off-cycle.

I've just posted WT:DYK#Need to switch to three hook sets a day, at least temporarily on the matter, and suggested a switchover to three per day starting at 08:00 UTC (the next scheduled update is at 09:30 UTC, and after that 21:45 UTC on the 30th, and 10:00 and 22:15 on the 31st, as the bot adds 15 minutes per set in its glacially paced attempt to get to 00:00 UTC.

I think I've figured out what needs to be done to get the changeover to work, though as a non-admin I don't have editing privileges on the requisite pages. I'm hoping that there will be quick approbation to my post, and I can have an admin do the necessary work after 00:00 UTC a couple of hours from now.

Let me know if you are indeed the point person here, and think this is a good idea. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, do you mean 08:00 UTC today, or? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco, Allen3 has already said he's going to make the adjustment on WT:DYK, so you don't need to do anything right now. (I did indeed mean 08:00 UTC on March 30.) I'd rather not have two admins colliding on something like this.

One reason I wanted to change today rather than tomorrow is that we're getting a last-minute flood of Women's History Month hooks, and having a couple of extra sets will help whittle down the number. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, that's fine. 8:00 UTC would be... 3 p.m. local time... I coulda done it, and still can if 8:00 UTC is late for Allen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• The change is already made ([1] [2]). --Allen3 ^talk 00:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, saw that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to you both. Crisco, were you planning to work on April Fools Day prep sets this year, or will that be up to others? (The four prep sets currently awaiting filling are the last of the pre-April sets, so starting will have to wait.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can do it... I think. Tomorrow is Nyepi (a national holiday in Indonesia) and the Mrs wants to go out together for a change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars

Hello. The User:The Rambling Man has already adressed you regarding the following issue: List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars. It's still open and all the issues the page had have been fixed, so I would like to know if I have no nominated it again on the FL or if it should update the FL status or whatever it's usually done in this situations. Please leave a note on my talk page after you reply to this messange. Thank You for your time. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• MarioSoulTruthFan, the remainder of the steps should be undertaken by a bot; all the human steps have already been completed. Hahc21, what's going on with our bot? It's less reliable than a meth addict holding a jackhammer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that was funny! Thank You for the answer. So If I understood you correctly it's nothing left for me to I just have to wait, until the bot decides to do something, right? (Maybe replace some dead links in the meantime). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, essentially all that's left is to prepare the article for a new nomination (it's been 2 weeks already, so renominating shouldn't be an issue). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Our bot? I am our bot Until Legoktm has time enough to coup Voxelbot. → Call me Hahc21 15:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I was afraid you'd say that. So I should do the manual everythings until Voxelbot has had his physical? (Side note: could you take care of the Bruno Mars list?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
          • If he could it would be great. I replaced all the dead links. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Don't worry about that, Crisco. I will take care of manually archiving the FLCs every 15th and last day of the month until we can sort this out. → Call me Hahc21 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
              • LOL, you posted that just as I started closing this. No worries, I can manually do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
                • Lol, okay! → Call me Hahc21 06:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Isabelle Ciaravola

Crisco, can you take a quick look at the hook, and at my edit to the relevant sentence in the article, and let me know whether this is appropriate encyclopedic content or not? It could make a quirky hook, which is why it caught my eye, but I can't bring myself to promote it without getting a second opinion—I might have made the wording more encyclopedic, but the content is what truly matters. (It should perhaps be struck entirely.) I've already cast doubt on another Women's History Month approved hook (Template:Did you know nominations/Lily Bristow), and I want to be very sure I'm not being overly critical on Isabelle's, or coming down on the wrong side of the border because I'm overtired. I'll see what your opinion is come morning. Many thanks. Oh, and if you'd take a look at the special occasion Women's History Month section, and see whether you think Gerd Larsen ought to be promoted, that would help. Since I suggested the final rewording of the hook, I can't do it myself. (The ideal prep set, timewise, would be Prep 3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blue, I think it is very fluffy (something we've had complaints about recently, otherwise I'd be more willing to turn a blind eye). I'd go with the 30 minute standing ovation, if possible. I'll take a look at Gerd. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco, I'm just getting started in the morning, and Isabelle's in a prep area as a quirky hook. It's a set that has four bios (the final three in a row)—I'm reluctant to allow more than 50% bios even with the month ending. Even though it's a bigger step after the promotion, I'm willing to pull the hook because of the fluff, and come up with an ALT based on the ovation. I'll probably go ahead in the next hour unless I hear otherwise, since your day typically ends then. PS: Thanks for taking a look at Gerd. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... sure, go ahead. I'll be getting to the first April Fools hooks soon, after I finish reading abstracts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD consensus not reached

Crisco, while I understand I was the only voter who supported redirect or delete, would it be possible to relist this debate rather than close it? There was not exactly a defined consensus established, as 2-to-1 wasn't really much input. Seems too soon to close, despite nobody adding to it for a while. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• That discussion had already been relisted twice (which is generally the maximum). The consensus (loosely defined) there was clear, that discussion of the song exceeded the minimum threshhold for notability. Your arguments as to how it did not do so appeared less strong than the arguments of those !voting to keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Now I'm curious: do you know of any particular instances where debates get relisted thrice or more? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Not offhand, no. Take a look at random AFD archives (there may be some hiding thereabouts). Random example, this archive has 48 AFDs, one of which was relisted thrice (in violation of WP:RELIST, IMHO). There have been days where I closed 6 or 7 AFDs that had been relisted twice, owing to WP:RELIST. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Siproeta stelenes

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Malachitfalter, Bambuspage, Siproeta stelenes 3.JPG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember how I said there was an image I really wanted to use in the Signpost? Well, I didn't want to say before it closed, but.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it's ready! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

[3]

Hi, could the ship's crest be uploaded? Thanks, Matty.007 14:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's a dead link for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This cached version? Thanks, Matty.007 15:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Who was the photographer? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the crest (the crossed pistols with the sword). Sturmvogel told me "AFAIK RN ship badges are crown copyright and OK to use, but I'm no expert on copyright", so I asked you. I have looked at some new RN submarines, such as HMS Artful (S121), and they have uploaded the crests, albeit as non-free. Thanks, Matty.007 16:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, that.... I tend to agree, and Strum knows the ships better than I do. Crown Copyright is 50 years post publication, and if this was a WWII ship, that's already PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
          • OK, so this one is good to upload from there? Thanks, Matty.007 16:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Which of these copyright statuses should I use:

The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license

The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license

The copyright has definitely expired in the USA

This work was made by the United States government

Another reason not mentioned above

The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a valid copyright tag)

I found it on the Internet -- I'm not sure

Thanks, Matty.007 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another reason not mentioned above, then enter {{PD-UKGov}}. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help and knowledge about uploading a picture! Best, Matty.007 16:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Late April Fool's entry

Hi Crisco, do you think this might have a shot at April Fool's? Prioryman (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• No time, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough. Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Wankard Pooser, you seem to have selected ALT4 for the prep area, but the reviewer and author have both expressed a preference for ALT3. Prioryman (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) Can I just ask if Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging can be in because it was cleared first but then held up because someone misread the hook and put a cross in and no-one replaced the tick until Maile kindly did this morning. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I knew I missed one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Man sweeping ash from the road during the 2014 eruption of Kelud

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Ash in Yogyakarta during the 2014 eruption of Kelud 01.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 14:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Eland90.PNG

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Eland90.PNG.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Another naming(ish) thing

Hi Crisco. I have a potential COI with Nestlé Purina PetCare (the pet food company). While I was researching it, for a while I was a bit confused with the confusingly similar article on Purina Mills, a farm animal feed company that spun off in 1986. I was hoping that in order to better distinguish between the two and avoid any confusion among our readers, we could replace the redirect at Purina with a disambiguation page and make the Lead of Purina Mills more specific: "Purina Mills, LLC, is the animal feeds unit of Land O’ Lakes, which feeds farm animals on its 1,200-acre farm in Gray Summit, Missouri."[4] It was previously part of Ralston Purina (now Nestlé Purina PetCare) until the U.S. farm animal feeds portion was sold in 1986."

Does that seem like the right way to go? CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is Purina PetCare sometimes referred to simply as Purina? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know it's almost always just referred to as Purina. Not the best of examples but this shows staff just detailed as representing Purina. Maybe I should declare a COI as it's a feed I use (along with Royal Canin) ? SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• If both are often referred to simply as "Purina", a DAB page sounds reasonable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the dog food brand is often referred to as Purina, while references to the corporation will usually say Nestle Purina or Nestlé Purina PetCare. I actually use the Whole Foods generic brand personally. CorporateM (Talk) 13:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I've submitted a Request Edit for another article-move here. I realize it's probably annoying having me pestering others to make every edit for me, but this is what WP:COI currently says to do ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Back to the first question: which company has the greater market share? A disambiguation page should work, but if one company has a significantly larger market share... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming no one has un-seated them since 2004, Nestle's Purina is the largest dog and cat food provider in the US with a 25-31% market-share depending on the year and source you use and about $6.5 billion in revenues as of 2010. In comparison, a 2001 source puts Purina Mills at $1.4 million, but it had $1.2 billion when it was bought in 1998.[5]

They do not compete. Nestle's Purina focuses on cat and dog food while Purina Mills feeds horses and farm animals. CorporateM (Talk) 00:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• K, I'd go with a dab page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Coolio. I went ahead and submitted a Request Edit for it then and the other clarification. I know this must be tedious, but thanks for chipping in anyway! CorporateM (Talk) 01:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Literature

Hey there. I've addressed the concerns from the reviews, and was hoping you could go take another look. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Still have some RL stuff, but I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL

Love your comments on the Talk:Main Page

TheChampionMan1234 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The ones now hidden? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes ;-) TheChampionMan1234 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  Glad you liked 'em. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is my article ready for DYK?

The article is Technical support scam, if yes, what should appear on the main page, if no, what do I need to improve, I know it is a long way from perfect, but since you're so successful with they, I am aking you --TheChampionMan1234 06:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd definitely expand this a bit more, to avoid it appearing to be a simple dictionary definition. Secondly, this needs some more references. Several sentences are not supported by a reference. Your list looks very incomplete, to the point of not having much value in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Most of the stuff that does not have a citation is already mentioned in at least one of the references, but just isn't cited properly, this is, anyway a pretty notable topic, a lot of people would have gotten one of these calls, just google it and there are heaps of blog posts. --TheChampionMan1234 06:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• We're not looking for blogs, though. We're looking for reliable sources... mainstream, usually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have found some other sources which may be accepted, I will add these when appropriate, and speaking of the list, I don't plan to add a lot of other tactics to it. --TheChampionMan1234 06:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• What do you think about the one I just added? TheChampionMan1234 06:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you don't plan to add much to the list, you shouldn't indicate it is a list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources question

Am still working at Skelton; last night I found a series of newspaper articles by him in The Milwaukee Journal for 1941. Google news archive is missing only the newspaper copy of the first, but the articles cover him working in the medicine show to what was the present then--1941. There's some wonderful material there--things like when they had a polar bear cub as a pet in a hotel and how he ruined an expensive theater organ in Minneapolis--trying to make people laugh by squirting a marathon contestant with the building's fire hose.

The accounts of some things Skelton gives in the articles are sometimes different than what's found in current books and more recent news articles. I'm on the fence as to what should have more weight--something he either dictated or wrote, or the more recent material. He had a biographer and spoke for years in interviews about writing an autobiography/having the biography printed, but neither ever happened. Some thoughts on this when you have a chance, please. Thanks We hope (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• What if you treated it as an SPS (although that's not quite the same thing) and rely on these articles for sound bites and similar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There's probably some good quotes that could be used from them--thanks! We hope (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Bonus Picture II

	Good idea Award
	A good idea was it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

FP? Hafspajen (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, the resolution is too small. Most FP art scans are at least 3000 pixels on one side (of course, it depends on the size of the original painting/sketch). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, never mind. Still nice. Hafspajen (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• And a cute lemur too! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Alpha-gal allergy DYK

Just a quick note as I'm heading offline (5am here) but my wording on that DYK hook was based on [6], which is the source behind the press release, blog et al. sourcing in the article. On a quick read beyond the summary, "mammalian meat" is probably ok and is used in the paper but it mostly states "beef, pork or lamb". Imo, the article is poor, particularly in its sourcing, and should never have been accepted for DYK but the process there is notoriously unable to handle medical articles. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that DYK handles medical articles terribly, and would rather there be a complete ban on such articles than we spread misinformation. That being said, although pork and beef are probably the most common, the article (and apparently the source) support a more extensive definition; limiting it to pork and beef would be implying that others are safe to eat for those with these allergies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

For you

Look at this --TheChampionMan1234 06:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's nice. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will do more of it later, but what I am doing is help zh.wikipedia reach 1 million articles, because there are already 9 other ones with 1 million or more, and hopefully, the number will grow soon. --TheChampionMan1234 06:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Free

Hi Crisco, Could you have a look at the image here. It's from 1918 book and has two names underneath: J Russell & Sons photographers, and the name Emery Walker (1851 – 1933) – presumably the photographer. Free for Commons, a free local copy, or non-free? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say Free For Commons. PD-1923 for the US, PD-70 for the UK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent, ta v much! - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Link me once it's done. I'll have a surprise for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Done - File:Sir Edward Clarke, 1918.PNG With or without the signature? I can trim if it's preferred, or upload a second, derivative without it. Thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Should be JPG, to display better in the article. I'd go without. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• done again! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• And your surprise is at that second page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nice! How have you managed to do that? - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• (On Windows) When you are in the book-viewing mode, right click on the page you want, and click "view image". In the URL (like https://ia700401.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/4/items/storyofmylife00claruoft/storyofmylife00claruoft_jp2.zip&file=storyofmylife00claruoft_jp2/storyofmylife00claruoft_0008.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0) you will see "scale=4" or something similar. Just change the number to 1, and you've got their full-size scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm being even more flaming useless than normal today: I can't even get the book-viewing mode! Apart from the 'specialist' modes (pdf, daisy etc) I can only get view online, which is an entirely different address to the one you've given. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The link you gave me was what I call "book viewing mode". Sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Its odd: I can't get to the same address as you do, just the one I first posted. All very strange! - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Did you right click and then click "View image" (on Firefox, maybe it's different for another browser). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• A-ha! Not in Explorer, but I managed to play around with it in Chrome and found a way to do it there (for any TPSs, it's to right click and "Copy image URL", then paste and go and it brings up the size 4 version. Excellent: I'll re-load a couple of others too. Cheers for that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lafran Pane

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

DYKs by new contributors later than five days

Crisco, here are another couple of nominations made by people new to DYK—I believe these are both from one of the law classes where part of the assignment is to do articles on the subjects of their papers—and these came in a bit late. The initial reviewer gave them the orange X, but I wondered whether these should be given an exception because of newness and D9. Can you please take a look and decide one way or the other? They've been sitting there for a couple of weeks waiting for someone to decide. (I probably should have asked you sooner.) Many thanks.

• Template:Did you know nominations/America Online, Inc. v. IMS
• Template:Did you know nominations/In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data

—BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have replied at nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I've rejected the one, and added the other to my latest Older Nominations list.

On another topic entirely, I've just repatriated all but three of the April Fools hooks still awaiting verification. The repatriated ones have regular hooks and were already on the regular T:TDYK page, so that's their sole home now. (One had already been approved and promoted in the interim.) The remaining three: Thigh gap, Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!, and Baratuciat, are only on the April Fools page. I don't know whether Baratuciat, having been created on March 30 (and nominated that day) might be grandfathered into next year's list (I don't think the rules allow it), or if we should ask Agne27 for a new hook (and a valid QPQ). The Killing (Megadeth) hooks might or might not need revision going forward—I haven't actually checked the article. As for Thigh gap, I'd long ago expressed my opinion that since it was a November nomination, it had long since passed its sell-by date as a regular DYK. If you agree, then it's probably time to close it; if not, I'll let you take it forward. I do want to point out that it was going to be combined with Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Fourth Wave Feminism—the latest Template:Did you know nominations/Thigh gap comments seem to want to go back to the "original bold alt" hook, ignoring your subsequent improvement to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Grandfathering Agne's hook should be fine, I think, especially if she really really really wants AF. Thigh Gap... kill it. Let Fourth Wave Feminism go forward as a normal hook, perhaps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, Crisco. I've dropped Agne a note asking what she wants to do, and marked both Thigh gap and Killing with the orange X—the latter was a February 2 Good Article nominated on March 24, so it was only eligible for April Fools at that point, and didn't get reviewed in time. (Did you want to do the formal template rejection for them both?) I'm off to make Operation Fourth Wave Feminism independent again. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Later followup: Agne says she'd like to have it grandfathered as an April Fools Day hook for next year. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Image favour

I've managed to find a free image of the chap in the photograph File:G G Macaulay.jpg, so could you delete the FU image? I'm sure there's a process to follow, but images are a mystery to me and this one certainly is not needed anymore. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yipee! I've deleted the image, under criterion G7. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

?

Colourful Tuaregs at the January 2012 Festival au Désert in Timbuktu.

Why this? I don't understand a thing about this. This article was partly translated from the Italian Wiki. And reworded, no way that is copyvio. What Refs are all bald URLs? Aren't we using webbsites as refs? The DYK that was twice green ticked was removed from que, why? Hafspajen (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• The issue is not that it's a copyvio (at least in the diff you've linked), but a direct quote was not in quotation marks. That's one, which on its own would not have been enough to pull from the queue. However, the references still need to be formatted (see WP:BURL why). Simple URLs / URLs + titles are not enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But I put a <blockquote> </blockquote> on the quote. Maybe I should stop making DYKS. Hafspajen (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not that quote, but "most romantic garden in the world". Also, looks like I goofed: Yoninah meant in the hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Crisco, I promoted this, and apologize for missing the direct quote. (Clearly, I should have stopped work sooner last night.) However, I've just read WP:BURL, and URLs plus titles are not, according to that page, bare URLs. In fact, I've never run into this definition before, and haven't ever treated URLs plus titles that way. While I prefer references to have more meat than just a title, my understanding was always as long as it wasn't just a [1] link or an actual URL (http and all), it was adequate for DYK. Is this not the case? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think Yoninah was applying a more strict definition than what is in the rules right now (WP:DYKSG gives examples: "D3: Sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header. References in the article must not be bare URLs such as http://example.com or [1] – according to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#Reference section. Many bare-URL references can be automatically completed with Reflinks."). However, it is good practice for Hafs to add a bit more meat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't call good practice to work my as of for a nice article for Wikipedia, and get kicked in the but just because I am not too good at all these high standards some people use. I would have preferred to be contacted on my talk page instead of being humiliated in front of all people at the DYK. Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, it might have been a better approach. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Michelangelo's Pietà

Bonus picture

After several edit conflicts - But running ref links just converts bare urls to the way Hafs does his refs (url plus title). I also always thought bare urls were a [1] or the straight url? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• They are; my link to the page was just to explain why further formatting would be useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's just withdraw the DYK, no point in this. I don't want this any more. Hafspajen (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hafs, don't worry... just a small hiccup. I'll format the refs, and then Blue or someone else can promote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still think that it is about humiliating, sorry to say, no diplomacy, no nothing. Some people love rules, just run around the whole place and immediately punish people if something wrong. Some people like this game, and wikipedia is a good place to promote this kind of behaviour, it is even rewarded. As Yngvadottir pointed out, DYK has always been a very collaborative, workshop-type project; reviewers, people who promoted the hooks to the prep areas, and admins who moved the preps to the queues would all check the articles and help make them pass the rules. It was a good way for newbies, especially, to learn about referencing, avoiding copyvio, formatting ... and the community working together. Not taking away peoples lust to do any more DYKs. This guy stopped both me and the reviewer, BlueMoonset who closed the rev., he did all this without being an admin, or without discussing a thing with us. By the way, I think it is mentioned something about me being a new DYKer. **Hafspajen did this as his first ever DYK review, eh, what does this say about the project? Hafspajen (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oh... :-(  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for listening anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah... I'll try hooking you on FPC some time. You love art, and there's many high quality scans of art out there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, art loves me - the way photos love you, eh? ^{what is FPC}Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• FPC is Featured Picture Candidates, a process which is used to select what are considered the best images on Wikipedia. Some art Featured Pictures follow:

• 
  Velazquez' Coronation of the Virgin
• 
  Homme au bain
• 
  Paris Street; Rainy Day
• 
  Streatham portrait
• 
  The Railway
• 
  Beata Beatrix
• 
  Wrestlers
• 
  Portrait of Sebastián de Morra
• 
  Sunset at Montmajour
• 
  Young Hare
• 
  Christ Crucified
• 
  The Execution of Lady Jane Grey
• 
  The Jewish Bride

And many more. Oh, and a sculpture, for Easter.

Hastily chose Christ Crucified. Splendid. Hafspajen (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I had been setting it aside for Good Friday, but I took Pieta this year as we haven't had a sculpture in a while. Just wanted to make sure I didn't forget. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That Pieta is wonderful. Hafspajen (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Tell me how are you going to hook me on FPC some time? Interested. Wanting to learn more about... Hafspajen (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I have lost my soap: Send me soap. Where is the soap, brother? ( Var är tvålen broder? ) [7]. Hafspajen (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Here it is

Hi Crisco, I was pointed here by Sagaciousphil in a discussion about bare URLs. Although in my distant past I ignorantly did not know better, I currently agree with you that "URLs + titles are not enough." As BlueMoonset points out, WP:BURL does not currently list such forms as bare URLs. I knew that it used to. A long-standing example was removed, I assume without any kind of consensus. Then that example was restored, only to be removed again a few hours later by the same user who had originally removed it. Maybe it's time to restore this concept to that page, but maybe not with that specific contentious example. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do also agree that bare URLs plus title are insufficient and would hasten to add I don't normally use them myself. The problem, as I see it, is that editors are encouraged to use the Reflinks tool to 'fix' bare URLs and all it does is change it to URL plus title - well, it fixes some of them anyway! It's a tool I often use especially on dog breed articles as they are full of them. So WP:BURL and WP:DYKSG would have to be changed to discourage using Reflinks? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some people erroneously think that Reflinks is a useful tool, when, in fact, it's an instrument of evil. It lulls people into thinking that they're turning bare URLs into acceptable citations, but its output is really only marginally better than its input. (It's got a better mode, but from what I've seen, almost everybody uses the inadequate default mode.) Yes, WP:BURL and WP:DYKSG should be changed to at least not encourage using Reflinks; if they mention Reflinks at all, it should be with a strong warning that its output is only a beginning which should be manually enhanced. And, again, WP:BURL should also be updated to describe this sort of construction as a bare URL, and give example(s) thereof. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. However, this isn't quite the right place for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

Do you think you could look back in and see if you think the article should be promoted? Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sven got it. Even if nobody had gotten it yet, I'd have been unable to promote (since I nominated the article at DYK, even if I hadn't written it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Cough cough. At FAC. I think you meant Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• D'oh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lewis and Clark Exposition dollar

Your help is appreciated by the DYK project and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Blog

Bang, apakah kita dapat memasukkan pranala blog atau WordPress sebagai referensi atau pranala luar ke Wikipedia? Terima kasih. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Tidak. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenapa? Menurut saya sih blog tidak dapat dijadikan referensi karena blog dapat dibuat oleh siapa saja, jadi tidak menutup kemungkinan adanya penyalahgunaan blog dan blog sering kali memuat informasi tanpa sumber jelas. Kalau menurut abang? Hanamanteo (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Itu kan berarti pendapat kita sama. Pertanyaan Hanamanteo "Apakah kita dapat...". Jawaban saya "Tidak", alias "Tidak dapat", alias "Tidak boleh". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Clara

What is the kerfuffle about? I made the 2010 cover myself and put it up on the Wikipedia. There's no "non-free" issue. Wikipedia has permission to use it. If you can explain this in some way that makes sense, please do. -- Evertype·✆ 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Made the 2010 cover yourself, or scanned it from an illustration / design by someone else? That's one. Two, it is on Wikipedia with a non-free rationale, whereas the original 1902 cover is already in the article and free. Thus, the 2010 cover falls afould of NFCC#1 (non-free media is only used when there is no free media). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole thing was made by me, 2010 cover and my design. The value of the thing is that it shows that the book is important enough to still be in print. I don't know what other rationale can be put on it. I really hate this kind of lawyering. The image is mine, and I want it to be on the Wikipedia. I put in a rationale that seemed to be accurate. Can you offer a helpful suggestion? -- Evertype·✆ 19:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If you were the copyright holder, you would have to release this as a free image; using it as a non-free image is not acceptable, particularly as there is a free cover in the article already. To prove you own the copyright, you would have to submit an WP:OTRS ticket with proof that you do hold the copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I am the copyright holder. I don't need you casting aspersions on that. I don't know how to "prove" this. Are you in any way interested in helping? -- Evertype·✆ 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't see how I am "casting aspersions" on that by asking you to verify it. I've already left you a link to how to "prove" you are the copyright holder at File talk:Clara-in-blunderland-cover-2010.png. You need to read that section I linked to, and understand it. A CC license, though it would allow the cover to be used on Wikipedia, would also allow the cover to be used by anybody else (and thus, possibly, allow them to sell the same PD book, with the same cover, and not give the original publisher any of the profits). It's not a decision to be made lightly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
          • By saying "if you were the copyright holder" you suggest that I am not. Not good faith. Thanks. Evertype is the publisher of the 2010 edition, and I am Evertype; nobody disputes this and it's no secret. Now, to get to fixing the problem—there are many licences. There's attribution licences and all that. You're suggesting that only the Public Domain licence is acceptable, or so it seems to me. Why do you insist on CC? I want this image to be used on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 09:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
            • "Why do you insist on CC?" Because we have a little thing called the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC), which is a guideline which determines when and how a work which is not under a CC license (or PD, or similarly free license) may be used on Wikipedia. #1 is that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"; in this case, the 1902 cover serves essentially the same purpose. The image, if used under a non-free copyright, would also have to meet #8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."), which your argument (that the image shows the book is still in print) singularly is unable to meet; it's just as easy to write that. Furthermore, there is no "this image is not free, but it may be used freely on Wikipedia" license; that's actually a speedy deletion criteria (see WP:F3).
            • When a free example of a cover is available, that is the one that should be used on Wikipedia, per our policies... even if the free cover is not the most recent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Aren't there a variety of these licences available, though? -- Evertype·✆ 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • (ec) As for "only the Public Domain licence", I never said anything of the sort. CC is not PD. Photographs I take and release under a CC-BY-SA license are still copyrighted, but they are under a "free" (libre) license: one may reuse the content so long as one attributes me and releases that content under a free license. That's how one of my photographs ended up published in National Geographic Indonesia (link), and another was (apparently) used in a video promoting Singapore tourism. The difference is, I don't care about the commercial opportunities for these images, whereas a publisher of a book would (I should assume) certainly want to protect the marketability of their product. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Yes, there are many CC licenses, but the most "traditional" protection which is still free enough for Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA (discussed above). The NC and ND aspects of CC are not considered free enough for Wikipedia, and may only be used under a claim of fair use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

{outdent}I've tried to change the licence and seem to have succeeded, and left discussion also on the deletion discussion page, and I hope that's all OK. I don't think there's any body else clamouring to publish a new edition of this (really very funny) 1902 parody; the low-res pic is nice and illustrative but nobody (with smarts) could use it on their own book cover for instance. -- Evertype·✆ 10:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert.  Definitely a misclick.  R. Baley (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agnes Monica

Hey Cris, how are you? Anyway, I think we should move that article into Agnez Mo (without capslock styling). It seems that she already changed her stage name completely, per twitter, album cover, single cover, as well as news outlet like MTV, Gatra, Viva News. I think Wikipedia articles commonly use stage name for the title, like Lady Gaga for Stefani Germannotta, P!nk for Alecia Moore, etc. What do you think? Regards — Bluesatellite (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• My first reaction is "ugh", but yes, with these sources that's what policy dictates. ("Agnez Mo"? ...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Same here, lol. And then, what nickname should we use throughout the article? "Mo" or "Agnez"? Alicia Keys is also a stage name, and it's called "Keys" (though it's not a surname). Bluesatellite (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Agnes until 2014, Agnez after the rebranding? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Cris, do you think I can nominate this article for DYK? Bluesatellite (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CubicTest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CubicTest two editors suggested delete and no one else made a comment against. If this had been a PROD, it would have been deleted. How is this no consensus? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I, and most admins I know, look for at least three editors to weigh in before a consensus can be found. If you want to nominate it again, immediately, there are no issues with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Please help me with the talk page archive bot, I could not get it working, I don't know how to set it up properly (see [8]. Thanks. --TheChampionMan1234 09:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh also please relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Good Solitaire --TheChampionMan1234 09:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The bot only runs once a day, so you just need to wait. The code looks correct. Pretty Good Solitaire has not been up for 7 days yet, so it's not ready for a relisting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal strikes again, big time.

Hello. Long time, no write. Sorry to bother you, I've noted that for the past few months now, it seems that the IP-hopping Indonesian movie studio/anime vandal that I was talking about a few months back has been striking again at least for the past few months. I've only noticed his rampage just these past few weeks. Here are the IP addresses I've dug up so far.

• 139.193.105.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.193.100.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.193.100.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.193.101.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.194.86.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.193.105.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.193.101.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.194.86.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.195.52.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 139.193.155.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It seems that for the past few weeks alone, it seems that he's operating on the 139.193.10x.x range. So does this warrant a block? He's becoming rampant again as far as I can see. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: Let's just say I'm "battling" with this vandal since around December 2007. Vandalizing the same kinds of articles. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• This looks like it requires an IP range block. Drmies, are you familiar with this black magic of which I speak? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, sorry. Kww is my go-to rangeblocker. Crisco, now that I have your ear, please look at Frans van der Lugt if you have a moment. I wonder if he could get In The News: he deserved it. I should have written him up a long time ago. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • RD, at most, I think... but it's worth a try. Even if not accepted, the suggestion gives some variety. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Huge range, infeasible to block. Can you give some suggestions about common phrases that are fairly specific to his edits? A filter might be possible.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nanami Kamimura, thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Edgar181 already blocked several smaller ranges from the 139.193.10x.* range. But look for very absurd connections between unrelated titles, such as "connections" between Digimon and Resident Evil or Ringing Bell and MariMar. One of his latest connections that I note: Planes and North by Northwest. Edgar181 and several other admins are just as familiar to this particular vandal as I am. Again, I've been battling with this guy since '07. In fact, my sandbox has a list of IP address that he used since 2009 alone. But you can also check out the admin board archives for more history. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • So, Kww, that doesn't look like the kind of thing that can be easily countered by a filter. And Kww has said that a range block is infeasible... I think we'd essentially be reduced to blocking individual IPs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

thank you for information

Dear Crisco, thank you for suggestions relating to art. on Igor Janev. Best Regards,--212.200.213.94 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just began procedure you suggested for undeletion of Igor Janev. [9], case 85. Sincerely, --212.200.213.94 (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sous Le Manteau

Note to self: this looks like a very good DYK to write. Drmies may like it too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sooooo subtle... alright, I'll get to it tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done what I could do right now, with JSTOR and Google Books. Hard to believe there's not more coverage in plain sight in journals and books. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of currencies in Europe/archive1

Hi Crisco, a little while ago you commented at the FLN which failed. Would you mind giving the article another look at and giving me some things to address before taking it to FLN again? Thanks, Matty.007 14:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have you tried peer review? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the last couple of things I tried/am trying (a portal and an article) both took a while (one is waiting) for response, the other only got a few, and for that I had to ask at the Teahouse. I will request one if you think it is a good idea? Thanks, Matty.007 15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It might help. You could also post at the talk pages of reviewers from last time, see if they want to revisit the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

PIC

Good ?

Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh that's cute. The motion blur on the wing, and the shadows, would likely be an issue though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
  Main Hall 2008. Sculptures by Lena Kriström.
• 
  The suite "The Banished Dragon" in ICEHOTEL 2008 by Valli Schafer & Barra Cassidy.
• 
  The suite "Coming out" in ICEHOTEL 2008 by Maurizio Perron.
• 
  The suite "Blue Marine" in ICEHOTEL 2012 by Andrew Winch & William Blomstrand.
• 
  Jukkasjärvi Icehotel interior
• 

Anyone of these?Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Make sure to check the size; it has to be at least 1,500 px on all sides. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have to send you to Jukkasjärvi to take some good pictures of the Icehotel (Jukkasjärvi). ..these are no good.Hafspajen (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Those are all quite beautiful; it's just a matter of getting good enough resolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK needs prep promotion to queue

Crisco, you may already have seen my new comment at WT:DYK, but the main page was supposed to be loaded with a new set 28 minutes ago, but although there are a bunch of preps, no one has promoted them to a queue. If you could promote one to get things moving again, that would be great, assuming you (or someone else) hasn't gotten there first. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Got all 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Great! Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Eriksson

Sorry if I sound like an amateur but how many characters more are needed for her article to reach 1500? Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• 250 characters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Although it is 1500 characters now, in terms of actual meat I don't think it's quite there. If we were to rephrase to avoid padding, it wouldn't quite be 1500. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Film (Dutch East Indies company)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Star Film (Dutch East Indies company) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting permission to use an image

Hi there. I'm in contact with a video game developer, and I'm trying to figure out the steps I would need to take in order to get them to properly release an screenshot for use on Wikipedia. Can you explain the steps, or point me where I need to go to see what they are? Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DONATEIMAGE is the most standard. Sven Manguard is considerably experienced with video game screenshot donation, so he may have better suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Torchiest: If they've already agreed to release images, what you need to do is the following:

1) Email them a copy of the form in the black box at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The link at the top of that page takes you to Commons, which has an identical form and a bit more background information.

2) Have them send the completed form back to you in an email, with the images that they are willing to release attached to that email.

3) Forward that email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org. It's preferred that you send the entire email chain so that we can see the context, but all we really need is the specific email with the filled out form (and the attachments).

4) Leave me a talk page message letting me know that you've sent the email to OTRS. This step is important, because OTRS can get pretty backlogged (especially photosubmission), but if you let me know, I will handle it immediately for you.

I should note that this isn't the exact process as it laid out in the instructions; they could just as easily send the completed form directly to OTRS. This is, however, the way that I find works best, because when they send it to you, you know that they've sent it, can thank them personally, and have an idea as to how long the email has been waiting to be processed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much for the information. I'm hoping to get something worked out this weekend. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Film (Dutch East Indies company)

The article Star Film (Dutch East Indies company) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Star Film (Dutch East Indies company) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Black or brown lab?

A Labrador head.

Black Labrador Retriever portrait.

A Chocolate Labrador. EDIT WAR black Labrador

Tell me without looking to the file what colour this dog is black or brown. People edit war on this saying it is black. On my computer it is clearly brown. Is there a possibility to fix this? This is one of the real good portraits that fitted very nicely into the article before. But with all this colour - war..Hafspajen (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Hafspajen: It looks chocolate (brown) to me. Against pictures of black labs this dog looks very much brown. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh - well, thank you... wonder why some say is black. like here... It is labeled black (file name) maybe on Ipads and laptops it looks black? Phil said it was looking blackish... Sagaciousphil, I was working hard to find an other pic instead of this one, but there is simply not one that is just as good as this one, not one is matching as well as this one with the other portraits in the Labrador Retriever article. Wonder if one of you picture experts can make it a shade lighter brown and relabel it? It was uploaded from flicr, and the source is NOT saying the dog is black. It says the dog is called Ellis, but nothing about the colour. Somebody labeled this dog as black when uploading the picture, bad luck. Hafspajen (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• What if it's a mixed breed (mixed lab?)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, to me that lab looks 'in between'. Neither brown nor black. Closer to brown though if I had to say. Black labs are definitely darker usually. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, what? How brown and how black those are, Crisco... I really don't know. But see how it was used in the article. Also show you other brown dogs. I show you even a picture with all the three dog colours, see here all three colours, so is it black - or brown, guys? I am inclined to think that it is the labeling that is causing the problems... and as I said the original pic from flicr is NOT stating that the dog was black, only that it was called Ellis. The uploader stated that the dog is black - but she is not active any more. The author is Marilyn Peddle and the uploader is Pharaoh Hound, but because she is gone I can't ask why she labeled this dog black as a filename, Labrador Retriever black portrait Ellis... I don't think it is black - I think it is brown and all this is a mistake. Hafspajen (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

• If we compare the dog in question to Bulaj, looks considerably browner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::* You mean the black dog. Well, now. The question is:

• A) Is it possible to re-label the file - change the file name?

B) Is it possible to fix and do some magic that this pic will be a shade lighter?

• C)Both.

I really need this picture for the article... Hafspajen (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I really don't like to seem Pointy but apparently - Guys, you all need to go to SpecSavers. I emailed the photographer (yeah, I know, well someone's got to be the clever so and so ). She has just replied and Ellis is most assuredly ... ... BLACK! See him here. She's certainly taken some fab wild life photos though! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC) [*/me skips off triumphantly!]

A Labrador head.

Black Labrador Retriever portrait.

A Chocolate Labrador.

Well, the dog may be black, but still this pic looks brown. (And that dog in the pic doesn't look like this one by the way - poity). Either way this pic is wrong Hafspajen (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here's the copy of her email:

Yes Ellis was a black labrador, I should know as he was my dog and I only have black ones! If you care to look at my flickr set https://www.flickr.com/photos/marilynjane/sets/72157594485322408/ you will definitely see he is black.

Thank you for your comments on my photos. Regards

Marilyn

If anyone gets the chance have a look at her photo stream on flickr there are some brilliant pics; I've only looked at a couple of pages as she has over 2000 images but to my untrained eye, some of them are brilliant (don't worry, Crisco, there's hardly any dogs, mostly wildlife). SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Phil I love you very much, and the pictures are brilliant but this dog still looks brown. You have heard a couple of guys who work with a lot pictures and with trained senses above saying it looks brown (Crisco&Diliff), and they should be able to know. And if the dog is black, as you say - and you say you e-mailed the dogs owner - than this picture is quite wrong because it showing a black dog as a brown, right? So maybe this picture should be deleted. Hafspajen (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• If the image was a little warm (a possibility, and not necessarily accidental) I think that might explain the somewhat brown hue. This image of the same dog is clearly black, and this one shows that the animal takes a bit more of a brown hue in direct sunlight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• -EDIT CONFLICT- Indeed. :) Crisco has hit the nail on the head, here's the reply I was putting together before he beat me to it: I think there's another possibility that you might be overlooking. It could be that this is indeed a black labrador taken in warm late afternoon light. This light often has the effect of making things look a little more orangey. Or in the case of a black dog, a little more brown. Here's a little experiment for you. Have a look at this image and tell me if it's a black lab or a brown lab? ....... Wrong! It's a black lab, the same one you displayed in the images above, but with the colour balance adjusted to simulate warm light. Likewise, it's fairly trivial to adjust the colour balance of the original image of the black/brown/whoknows lab in question. So in summary, regardless of what the dog looks like, your eyes can easily be deceived by the camera (if it gets the colour balance wrong), and by the lighting conditions. But as for whether it's the best image to illustrate that colour, that's a separate issue. Hafspajen, you seem keen to use the image though. One option is to use the 'adjusted' image, but then there's the issue of accuracy. The edit might look more like we know a black labrador to be like, but would the original photographer agree and approve? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

like this

(edit conflict)Well, I get your point, yes the warm light does makes a difference, as you said, both of you. Now my problem is that I need a picture, ANY pictue of a BROWN blasted lab that is about the size and display like the abowe. We don't have any. This is what we use now and it gives me the creeps... Hafspajen (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Couldn't we just crop the image of Hershey? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This to the right is Murphy (confused..) Oh, File:Labrador Retriever chocolate Hershey sit.jpg!!! YES, please. And please make that horisontal, same layout like the other two.. Hafspajen (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Lab Suply for cropping

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  A Good Dog Can Bring Happiness to Your Life
• 

A quick check on the lab supply gives this. Hafspajen (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try tomorrow. Today my computer is busy trying to make a panorama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• 
  So Phil cropped Hersey
• 
• 

Actually I found two pics that are not in any cathegory but will do. The question is which one shall I take?Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• i'D use the left one (Hershey). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

• News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Law

• Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz

• Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes

• Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The care and feeding of efn footnotes

I can't quite work out how to properly apply your suggestion re: XPQ-21. Could you please point me to an article using it in the way you're thinking of, that I could crib from? Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• David, I was thinking something like Terang Boelan or Fakih Usman. Note how the original quotes are provided in footnotes there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bonus pictures

• 
• 
• 

Hafspajen (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, now those are pretty. The first one might have a chance at FPC, if you want to give it a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

But you told me they need to be 1500 pixels? the first one is less... then how? Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Axis axis is 3,200 × 2,134 pixels at full resolution. All of them are quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, axis axis it is already one? Hafspajen (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• On Commons, which has a different process. A featured picture on the English Wikipedia would have templates like in File:Amber2.jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case axis shall be nominated. Do I have to have or do any special whatnot to do that? Hafspajen (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just follow the step-by-step nomination process detailed at WP:FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably will get stucked. But I will try. Hafspajen (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you get stuck just ping me and I'll help with the formatting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'Hafspajen (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• [10] did it but is not there... among the Current nominations... Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• You forgot to transclude it on the FPC page. Just like DYK; you have to transclude. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sous le Manteau

slakr^\ talk / 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• We should have had "Nazis" and "WWII" in the hook... Drmies (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Darn! Too late. Mind you, I think we have drawn some attention already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Star Film (Dutch East Indies company)

slakr^\ talk / 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Koreksi donk

Crisco, mohon koreksi artikel ini donk: id:Sorga Ka Toedjoe --What a joke (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Horstmann Technique

Could you please restore this page and its talk page for a redirect to Alternative medicine. I feel that is a more appropriate move per discussion. I was able to find at least one reliable source The Big Picture: Insights from the Spiritual World per WP:PRESERVE. Unscintillating argument of information suppression also relevant. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you want to create a redirect, there is no issue with that. The discussion, however, showed a fairly clear consensus for the removal of this content from main space (either as a deletion or userfication). As I said in the closing comment, I would not mind userfying the deleted text if someone requests it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of that, however I do feel per WP:PRESERVE that the article's history and talk page should be restored. Citations were introduced that were RS and coverage was significant. Given the sources for this technique, its history could be used for future expansion if more sources arise. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, in the deletion comment it says "There is no prejudice against the creation of a user space draft. I can userfy upon request." Since English is not my first language I am uncertain of the meaning of 'creation of a user space draft'? I would also like to express my support for the views of Valoem and Unscintillating regarding a possible merge into Alternative medicine article or similar. Terima kashi Matopotato (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Matopotato, it means that I can move the article and its history into your user space (likely User:Matopotato/The Horstmann Technique) so that you can work on it without having to worry about AFD or other similar things. @Valoem, WP:PRESERVE is not "don't delete before redirecting, ever". It is a guide to editing articles which have survived or would survive deletion but have issues which need to be addressed. It essentially means "rather than stubbifying an unreferenced or underreferenced article, try to clean it up". Now, as for the sources used... I can easily give you links if you want to add them to a "list of alternative medicines" or similar article, or you can get them if Matopotato userfies the article (which would, for copyright reasons, have the page history as well). Even better, you could help Matopotato clean up the draft so that it would survive in the main space as a standalone article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could move the article including its history and people who have contributed to the User:Matopotato page (as I understood was your suggestion?) @Valoem: I would appreciate if you could at least guide me in the direction I need to take to enhance the article. Any help is appreciated. Thanks both Matopotato (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joehana

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joehana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick question about copyright/FOP

Hi Crisco- The article Hahn/Cock uses a fair use low quality image. Is there a reason I am missing that a giant 3D sculpture on public display in Trafalgar Square does not fall under FoP-UK? Is it that the public exhibit is time limited? Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's because the statue may not be "permanent", as defined on Commons, since it is only there for 18 months. Then again, if it is to be destroyed at the end of that 18 months, it would be considered permanent (i.e. the life of the work). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joehana

The article Joehana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joehana for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi Crisco, I think I may have just made a dreadful faux pas. I reverted the addition of a link to a Blog on Hachi: A Dog's Tale but in the edit summary I included the name of the person who posted it on the blog - maybe I shouldn't have done that as the surname seems to be the same as the editor who keeps adding the information - it isn't their blog just a post they added to the blog. Also should links to google street view/maps be included in articles - originally the editor had included the links directly[11] in the article, which I removed and that seems to have triggered all this. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, it's just that I noticed you're around at the moment).

• The edit warring is not your fault. GMaps is of little use as a reference except for verification of existence, which is not how this editor was using it. I've warned the user, and may block if another revert happens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco - I was worried in case I might have fallen foul of 'outing' in the edit summary - hence hitting the panic button. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

PR

It would be a pleasure, but it may be the weekend before I get a chance to do it if that's OK. Although the fact that you used the word "pitches" to describe cricket bowling almost makes me want to refuse to read anything, and to storm off in a huff!!! On a more serious note, I'm a bit slow at the moment for various reasons. I'm working on a slightly heavy-going biography at the moment, but when the bulk of that is done, I have another chap lined up and will come knocking when it's PR time. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blast, that would have bowled me over and ended my twenty not-out streak (yeah, I'm not very good at it). Oh well, that ignorance is why I am so useful in representing the average man with the articles. Your biography sounds absolutely tempting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Koreksi hasil terjemahan

Crisco, mohon koreksi hasil terjemahan artikel ini donk: id:Daftar sutradara Hindia Belanda

Cuma seukuran paragraf awal doank kok --What a joke (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant

"Sources added after this discussion was begun appear sufficient to establish notability" DP 08:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've added "during the course of this discussion.". Your wording would (possibly) give the impression of a supervote, which I am attempting to avoid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What tempura

Bonus picture

File:Shepherds Bow - Google Art Project.jpg. Still nobody made that correction. Featured pictures criteria 7: Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. And this description say: tempura on wood but it is definitely not tempura, it should say tempera on wood. The description fot featc. pic should be correct, no? Hafspajen (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• LOL. Tempura on wood. I'd rather have it on a plate. (Fixed). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. I was mentioning it at the Featured pictures, but nobody noticed here - a silly thing to say. And if you ask me, judging by the cracks in the picture actually is probably oil and not tempera. Tempera doesn't crack this way. Also the style is very different from the icons, the icons style and cracs..... Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
  You can compare here with other icons
• 
  OK; I got it. Was probably like one of those paintings displayed like this..
• 
  This is how tempera looks like

Can't see they say that it is an icon or that it is made in tempera. But anyway, even if it is whatewer it is, it was not tempura. [12]Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK: I think I know what it is. I made a translation with Bing, and this picture is NOT an icon, no. Those are free, separate small paintings. But it was part of an iconostasis, and then it makes sense, it is perfectly clear. Should be corrected, that too. It should say, a religious painting from an Ucrainian iconostasis... That explains it. Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Except we need to have a source for that. If Google is explaining it as an icon, then per WP:V we need that. Re: your posting of the tempura mistake at the nomination, I'm sad to say that (with the length of your post) I can bet most people did not see that. I know I didn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. But I have a Russian source, the Russian description of the painting, from the museum, translated. Hafspajen (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright,

• That works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is this one [13]. You have to click on the picture that is one of many pictures en masse, below, down on the last row. Then you wil got the picture poping up with a text in Russian, that translates: (Bing translation): "Adoration of the shepherds" (from the series was the iconostasis). II Paul. XVII. Lviv region, Mr. Sokalski, s. Perev'âtičì. Wood, tempera. For some people icon or iconostasis is not much of a difference, but there are indeed differences. Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I've fixed the page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Crisco.. .Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with merge, please

Hi there,

Could you help me with this Parrog to Newport, Pembrokeshire merge, please? I haven't done it before and find the merge help page a little confusing. I don't want to mess it up. Thanks and regards, Tony Holkham (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, let me have a few minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thank you. I can see what you did to redirect Parrog, and the text from Parrog is now in Newport, Pembrokeshire. Presumably I can now edit the destination para, deleting the index ref (5) which will remain in history? Tony Holkham (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• You can remove the reference, but it would be better (per WP:V) to actually have a reference that supports this information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. The destination article needs quite a bit of work, and I plan to do that soon. Thanks again for your very kind help. Tony Holkham (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Don't mention it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Thurston_the_Great_Magician_-_Strobridge_Litho._Co..jpg

I've made a few tweaks since you've voted; please check you still support. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looks even better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That was the intent, glad to hear it worked. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed it did. Say, have you had any luck with "Dream of the Fisherman's Wife"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • My mother's visiting. I thought I'd best wait until she's left. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • LOL, makes sense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi Crisco. Might you take another look at your close here? I don't think there was consensus support for a merge among the !voters (please especially read the !vote of one whose !vote for merging was conditional on an event that did not take place prior to your close). I would have no problem with a redirect. In addition to the !vote not reflecting consensus to merge, there is a policy consideration (as discussed at the AfD). The article is completely unsourced, was challenged as such via tag, and fails wp:v. All of it should therefore not be created without inline citations (all challenged text can be deleted per wp:v, and should not thereafter be restored without inline RS cites). Thanks for reconsidering. If there is a redirect, of course anyone could create whatever RS-supported text they want to at the redirect page.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was going on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the merge !votes, but if you take issue with my closure, I can close it as delete and then just make a redirect as an editorial decision. The existence of the school, which would be a prerequisite for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, is not in doubt (as with their website), though it is clear that the school is not considered notable enough for Wikipedia (as you say in your deletion argument, for a stand alone article). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  I think that your suggestion is a good one, and doesn't run afoul of wp:outcomes or of the !vote. I just think the recreation via merge of material that falls short of wp:v, and which has been challenged, is best avoided. Thanks much.Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

FAC

Hey Crisco 1492. I just wanted to see if you would be willing to take a look at this FAC. I contact you because you have reviewed some of my previous FACs and I would value your input on this one. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll see if I have time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! → Call me Hahc21 01:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Need a user blocked

IP address 174.236.73.127 seems to like reinserting the fluff material on The College of New Jersey--a one-track editor, and then accusing the people who are removing the self-promotional crap of being vandals and sockpuppets. Detestable fella, indeed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. If s/he reverts again, it's time for a little holiday. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your help...it looks like Hahc21 didn't let 174.IP get a chance to try again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• But 68.194.227.210 seems to be of a similar bent... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was just about to say that...didn't know someone could change their IP that fast. could it be 174IP editing under a proxy?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dynamic IPs or meatpuppets? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One geolocates to Brooklyn, the other to New Jersey. Hmm... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Very possibly meatpuppets... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Tempted to think a meatpuppet, or someone who didn't get too much of a smarting pain from his first slap on the wrist.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@ColonelHenry: I am willing to do a short-term semi if it (or they?) persist. → Call me Hahc21 01:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Hahc21:, the pattern of editing is rather suspect...especially how they magically popped in to do the same work right after you blocked the other one. I defer to your judgment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seta Dadoyan

Hey Crisco, if you have a moment, could you please have a quick look at this nomination and the article? Won't take but two minutes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bonus pictures

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Don't think I like these as much (with my FPC hat on). The paintings in general don't appear to have the original colours (just based on what I can see at thumbnail), but then again I've never seen any of these in person. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

NO, wasn't thinking of nominating any of them. Just for fun. Hafspajen (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Livio & Roby

Hi Crisco, hope you're well. I'm fairly new to wikipedia and recently wrote an article about Romanian DJ and Producer duo Livio & Roby which included their live act Premiesku. I have just seen that it has been deleted and was wondering if you could advise on how i can improve it so that i can get the article back up? Ashleyc1990 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Ashley. In order to ensure that the article would survive a deletion nomination, you have to make sure that you have included several reliable, independent sources. They do not need to be in English (Romanian sources are fine), but they must be from sources which are independent of the subject and have a history of fact checking. No blogs, no Youtube comments, etc. To help you get started I can userfy the article into your user space, so that you can work on it without having to worry about another AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly Crisco . The sources i used were major electronic publications such as Resident Advisor, Mix Mag and DJ Magazine. Are these not the sort of sources i am supposed to use? Ashleyc1990 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• The issue with those sources, based on what I can see, is not that they were not reliable, or not independent, but that the coverage was not in-depth. Do you speak any Romanian? That would probably help find some sources which go into detail about these DJs. Or do you have access to other sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a lot more sources on Premiesku. How can i access the article so that i can add them? Ashleyc1990 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ashley, I can restore the article to User:Ashleyc1990/Livio & Roby for you to work on, if you want. But you'd have to promise me to not move it back into main space until someone else has checked to see if the issues brought up at the AFD have been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, i won't move it back until you have confirmed that it is fit to go back up. I dont want it to be taken down again :) Ashleyc1990 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• You can work on it at User:Ashleyc1990/Livio & Roby. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, i have added some more sources in the Premiesku section and i have also added a few lines about some of the notable shows they have played at. Let me know if you are happy for this to go back up. Ashleyc1990 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not there yet. Are there any reviews for any of their releases, perhaps, or any newspaper references? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco I have just added several more reviews. There are now reviews from Resident Advisor and Pulse Radio. Ashleyc1990 (talk)

Hi Crisco could you please let me know if these additional sources are ok? Ashleyc1990 (talk)

Mohon koreksi

Crisco, mohon koreksi paragraf ke-2 & paragraf ke-3 di artikel ini donk: id:Daftar karya Chairil Anwar

Terdapat kata-kata yang sulit dimengerti. Cuman 2 paragraf doank kok --What a joke (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Star Film

Abang Woodrich, abang diundang untuk memberikan suara di sini. Terima kasih. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Colleges again

Now, after fixing the TCNJ mess, now User:Juicy fruit146 who knows nothing about Rutgers and ignores this page, has inaccurately renamed these articles. I ran into this schmuck last month screwing up stuff he didn't know about, how do I get these reversed and get him to back off Rutgers articles (where his lack of knowledge is causing problems)--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• 12:22, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+65)‎ . . Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations ‎ (current) [rollback: 2 edits]
• 12:19, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+83)‎ . . N Talk:School of Management and Labor Relations (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Management and Labor Relations (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:19, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Management and Labor Relations (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 3 edits]
• 12:19, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+78)‎ . . N School of Management and Labor Relations (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Management and Labor Relations (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:19, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Management and Labor Relations (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations: more applicable name shown in website)
• 12:18, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+66)‎ . . N Graduate School of Education (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Graduate School of Education (Rutgers University) to Rutgers Graduate School of Education: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:18, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Rutgers Graduate School of Education ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Graduate School of Education (Rutgers University) to Rutgers Graduate School of Education: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:17, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+70)‎ . . N Talk:School of Arts and Sciences (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Arts and Sciences (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:17, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Arts and Sciences (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:17, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+65)‎ . . N School of Arts and Sciences (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Arts and Sciences (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:17, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Arts and Sciences (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:16, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+90)‎ . . N Talk:School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:16, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:16, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+85)‎ . . N School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:16, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:14, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Rutgers School of Communication and Information ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Communication and Information (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Communication and Information: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:14, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+82)‎ . . N Talk:School of Communication and Information (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Communication and Information (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Communication and Information: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:14, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+77)‎ . . N School of Communication and Information (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Communication and Information (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Communication and Information: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:14, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Rutgers School of Communication and Information ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Communication and Information (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Communication and Information: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:13, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+64)‎ . . N Talk:School of Engineering (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Engineering (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Engineering: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:13, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Rutgers School of Engineering ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page Talk:School of Engineering (Rutgers University) to Talk:Rutgers School of Engineering: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 12:13, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+59)‎ . . N School of Engineering (Rutgers University) ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Engineering (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Engineering over redirect: more applicable name shown in website) (current)
• 12:13, 18 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Rutgers School of Engineering ‎ (Juicy fruit146 moved page School of Engineering (Rutgers University) to Rutgers School of Engineering over redirect: more applicable name shown in website) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]

• • I'm not particularly familiar with university naming considerations. However, the pages I know of use the same naming conventions that Juicy fruit is using... UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television and USC School of Cinematic Arts, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Aneh

Crisco, saya kok merasa heran ya kok tulisan yang dirasa agak berbeda gini bisa muncul di Wikipedia ? Apakah ini karena sumber aslinya seperti itu ? Lalu bagaimana caranya menerjemahkan tulisan ini ?

Sultanate of Singora#Early history

"itt were not amiss to build astrong howse in Sangora which lyeth 24 Leagues northwarde of Patania, under the goverment of Datoe Mogoll, vassall to the King of Siam. In this place maie well the Rendezvous bee made to bring all thinges together that you shall gather for the provideing of the ffactories of Siam, Cochinchina, Borneo and partlie our ffactorie in Japan. (...) this howse willbee found to bee verie Necessarie, for the charges willbee too highe in Patania besides inconveniences there; which charges you shall spare at Sangora: there you pay no Custome, onlie a small gift to Datoe Mogoll cann effect all here."

--Erik Fastman (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bahasa Inggris sekitar tahun itu memang berbeda dari bahasa Inggris sekarang. Sumbernya online, biar saya periksa. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Betul, sumbernya seperti itu. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Trus cara nerjemahin tulisan tersebut ke bahasa lain begimana donk ? Tetep dibiarin gitu aja atau langsung disandur sama pengartian yang ada ? --Erik Fastman (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Indonesia yang baik dan benar, dengan catatan kaki yang berisikan teks aslinya. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

Halo Cris. Kalau ada waktu luang, boleh lah kiranya kasih review di FLC pertamaku. Salam :) Bluesatellite (talk)

• Mungkin nanti saya akan lihat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

visi gila di nesia

Televisi idno nkneesia needs your esteemed viewing... satusuro 01:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Que? Which article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • • haha lucu - semua.... artikel Television in Indonesia - usual add by ip overlinked crap satusuro 06:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Tradisi dalam mengusulkan AP di sini

Bang, kalau saya lihat di sini, kok pengguna-pengguna di sini (termasuk abang) jika mengusulkan artikel menjadi AP biasanya sebelum itu mengusulkan artikel tersebut menjadi AB? Masalahnya, cara seperti itu, (maaf ini pendapat pribadi saya) buang-buang waktu. Kalau di WBI, jika artikel tersebut sudah cocok diusulkan sebagai AP, langsung diusulkan menjadi AP, tidak perlu lagi sebelum diusulkan menjadi AP, artikel tersebut diusulkan dulu menjadi AB (namun dalam beberapa artikel, ada beberapa artikel yang awalnya AB, namun diusulkan menjadi AP seperti Asmara Moerni, Tjioeng Wanara, Soedjatmoko, dll.). Terima kasih. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Masalahnya, di sini sistem reviewnya lebih ribet. Karena itu, lebih baik mendapatkan beberapa pendapat sebelum lanjut ke AP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Simeon Stylites

Did a little editing, to clarify him as a pillar saint. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As you're around ...

Crisco, I think I need some help with the German Shepherd article. An IP has done a lot of work on it over quite a few weeks/months - yes, some is problematical and s/he can be a touch tenditious/POV but it is generally well meaning. A slight spat seems to have blown up overnight when Hafs tried to make changes/suggestions and Hafs did correctly take it to the talk page. This morning the IP has reverted and is continuing to revert all the work they had done.

I don't know if I'm doing the right thing but I have just restored to a stable version, left a message (hopefully concilliatory) on the most recent IP number and the talk page. I know Hafspajen will see this here as well and I can understand as I agree the article does need some pruning. Sorry to pester you but I don't know what else to do? Any suggestions - or am I making things worse? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm not managing to rstore the version of 04.14 19 April? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think getting discussion is good enough, so long as everybody discusses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look as if that's going to happen - the IP seems to have really got themselves worked up now see User talk:49.181.236.157. I'll just let it be and see what transpires, fingers crossed that everyone cools down and common sense prevails. I guess we can live in hope? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Robey PR

Greetings Crisco, as you know I have George Robey performing at a peer review and I would be grateful for any input should you have the time or inclination to review. Cheers! Cassianto^talk 10:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bonus pictures III

• 
• 
• 

FP?

• Beautiful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Any chances for any of them? We could do with some women istead of all those birds... Hafspajen (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly none of them are in articles with enough EV for FP status. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

'Fww fw.Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• From a purely technical standpoint, I think Venus and Anchises would have the best chance. It just isn't used yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, wonder why. Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it not? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hehe, now it is. Hafspajen, do you want to do the honors? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, your expertise is wanted. At Phil's page we have on display a lot of pictures of puppies, and it has to boil down to ten-eight winners to be used in the article. And a new lead pic. You have no idea how many really bad quality pictures are out there on commons off puppies. I selected some, and removed a big amount already. Initially they were like 80 pics. Can you continue to remove some of it? and go down to 10 pics, something like that? Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good, just go on, remove 20-25 more. Don't be shy... We need only around 10-12 pictures to that article. there are now 47 pics. This is why we need a trained person to help us. Hafspajen (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

General PotD note

You probably shouldn't use phrasing like "is accompanied by the following verses" or, worse, "bears the legend" unless those lin3s appear on the illustration. I do not crop text. While there are cases where the first phrasing might be relevant - e.g. in some books (Including the one for the Princess Ida illustrations I think), a piece of tissue paper is over the artwork, with text printed on it - but this is not always the case; sometimes, it's only made clear in the list of illustrations.

Best to save such phrasings for works like File:Archibald Standish Hartrick - Rudyard Kipling - Soldier Tales 6 - The Drums of the Fore and Aft 3.jpg which unambiguously do bear the text referenced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. So maybe "Accompany the lines" or something similar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I tend to prefer "illustrate the lines", as it's more exact. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4

Since you commented in our of the prior discussions on this subject, you may want to comment on the nomination. Please note that the last year's nomination failed primarily because not enough people voiced their opinion (whether for or against, it was decided that not enough people commented in the first place). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

.

• Now this is silly. I asked to dicuss thing and some of the things added might be worth keeping. Some not, because there were problems with it. I wanted to avoid an edit war, as so often it is the case with the new editors if you change things, and who obviously is sensitive about they write, right. Yes I think it is a heavy case of Ownership of article, not good, Crisco 1492 . The template if anyone cares to read it, says IF YOU will revert you will be in edit war, please let's discuss things. Welcome, it says, and = You may be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors, if you do not discuss your changes on the article talkpages. Does anyone care to read things properly? Now s/he is gone. Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• He/she was clearly planning to leave after receiving those notices (hence why he/she reverted all of his/her additions). Read our definition of edit warring; I don't see that happening in the page history. At most, there may be one revert. That is not edit warring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

But I was NOT saying s/he WAS EDITWARRING: I was saying IF s/he is going to revert changes without discussion, then s/he WILL BE IN AN EDIT WAR - : if....than...editwar. That page has a heavy history on editwarring on all kinds of things, galleries, for example. Never said she was actually editwarring. I tried to stop a possible editwar. If she ´WOULD HAVE READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN; AND NOT TAKED FOR GANTED I WAS AN ASHOLE, than we could probably discuss all those heavy changes s/he made - changes that were not all that brilliant. Hafspajen (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that you are an asshole, Hafs. I'm just saying that said template is generally used when somebody is already edit warring. Not as a warning that you will edit war if they revert you without discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I am sorry but I am not that good always at expressing myself in these official things so I thought I take that and rewrite sightly, and it looks like that nobody actually read that, and why would s/he get upset when nobody was trying to do that. Hafspajen (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• When it comes to defusing something like this, something that even resembles a template is almost always a worse choice than something you've clearly written yourself. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, realise that by now. I will not do this again. Hafspajen (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles Joshua Chaplin

File:Victorian Spy Camera Watch.jpg

This is a place for dreamers - Victorian Spy Camera Watch

Hi Crisco, would you have few minutes to have a quick read through Charles Joshua Chaplin to give it a brief check, please? Hafs wants to nominate it for DYK and I don't know anything about painters or art so may have made some mistakes when I've tried to do the light copy edit on it for him. Do you think the hook is covered sufficiently? Also what would be the best image to include? I'll try and talk him through nominating it himself (I'm not doing DYK at the moment!). I don't want him to get a knock back again - I think he had a bad day yesterday with us all being tetchy with him SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try and do something after work (well, if you can call an hour's English lesson "work"...). I can give the article a quick once over, but I won't be able to review since I proposed the hook. If we're trying to do a play on Charles Chaplin/Charlie Chaplin, I wouldn't add an image. That might give the game away. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I realised you couldn't do the actual review, so it's more a 'pre-submission' once over! I've a couple of hours proper work to do now as well - school holidays here so loads to be done; this is the time of day when my dogs have had their breakfast, been exercised and settled, I grab my own breakfast before getting everything else organised. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. I'm home (got rained out; the area near my student's home "floods" [nothing too bad, maybe a foot] easily so I didn't want to take my motorcycle through that and couldn't reschedule), so I'll look at Charles Joshua Chaplin before continuing with Union Films. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looks acceptable, I think. Some of the words are... possibly a little odd for an ESL speaker (elfin? really?) but you've been copyediting along the way so I don't think there will be any close paraphrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco. I re-jigged any close wording I stumbled across so I hope it's okay in that respect. I managed to find a ref to replace the citation needed. I now just need Hafs to appear at my talk page so I can guide him through the (easy) nomination process before it's time limited. We have a lovely day here now the Haar is beginning to clear; still windy and chilly though, the temperature is still in single figures but at least not the frost of yesterday. It's nice to look out on as the Rhododendrons etc are just starting to bloom. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fog... *shudder*. Luckily I don't run across fog that often here. Usually only when driving towards Magelang (not sure why fog forms there but not in Yogyakarta... maybe the convection currents are different?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We get it all the time although we're about 8-9 miles inland. Sometimes it lasts until almost mid-day and I can then watch it roll back off the hill - only to return an hour or so later ... the joys of being near the North Sea. It's one of the reasons the beautiful sandy beaches are empty except for people walking dogs - to get any warmth or sunshine you have to go a long way inland. PS: Hafs, stop worrying about GSDs, it's done and dusted! Come over to my talk page and let's get your DYK nomination sorted out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Odd, to get any shade or temperatures below 20 C we need to go inland  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This

this I could think of nominating... THE LAZY LA - in this translation... La Perezosa,

We don't have any of these pictures (Not everything, some of it is just crap) by Julius LeBlanc Stewart, Thomas Heaphy Edouard Marie Guillaume Dubufe ->(Edouard Dubufe) Charles Joseph Frederick Soulacroix ->Frédéric Soulacroix and possibly Auguste Toulmouche and Daniel Hernandez Morillo Daniel Hernández (painter). Will you upload them if it is possible? Some of them are quite nice, it would be fun to have more of these. Hafspajen (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why would I have to do it, though? I mean, so long as these individuals died at least 100 years ago, or they died 70 years ago and their works were published in 1923 or earlier, there shouldn't be any issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the painting: technically it's pretty good. However, its use on Wikipedia could use some work; I see nothing but galleries, and the reviewers at FPC will usually look for usage outside galleries. What if an article was written about the painting? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1). Because I don't. (sorry but I am not very good at anything in commons. Never cropped, loaded or did any imageig thing...)

2) Well, I never thought of that, but it is an idea. The chap is a rather unknown painter, but this woman should be part of some kind of Lazy-woman series that should be famous. But in France and South America. Although I speak French, never really botheresd about French culture. By the way the interwiki links to the French articles doesn't work, on Daniel Hernández Morillo . Hafspajen (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I wrote Princess from the Land of Porcelain before, when I wanted the painting to be an FP. I could possibly help with the series.

Tomorrow I may look into uploading some of those paintings you've mentioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• The French interwiki works for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Lovely article! Do you want to write about this painting? Yes, the interwiki works now, probably because I changed the title some hours ago, before it it was Daniel Hernández (painter) Hafspajen (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And probably it is going to be much better if you you upload them, than others. It may even became a FP!Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Daniel Hernández Morillo translation, slightly silly

He was born in the Department of Huancavelica, Salcabamba district within the province of Tayacaja, on 1 August 1856, son of the Spanish Don Leocadio Hernández, and the Peruvian Doña Basilia Morillo. You reach Lima at 4 years of age, starting his art education at 14, in the workshop of Leonardo Barbieri located at San Pedro de Lima.1 street and whose classes takes charge when the master returns to his homeland. From this period is his work The death of Socrates (1872), which earned him recognition by the Government of Manuel Pardo, obtaining a scholarship to Europe and a commitment to grant that was not fulfilled in its entirety arriving from his trip in early 1874.

During your stay visit in Paris to his compatriot Ignacio Merino, which advises him to move to Rome; Thus it remains a decade in Italy learning Spanish painter Mariano Fortuny.2 In 1883 he returned to Paris where manages on its own merits to be the President of the society of Spanish painting residents in the city, linking with other artists as Francisco Pradilla and José Villegas Cordero, and was a member of the society of French artists, exhibited at the Annual Salon of the society of French artists, rigorous and difficult access by their severe dogma academician; It was wide and triumphant received in the seven years that arose, considered "fors concours" ("substantial competition") of the Parisian salons.3

For his famous Lazy La, was awarded the second medal at the Paris Salon, 1899. In the Universal exhibition in Paris, on the occasion of the change to the 20th century in 1900 gold medal was awarded in for his Cruel love, and The lazy earned him the Medal of the Legion of Honor in 1901. Since Hernandez was declared H.C. Honoris Causa, in all classrooms. In addition, earned the prize for painting at the Ibero-American exhibition in Seville with the work of Francisco Pizarro.

In 1912 he traveled to Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Rome, to expose their works. He returned to Paris where he lives up to the year 1918. Around that same time, his brother Inocencio, much younger, arrives to become one of the most illustrious preachers of the Dominican order in the Peru, which in turn coincides with the call receives this extraordinary painter by the President José Pardo to assume the leadership of the National School of fine arts in Limain which he contributed to the formation of new Peruvian artists, until his death in Lima from 1932. Hafspajen (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The painting it is called La Perezosa, in Spanish. Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, it doesn't look like I'll have time today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note to self: write this article... I'll try today or tomorrow, assuming my RL writing is completed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Hafspajen, are there any sources for the Spanish Wikipedia stuff? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

UH; don't know. Try to find some. Hafspajen (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Book Catalogue illustré du salon de ... (1899)? Hafspajen (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Now, that is a little bit of a problem. That painting is not in the catalog. Was looking through, can't find it. The French and Spanish article say La peresosa won 1899 medal at Paris Salon.. . Hafspajen (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK; this say 1900 (see detalj...) BUT THIS SOURCE SAY IT WAS PAINTED 1906... Trained initially at the Lima Studio of the Italian Leonardo Barbieri, the painter Daniel Hernández left Peru in 1874 to continue his studies in Paris and Rome. In Europe he achieved a degree of success in official salons with paintings that, in spite of superficial signs of renewal, remained bound in spirit to the narrative and anecdotal painting of the nineteenth century. This painting is a clear example of this renewed academicism. The pastel tones and the lightness of the facture associate it with the gracious scenes set in the eighteenth century which, in the French rococo spirit, Hernández produced in other canvases. This type of indulgent painting won him favor in Europe’s official painting circles, as well as major awards such as the Gold Medal at the 1900 Exposition Universelle in Paris. During his time in Lima, from 1918 until his death in 1932, Hernández mostly devoted himself to teaching, as the director of the School of Fine Arts. He also produced portraits and historical paintings, a genre that enjoyed brief popularity in the midst of the celebrations surrounding the centenary of Peruvian independence...

Hafspajen (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... Does that illustrated book have an entry for La Paresseuse? That's how it would be listed, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. But if it was painted 1906...? Hafspajen (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's what I don't know. But the Google source only says Morillo won the award, not that the portrait did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

True. The Spanish and French article say something that he won 1899 with some tired woman. Could be an other one, of course, but... Where is it then in the 1899 catalouge? Where is HE then in the 1899 catalouge? Found for ex. Matisse in the catalogue, but not Morillo or Murillo. Hafspajen (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)