Welcome!

Hello, BirgitteSB/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  HKT 7 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I think I've got my sig down now. --BirgitteSB July 7, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

When using talk pages, please start new threads at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 7 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

You can place your votes by using four tildes ~~~~. Thanks for your support, though. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent contribution to Polynesia. The collaboration is off to a great start.

A tip - Leave four tildas ~~~~ and your user name plus a time stamp will be generated.

Regards, lots of issues | leave me a message 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it. Someone provided me a very large file, so don't worry about that task of the collaboration. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the easiest way is just to click the "signature" box on the editing bar (the row of boxes that is above the editing space on the edit page, starting with a B for bold and an I for italic) - the signature box is second from the end. Otherwise, you should use four tildes: ~~~~, which will addyour signature plus the date. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to keep transwikied source material off of Wikipedia. However, I must ask you to please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion before making any more afd nominations. Since you've been missing steps II and III, nobody will see your nominations unless someone else finds them on Category:Pages for deletion and lists them for you (which is a very time-consuming process, even with bot assistance). This also causes the articles you're trying to get deleted to stay in Wikipedia for longer than they otherwise would. —Cryptic (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know I got your message. I am planning on finishing these deletion, hopefullly within a week. I have been going through articles looking for bad links to Wikisource, which in many cases cause editors to repeatedly add works to the completely wrong place. I have followed links to prompt that a page did not exist on Wikisource with 18 deleted edits. As I was going through my search I found these many blank pages and thought would be remiss not to tag them, but I could hardly complete the nomination then and make any headway through my list. They have sat ignored and blank since July and so I thought little harm to let them sit a bit longer till I finish my primary project. If you believe I would do better not to tag further articles as go through my list I will refrain from doing so. I truly more concerned about Wikisource issues, but felt bad looking at all the blank pages and doing nothing--BirgitteSB 17:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've completed the current ones; the problem is that I run a bot to find broken nominations every day. The task can't be fully automated (there are many false positives), so I have to manually look at every article that gets tagged with {{afd}} but doesn't get completed. Because of the strange things that can sometimes go wrong with noms (moved articles, single nominations for multiple articles, etc.), it actually takes longer to complete a half-done nomination than to start a new one from scratch. If you expect to find a lot more of these, please either complete the nominations as you make them, or else drop a list of the articles on my talk page instead of tagging them yourself. I do agree that these need to go, and would be happy to list them myself. —Cryptic (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you indeed, the template is very useful; I was very unhappy with all the broken links generated by the split of wikisource into subdomains. I put the entire text of Hesychius on wikisource, but I couldn't find it after the split. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, imho the ws split was unwise or at least somewhat rash; but I am not active there except for dumping the occasional text, so it is really up to you ws people :) I suppose once everything is sorted out, the negative effects will not be as severe. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your query on my talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the contradiction you refer to? Choess 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. It really did go extinct: it was granted to him and his heirs-male, and as he had no sons, it became extinct on his death. Thanks. Choess 21:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I put it in the right place in bulgarian sector.--Makedonas 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. Feel free to delete it, as I wouldn't know what to do with it, and at any rate, copyvios need to go. Have a nice day. :) Johnleemk | Talk 07:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote on my ArbCom candidacy. I have placed some thoughts on this matter on my user pageand would welcome your thoughts.--Edivorce 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I think it's because this is a step of the transwiki process that is commonly ignored due to obscurity. Johnleemk | Talk 04:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's both a source text (the James Madison content) and a copyvio. Just Googled one of the paragraphs.  :) - Lucky 6.9 04:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I do.  :)) Thanks for the nice words. Best, Lucky 6.9 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find material here which is already on Wikisource, be bold. Don't {{prod}} it - chop it yourself and put in a {{wikisource}} tag. See Excelsior (Longfellow) and Barbara Frietchie by John Greenleaf Whittier for example. -- RHaworth 19:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I like to share and wikipedia has been a great place for me to write articles on topics I am knowledgeable. I have met several interesting people working on articles together. I was a little shocked when as soon as I added my article on Wikinomics that it was marked for a "candidate for deletion" because there were less than 100 hits in Google. Seems somewhat odd. It would have been nicer to just suggest a different location. But what is still not clear to me is what if this is not original research? Could it just the application description of transaction costs to wikipedia, something anyone with a basic class in economics could do? Is that a valid article to write? Then to be told to put it back on wikipedia only created more confusion. I think your idea to put it back into wikipedia just just under a dry topics like "economics" and "transaction costs of shared knowledge systems" is a good idea. I can then talk to other people about it that care about those topics and we can all write a good articles together. There are plenty of good sources I can quote from my economics and knowledge managment textbooks. I am frustrated, but I understand that there really is not a place for collaborative discussion yet on new topics there people threaten to delete thoughtful work. The article was really part of an economics assignment for a class, but with all this moving back an forth I think that Microsoft Word is a good format also :-O. YIKES!

Anyway, thanks again for your sympathetic note and your empathy. Nice to see that there is someone else out there that cares about my feelings. I just wanted them to be validated. OK, now I feel much better. :-) - Dan --Dan 18:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re your user page: Yeah, I know the anti-agriculture bias you are talking about. I think we can slowly counter that by using high-quality references to back up factual statements in ag related articles. It's frustrating sometimes to deal with the pseudoscience and rumors that some people take as fact.... ike9898 20:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC

Thank you for clarifying that Birgitte and I hope you are not getting tired of all this. I have posted some comments to your explanation, along with a response to User:E Pluribus Anthony who had also responded on my sketch. I think you should read both.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that there was a copy-vio of the article on Phoebe Buffay's songs. Could you possibly state the URL for the copy-vio. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandlism:Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page, looks like not that mean people like me! Heh heh! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I mean this one), could it possibly mean something along the lines of:

• Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of)

?
If that is so, I'd be more than glad to discuss it further...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page I could support anything that otherwise gains widespread support. That includes Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of); Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia); Macedonina (Republic of Macedonia); Macedonia (modern nation); Macedonia (Eastern European republic); Macedonia (Slavic nation); as well as countless other possibilties. I cannot grasp all the import of the slight differences under disscusion, so I am not willing to push any of these options which meet sincere strong oposition. You, I believe, understand all these contentious points. Which sort of name do you think would be most agreeable to all involved?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your comment here above for continuity, so let's continue in your place, not mine, if you agree :-). Ok, I sincerely think that with your proposal you have given an idea that will really help to end this bickering. My first impression would be that the most acceptable name from all sides, would be the one I proposed above. The quick reasons I can think of right now follow:

• First of all we are not inventing names. I've seen this version in other sites etc, plus it is common to put after the names in parentheses their first few disambiguating terms.
• The name is in due weights according to the situation internationally. I mean, many people (including themselves) call them simply Macedonians, some 2/3ds of the countries have recognised the RoM name, and Greece, plus all international organizations plus 1/3d or so of the countries use the spellout, or the initials of fyrom.
• Most pro-Greek users will be sad that the name Macedonia is first and outside of the parentheses, but I suspect they'll most probably prefer it, since it contains the fyrom spellout (hidden, but it does).
• Most pro-Skopian users will have the exact opposite feelings from the Greeks, and may prefer it because it finally puts in parenthesis all the bickering.
• Most third users will find that this is an equitable presentation of the real situation and support it.

What do you think? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No deal. - FrancisTyers 17:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, where were we Birgitte, before the phone rang?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I need to is to see widespread support for such a move. Although I can understand your points, it would probably be best to be open to other possibilities. These things are settled when everyone's input is taken into account and hopefully a satisfactory solution is arrived at. Keep in mind the number one goal of a page title is signal to the reader what they can find in the article. This title in particular is also trying to specify what is different about this Macedonia from all the others on the disambig page. As long as a version succeeds at doing those two things; I would not oppose it, with my support going to a wording which is also supported by a wide range of people. I realize that is not a great deal of help, but if I knew what the actual answer to this was I would certainly tell you.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to cast your vote on the new deletion discussion page. xompanthy 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't feel it was quite proper for me to nominate something for deletion twice. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have recently tagged some articles for moving to Wikisource. I wanted to talk to you especially about the splitting off of data from and article and then tagging it for WS. The English Wikisource community has recently decided to exclude all data and reference material which is not attached to a larger work available on Wikisource. Although we have not yet deleted the material which currently exists at WS, please be aware this sort of material will no longer be accepted. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember doing this recently; which articles do you mean? Is this new policy explained somewhere on Wikisource? I poked around a bit and didn't see anything, and I'm not sure I entirely understand the decision. -- Beland 04:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The data I remember seeing was some kind of immigration figures. I believe s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Reference material has been partially updated, there is still some disscusion about the details. Basically if we had the entire report that include the immigration data we would accept it, but we are not accepting unaffiliated reference material. The original disscussion can be found at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/04#Inclusion of reference data on Wikisource. The decison to exclude this material met with no opposition and only one neutral editior, let me know if you have any further questions.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I poked through my contributions for the past month, and I don't see anything being tagged for Wikisource, but I'll take your word for it. I think I see why wikisource considers reference material outside of its scope; probably you'll want to transfer that information to Wikibooks. -- Beland 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte,

What article were you specifically refering to? Regards, —Khoikhoi 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, brigitte, your name is so impressive !!!!! Unixer 11:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well it is at least more unique than my real name. Which is the main reason I have used for internet accounts since Prodigy back in 1995! --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 11:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, that was my fault, sorry, I hadn't actually checked the history of the page; I'd just been checking WP:AFD/Old, and it was listed as a page that required moving to Wikisource (I did Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868), and I noticed the old AFD tag, and after checking the AFD to make sure I wasn't seeing things, removed it and added {{Move to Wikisource}}. I probably should've actually checked the process for transwiki for things that aren't suitable for Wikisource :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed migrating all of the articles on the list that you left me to Wikisource links (along with cleaning up the citations, etc, while I was at it). I'm not sure, however, what the issue might've been with Helaman, and I haven't seen you on IRC, so I thought that I'd leave you a message here to ask what the issue with it was. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finished most of them last night, thought I may as well get them all done. There weren't actually that many when I started, around a hundred or so left, and I got through them quite quickly... Alas, I haven't come up with a plausible alternative for the multiple-verses yet. I'll let you know if/when I do. Jude (talk,email) 04:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the post on my talk. I'm intrigued by your user page links! (e.g. I just navigated into Wheel Warring proposal)

I'm out of wikiTime for the moment, RL intrudes, but I'll check back and give things a closer read later this evening.

Thanks again, // FrankB 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wadded through that, and even suggested to a few that they may want to look in... including a librarian friend who has been a great comfort and resource. Thanks and Best regards // FrankB 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this about two hours ago, but it was right before I went to make dinner, and as such I forgot to fix it! Bah! Thanks for reminding me, I'll go do that right now... Just to work out which script I need to run it through... Jude (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. I'll have a look at the template now :-) Jude (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've incorporated your -Wycliffe template into {{s:Template:Biblecontents}}, and I've reflected this change on Bible (Wycliffe). Feel free to revert me, if you prefer having them seperate. I've been working on a script to convert the Wycliffe, and I'll probably start the conversion tomorrow. I just have to fix the headers... Jude (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I didn't know that the Ang: wikisource had been created until you told me about it, so thanks for letting me know! I'll try to put up some things to the en: domain when I can, I'm just wondering if it's the right place to put documents in a foreign language (is Goethe in German or English there?). If there's any help or advice you could offer me on any of the ang: sites, please do! I'm always open to new ideas on wiki. James--66.177.127.7 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really consider anglo-saxon a foriegn language to en.wikisource. Our policy is to title the text by the most common name. Since most (if not all) Anglo-Saxon works did not have "titles" as we would use the term today, I believe they will end up with modern titles (i.e. s:en:Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader. But I am not against titling works in Anglo-Saxon as long it has been published that way at some point. In fact many works should probaly be disambiguation pages with links to the original Anglo-Saxon as well as modern interpretaions. I really think it would be great to have an Anglo-Saxon Portal that could be written in Anglo-Saxan on en.WS. We have not started portals at all yet as we are waiting for the namespace manager. This is all just me brainstorming so others may disagree, but I think all english languages should be at en.WS. Since we are working with staitic texts we do not have to worry about one editor writing in scots and another adding a bit in middle english. In fact we do not even have to deal with the british vs american spelling problems that en.WP does. I think that to make a seperate ang.WS is really a wasted effort as far as all the administrative work that must be done. If we just used the infastructure of en.WS everyone would have more time to actually work on texts.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Sorry about that - it came out much more salty than I had intended. I don't fault any individual members, and have proposed an alteration to the deletion policy to encourage more contact effort before closing the deletion. I would very much appreciate it if you could restore the documents temporarily so I can grab the formatting, and I will do the work on the alternate sourcing (and Ideally get a GFDL-compatible license issued from the archives department at hte Baha'i World Centre on the other texts as well, if possible). Thank you so much for getting back to me, and please forgive my tone of frustration, which was in no way intended personally. (Guess I should apologize to zhalashar too. <sigh>) --Christian Edward Gruber 16:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, I appreciate you providing a link to the discussion, and I'm a bit frustrated as I hunted for that sucker for about half an hour and managed to miss it, before writing my comments. And then, there it was, plain as day. :) Apparently I'm not as methodical when I'm irritated. Ah well. -- Christian Edward Gruber 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it all. I have backed it up, so if you wish to re-delete them, you can. I'll work with the other main contributor through the appeals process. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for my ignorance regarding Emerson's Self-Reliance. I will be more careful when tagging things in the future. --Varco 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been AFD'd from every project (besides Wikiquote, basically), with each vote saying that the page belongs on a different project; so I couldn't just re-add it to Wikipedia, and I doubt they are yet taking lists of victims anyways. Nobody has any clue what they're doing around here. Oh well. That was a waste of a good month :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 22:10

Hi Birgitte, got your message about sending stuff to Wikisource. If there are some particular ones I've sent over that you want to review the copyright status, could you let me know? I might have overlooked a copyright check, or might have another reason or other. Thank you very much! TheProject 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove a tag speeedy delete by reason of copyvio [1] , please list as a normal copyvio. Although a source is needed to fulfill the speedy delete criteria, the lack of one does not make it any less of a copyright infringment. Thanks. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. A source is also needed to list an article as a copyvio, without one how do we know that it's a copyvio? Stifle (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Can this be fixed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I lost my old userpage/talkpage on WS?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to the transwiki instruction page--I should have realized there had to be more to the process than just copying and pasting. I'll get right on sorting that out. --Robth^Talk 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed you'd also put a reasoned response on the RFA talk page at first. Cool.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss things on the Sean Black RFA. People should do that more. Especially when they're being as logical and polite (which you are!)  :-)

Notice that I'm not saying that anyone is out for revenge or any such thing. Just that RFA is biased towards people who have had bad experiences with a candidate.

I sometimes have a tendency to put things briefly and a tad crudely. Perhaps I have to be just a tad more careful, as it takes a lot more time to explain exactly what I meant after doing so. (It does attract attention of course, so it's a tricky tradeoff :-))

Kim Bruning 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to point out that I have come across many cases of clear copyright violations which do not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria. Generally it is because they are older than 48 hours; as I do not participate in RC patrol, I guess I don't find the new ones. However most of the violations I have found would also fail the "commercial" requirement even if they were new enough. With that in mind I find the advice to use speedy clear copyright violations misleading.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part is already current policy; see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jen! Didn't hear from you: how was your dinner that night? We (the 10 of us) had pizzas in this Italian restaurant just off Harvard Square. Where did you go and with whom? You have to give me evidence, though - you've passed on your "show-me" disease to me ;) Cheers. --Filip (§) 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm home. My flights were excellent (although with an hour's delay from Munich to Belgrade). Glad everything worked out for you. I can only imagine the manager's surprise. The waitress at our place was kinda stomped when she saw ten of us. We were trying to sqeeze in and make enough room for the pizza plates - it was great. Some of the guys later went to "Red Line" and I met Ivan Krstic (the organizer of The Hacking Days) with Wolf (that's his IRC nickname) later that evening. Yeah, Boston was great, but not as great as NYC! I had a blasting time there. All in all, I have 453 images on my photo. Can't wait to upload 'em (of course, not all of em'). :) See ya --Filip (§) 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put up all of my pictures. :) I couldn't find a less blurry one with you. Oh well... About that photo of me... where is it? :D --Filip (§) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. I tend to forget things. Sorry :) --Filip (§) 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You seem upset with me. It's a shame that dealing with the backlog at WP:CP is often such a thankless task.

Wikipedia does try to respect the copyrights of other nations, in the sense that we consider works created in Iran to be copyrighted even though those copyrights are not enforceable here. But as Wikipedia servers are in Florida, we do not recognize the copyrights of works whose copyright is considered to have expired in the U.S, or works that are not considered copyrightable here. (Mexico, for example, protects works for 99 years after the death of the author, and France considers photographs of buildings to be violations of the architect's copyright.) This has been hashed through many, many times. See Wikipedia:Public domain for details.

I removed the entries because they had been dealt with, not because I was trying to hide anything. All my actions are free for all to see, and I'm quite willing to answer any questions you have. But your hostile tone in talking to me about this issue has not helped the situation.

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite surprised you find me hostile! Be assured you miscontrue me. I never meant to imply you have tried to hide anything. I rather thought you actions were careless. I do think in general if you disgree with someone about a copyvio it should be opened for discussion rather than immediately closed on one person's opinion. In any event if an editor misunderstands WP policy an effort should certainly be made to educate them rather than just close the item and move on. Otherwise they will continue to make the same mistakes about policy repeatedly. I do believe it is irresponsible to not have such a disscusion regarding the mistaken policy. I certainly do not understand how I have worsened the situation. Or even what the "situation" is.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(several comments later. . .)

Thank you so much for your kind note. Your kindness speaks volumes for you. I wish more people were like you. By the way, I think my user page might give people the wrong impression, so I'll reword it so as not to seem flippant. All the best! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 11:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that... Still, this leaves Xcopilot in an unfortunate condition: I feel that the how-to section does not belong there, yet it appears to be unsuitable for Wikisources. Is there any solution other than cutting it out? GregorB 13:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for going to the trouble of finding this.

JASpencer 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification to that article (and the speech article itself). My last edits to the article were based on news articles, which of course are never wrong! :-S Just a favor, if you could, would you look at the Desiderata article and see what you think? We have the copyright office saying that a court ruling in a similar "distribution without notice" case invalidated the copyright, and the text is in the article, but it also implies that the ruling isn't universal (support for which I haven't actually found). --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the amazing amount of work that you have put into this. It really is appreciated.

JASpencer 21:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an essay, and not a Wikipedia article. In any case, it doesn't belong here. ♠PMC♠ 19:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excusez-moi. I'll leave Transwiki alone in future. ♠PMC♠ 19:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...don't leave us over an edit war. An unfortunate fact of Wikipedia is that we sometimes get a lot of heated debate over some relatively minor issue. I hope you won't let it 'get' to you. I find that reading this tends to help at times. Have a good weekend! >Radiant< 08:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitte, I'm sorry for the reverting back and forth at V yesterday. I think it was partly misunderstanding, partly frustration because the page needs to be stable, and partly me not paying proper attention. I hope you'll accept my apology and join us back at the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, GUIDO music notation doesn't appear to be an active project; their last update is 2003, which is about the last time I looked at it. I started using it briefly because I was looking for something that could represent a score in a way that could be manipulated by composition-type programs, while GNU Lilypond is more typesetting oriented. As far as I know the only commonly used and reasonably fully-featured computer score formats are GNU Lilypond, Sibelius, and Finale, and the last two are commercial software (and expensive commercial software at that). Short- to medium-term, I'd say getting some security-cleaned-up version of Lilypond is the only feasible option. In the long term, there's an MPEG working group trying to come up with a new standard, but I don't think that's very close to happening. --Delirium 23:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte, thanks, that's very kind of you and I particularly appreciate it coming from you. It's been a very fruitful collaboration on that page; a model of how Wikipedia can and should work, in fact. (That's can and should work, not can and must. ;-D). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am assembling a panel of 5 that will talk about wikipedia in general. I am planing of making of covering it in 5 topics:

1. Wikimedia Foundation
2. Mediawiki
3. Copyrights
4. General info
5. Sister projects

The panel will be a part of a more general Internet conferance that will be held 21-23 December 2006 in Ankara, Turkey.

I am looking for a person to cover the "sister projects" topic. And I was told that you would be an approporate person for the job.

--Cat out 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I have to answer is: "yet we are told that it is a widely held objection". Look back through the postings. Taxman, JzG, Andrew Levine—these are not casual, one-off editors objecting; if you think it's a problem now, imagine it becomes policy—believe me, you'd have your hands full with the objections. Part of my thinking has been how wrong it is that a party of people (you and me included) numbering in the single digits is going to "decide" this. We aren't—we can streamline what is, but new, radical innovations are not on the radar IMO (I do view the exception as "radical"). Even SlimVirgin (not to put words in her mouth) I see as ambivalent regarding, rather than truly in favour of, the pop culture exception.

That off my chest, yes, maybe "accredited" is better. Jules is suggesting that people might read "professional" in the "I-get-paid-for-it" sense, but I don't see this; I only read "professional" that way when thinking of athletes and (maybe) of musicians. I read it in this context as "acceptable for a .edu or a journalism site"--i.e., regardless of whether you get paid, others (especially places of publication) would acknowledge your "credentials" and accept your work as "in the ballpark." I think through that...and, yes again, "accredited" is broadly what I mean. I just want to be able to say to a pseudoscientist, Nature wouldn't recognize you, even if you're "right". You just don't have the wherewithal to state "Z is A" in a general purpose work...(e.g., a tertiary encyclopedia such as Wikipedia). Our policies need to clearly say this. While on this topic, let me state that aliens and astrology were not meant to be glib—pseudoscientists will see through the slightest contradiction in policy and badger the hell out of you on talk pages. I don't want this exception b/c I can imagine, in a very practical sense, the shit it will cause.

If perhaps we can agree on this adjective, be aware that others will scream bloody murder. Frankly, I think some just don't want a policy, or at least want a caveat within policy that would render policy moot. I believe (difficult as it's been) that you want clarity—good. I want clarity—a clear policy that speaks to most examples but doesn't pretend it can speak to every example. I don't want a page that says "here are the rules—and BTW if you don't like them, forget them". Marskell 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, for different reasons than my own, you feel the pop culture exception won't work; I only went back over that to emphasize that I wasn't the only person objecting.

Slim hasn't commented on the discussion recently, and I'd be curious her opinion. One thing occured to me: is "recognized" perhaps meant to cover accredited? "Recognized professional" is quite close to "accredited professional" really, just not explicitly demanding a piece of paper. Some might use it as a wedge—"'recognized' in the gaming community, say—but that wouldn't really hold up long. If anything is redundant there, it's "expert": "When a recognized professional expert writing in his or her area of expertise..." is probably fine. Marskell 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have condensed the matter in Chalukya dynasty page as per your requirement.Dineshkannambadi 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time Madam. Let me explain what exactly i have done so it will be easy for you. The dynasty of Chalukyas starts with Badami Chalukyas. So I have given a brief detail of the overall Chalukya Dynasty at the header. Then I have gone in detail explaining about Badami Chalukyas on the same page since they are the "original" Chalukyas, created "sister pages" for Kalyani Chalukya and Eastern Chalukyas going into details in each of the sister pages. In the main page called "Chalukya Dynasty" I have elaborated on Badami Chalukyas as they were the first dynasty. If you still feel there is ambiguity of any sort , dont hesitate to let me know. ThanksDineshkannambadi 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your kind words, anybody can comment or vote in FA, just read the criteria at the top of the page and see what you think. Anyway, thanks again. TimVickers 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me choose what to have for lunch! :D

— Deon555talkReview 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the vandalism at my s: user_talk Its from an indef blocked en: user trolling admins. I've updated it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if you want people to talk about this, your best bet is to make a post about your issues to WP:AN and see if anyone is interested because more people will see it there. Many probably don't realize this is coming and you may may get a more responsive crowd. pschemp | talk 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that the peer review discussion page has been archived. Did you have a chance to look at it? Please help me bring this article to featured article stage if possible.Dineshkannambadi 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - I don't really care much about that link - it wasn't my addition as I said. But I think that editor was high-handed and I don't appreciate being threatened - this link has been there for a while, and only came up because some anonymous person removed it without discussion. I was looking for some other opinions from editors of that page before a decision was made to remove it. Anyway, thanks for the pointer to the admin area. Tvoz 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - if you're interested, you can see my response on User talk:Veinor - I'm not confused, actually, although I wasn't clear about the {{helpme}}, so thanks - but it did get someone's attention (yours), so I wasn't that far off... My point is that linkiing to a Myspace Music page for a dead musician may not be so completely clearly a violation of the WP:EL guidelines which by definition are interpretatable to some extent. Anyway, we'll see what happens. I do appreciate your jumping in and diffusing the tension a bit - seems to me he was escalating without reading my responses which isn't a good idea. (Oh, and I'm a "she" not a "he", fwiw.) Tvoz 07:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! A while back you commented on Óengus I of the Picts at peer review. I've tried to address a couple of the points that you raised by adding some background and another map. Just wanted to thank you for your helpful comments. The background won't really be fixed properly until I have written an article that can appear as a {{main}} thing at the top of the section. I've been doing that off and on for months, so it may take a while yet ! Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I removed your nomination of a Featured List from featured article review, as Featured Lists are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of moving it - and making a mess - give me a minute to finish ... Sandy (Talk) 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's listed correctly now, but I've never done a list review before. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I actually have no idea what I should have done to complete the transwiki procedure, I was already happy that I could do as much as I did :)

But now that we're at it, could you clarify how the copyright status of the text in question should be sorted out? The points unclear for me are:

• The original author wrote the proclamation in Hungarian, in 1956. He died in 1979. Thus his work is under copyright until the end of 2049 (70 yrs) per the Hungarian copyright regulations. But since it is a proclamation, it is by definition something that is intended by the original author to be distributed as widely as possible. Doesn't that negate some of the restrictions on the use of the work?
• What are the rights of the translator? More precisely, what are the requirements on the translator and/or the translation to make it compatible with either Wikipedia or Wikisource?

Thanks, KissL 09:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. In this case I think the matter will be settled, since there's a Hungarian Wikipedian who plans to translate the text to English again and release it under GFDL. Thanks again & happy editing, KissL 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think most of the maps were done before i joined to project, but yeah, that's a good idea. I will have a look at that and try to get the Arctic and Antarctic species on polar projections. Chris_huh^talk 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you wrote me for my peer request on the lei tai article:

"I found this article hard to read beacuse of the "lightness" of the prose. Many areas end up just stating a fact and a source rather tham truly being written in prose despite being formatted as a paragragh. All the things on bullet points should be within a paragragh with more details as to why the idea is notable."

Could you please pinpoint some of the areas that you found the most troubling in regards to your well appreciated comments? Thank you. (Ghostexorcist 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the very thorough and perceptive review of bacteria. The article has been much improved by your suggestions. TimVickers 22:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BirgitteSB. I'm currently in the process of answering the questions on my page, and hope to wrap things up this morning over the next few hours as time permits. I just wanted to let you know that I have every intention of answering them, and will understand completely if you wish to keep this oppose vote in place in light of this personal delay. Thanks for your consideration, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We tolerate trolls too long - and they are the biggest source of busy work and negative productivity on Wikipedia. Personally, I have only called 2 people trolls, and both times I am sure they are. You are probably right that the truth is not a defense to a personal attack; however, we should not tolerate the activities of trolls, and here we are doing just that and wasting our time discussing their BS. --Trödel 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the note. We substantially agree. Months of behaviour sometimes requires a response, and I think you can tell from my introduction that I was reluctant. There comes a time when the subtle snide comments and constant stirring of the discussion needs to be identified as such. In that we disagree. Fortunately, obvious trolls can be blocked, and have been blocked indefinately by Jimbo and others. Subtle trolling like Duke's is much more difficult, and by calling attention to it, your respect for me has been diminished - which is regretable. Unfortunately, Duke53's behavior before and after his "refactoring" continue to show a lack of understanding of what AGF means, what the difference is between an editor profering evidence about the location of an IP address and the addition of material to an article. And if you review his edits, I think you'll find I have been plenty patient with his ilk. --Trödel 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside you said "I believe the things we are discussing at Temple garment would be contentious even if the issue had been brought out in the most mild way." I strongly disagree, having been involved with emotionally charged discussions on pages in the Latter Day Saint movement, I have seen controversial topics discussed professionally. The established LDS editors defending Wikipedia's cherished principles against the pro-LDS editors, by explain to them how things work, and support the reverts and neutral edits made by other editrors (regardless of their background). I have even been told re my position on the garment issue that I have sold my soul. So I hope you understand me a little better now. --Trödel 04:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right - while it could have been handled differently - I think the topic is so sensitive to some that it would have denigrated eventually. That is unlike some of the other stuff I was thinking of - those topics just don't have the emotional attachment. --Trödel 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't have to be asked to delete some comments so I shouldn't have to ask that personal attacks against me be removed. There appears to be some bias by admins here. There are admins already involved who seem to 'conveniently' allow certain editors to do as they wish; if those admins won't 'protect' me I will be forced to do it myself. Be Bold !, you know? I don't find your 'behaivor' [sic] to be all that stellar either, BTW.Duke53 | ^Talk 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help to my question on the Wiki-Pump! The guy left no explanation on my talk page, which I would have thought was a reasonable courtesy. I have left a message on his talk page asking why. Best Regads, - Trident13 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB wrote:

There is some dispute as to whether these blocks are supported. There are many active editors who do just fine contributing with non-latin names. Per the discussion here, there seems be support for reccomending for to people creating a username at en.WP to not use non-latin characters. But does not appear to be consensus for blocking people on sight who already have a non-latin account at another Wikimedia wiki. Will you please start taking these non-latin username through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names in order to better gather opions on the mattter? Thank you for your atttention to this matter.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I should point out that any username blocks I have issued in the past were fully compliant with the username policy as it existed at that time. If the username policy tells me to block non-latin usernames I shall do so, if it does not, I will not. If you object to a policy, change the policy, not the people who follow it. Thanks – Gurch 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like this, you see. I won't be entirely surprised if that's reverted, but as long as it's in there, people blocking non-Latin usernames are doing nothing wrong – Gurch 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a proposal at User:Seraphimblade/sandbox/1. Your input is invited and welcomed, please feel free to edit or comment on the new proposal if you would like. Thanks! Seraphimblade 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. I don't know why Redux didn't attempt to contact me before assuming that I had acted unilaterally. —David Levy 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB wrote

I seemed to have sparked some criticism of your actions, and to fair I agreed with it, in the above thread and thought it only proper that you should be made aware of it. Since I cannot see that anyone has brought it up with you on your talk page, here is a heads-up.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – Gurch 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu asked me to drop these off. In all the examples, the first part of the sig points at your userpage, the second part points at your talkpage. On this page, the second link isn't clickable, yet appears the same as on other pages for consistency.

• BirgitteSB

• BirgitteSB

• BirgitteSB

Of course, feel free to experiment with color and style, etc... JBarrett 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, till a clear-cut policy is formulated in put it to place it will be in a kind of 'purgatory'. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Helping me on the Trodel RfC by showing me policy that I was not aware of, and was more useful than the policies I had listed. TheGreenFaerae 09:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message; good point. I've clarigied my position at the discussion page, and e-mailed the User to let him or her know what's happening, and to advise a signature change. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning on the wikisource Vfd. For what it's worth, I made my defense of it there tonight (now it's morning--I just hit dawn!) and put a notice on the scriptorium. I'm not too enchanted with Pathoschild right now... I would have thought a query or two was in order before such an massive attack. Best regards // FrankB 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that got to do with me???--Cometstyles 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used popups..Thats what Popups do they revert stuff and its not my Fault that parents allow their 8 year old children to use the Computer let alone the Internet..Geez..--Cometstyles 17:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have attempted to address the copyvio issues with a replacement article on Talk:Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922)/Temp. My explanation (apology) for the copyvio can be found at Talk:Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922). What's the next step? Do we need wait for an admin to get involved as the copyvio template suggests or are you willing to remove the copyvio notice and let me replace the current revision with the one at [[[Talk:Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922)]]?

--Richard 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should include links to your user page and talk page on your sig. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for bringing the request to my attention. I forgot to watchlist the talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's out of the box thinking. Well said. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--BirgitteSB 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your support during my recent, successful RfA. Thanks.

Off the subject, is your username a Robert Jordan reference, or is that just coincidence? I've been a little curious. Shimeru 16:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your review. I've nominated the article as a FAC now. If you had any further suggestions the nomination page is here. Thanks again! TimVickers 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Birgitte. Thanks for all your help and careful reviews. TimVickers 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on copyright here were very useful Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Copyright_and_the_use_of_national.2Flocal_government_statistics

I notice others have asked you to include a link to your user page in you sig, I would appriciate it too. I've taken your sig's wiki code and reworded it to include a link
This
<i>[[User:BirgitteSB|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Birgitte</span>]]<span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small;">SB</span></i>
produces this :- BirgitteSB
Which should look idential to your current sig, but includes a link too. GameKeeper 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've unprotected and deleted. Jimfbleak. ^{Talk here.}19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for a most thorough and perceptive review. I remember your comments on bacteria were particularly helpful, you are an excellent editor! There's a lot for me to get on with, so this may take a while. Thanks again. TimVickers 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I haven't forgotten about the points still remaining in the peer-review. I've just found myself absorbed in the sprawling mess that is the evolution talk page and not getting much text editing done recently. Hopefully, consensus is near and I can get back to your suggestions over the weekend. TimVickers 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just finishing up actually, that's the new version of the evolutionary history section being slotted in now. TimVickers 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- thanks for your comments about this. Offhand, the people who would be interested in this discussion are user:Aaronsw and Sunir Shaw of meatball, who are working on bibwiki, and the folks working on m:wikicat. I don't have anything special to add but it's an interesting issue that lots of people have touched on over the years. Also I know user:mako is a big Zotero fan and might be able to help... -- phoebe/(talk) 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Birgitte. I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Any further comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an image that might fit what you proposed, I've put it on the article talk page. If you had time, could you contribute to the FAC discussion? I've always found your feedback very useful. Thanks again. TimVickers 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! TimVickers 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your User:BirgitteSB-prod bot account for mass-prodding pages on the basis that they were unreferenced. Many, if not most, of these articles could be expected to survive an AfD request unanimously, if not be speedy kept.

To quote from the proposed deletion policy, "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Many of the tagged articles could not possibly have even been argued to come under this criterion. Please find some other means of handling unreferenced articles. Rebecca 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

BirgitteSB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

68.94.94.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "BirgitteSB-prod". The reason given for BirgitteSB-prod's block is: "Mass-prodding pages at random for being unreferenced, many indisputable notable.

• Blocking administrator: Rebecca (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you blocked an account that was not a bot, was not actively making edits at the time, without adressing the issue with me personally, AND you blocked my IP so I cannot edit at all. I expect you to seriously change your blocking procedures. The above block was completerly out of line and is quite an inconvience since I can't edit at all now.--BirgitteSB 01:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be completely clear

• I do not run a bot
• As explained on my user page a made an alt account to get a clear watch list
• I have spent several days working through unreferenced articles from Dec 2005-June of 2006 on this account. Working through doing many things and not nominating any for deletion.
• After a few days of looking at every single article in a letter in that category, I relized out of what was left after I cleared many, many articles from the category by not deleting them; some of the remainder should probably be deleted.
• I made a alt account for a fresh watchlist. I nominated some of the remaining articles I found to neologisms or small companies or otherwise not fitting the inclusion guidelines for deletion.
• I have personally read every one of these articles many of them twice.
• I was not activly editing when blocked so how could it have been preventative?
• Supposedly my "bot" was all that has (incorrect) resons given to be blocked yet my IP is blocked.

So how exactly did you determine I was prodding articles at random by a bot. If you looked at my talk page you would reallize I cannot even sucessfully program my own signature. I am signing off for the night but someone please copy this to Rebecca's talk page. Rebecca, you seriously need to think about what you are doing with the block button. You need to be certain you reasoning is sound and you need to know how blocking actually works regarding the IP.--BirgitteSB 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the autoblock has been lifted. Try editing the sandbox and see if it will work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that it was a manually-operated account; I had assumed, based on the nature of the edits, that it must have been automated. Being that you're actually making these edits yourself, I urge you to re-read the proposed deletion policy, specifically "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion."

Your edits included a very well-known Australian massacre, the main street of a major city, a major railway station, an English town, a prominent Chinese Marxist thinker, a prominent Russian musicologist and a prominent Macedonian writer. How on earth did you get to the conclusion that they were "uncontroversial deletion candidates"? There is not a chance in hell that any of those I've listed would have been deleted via AfD. Rebecca 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you actually do some research before tagging articles on the basis of "notability" - research outside of Wikipedia. The Marxist thinker you wrote off because he didn't appear in the refs for Cultural Revolution did appear in numerous references if you had, like, searched Google. Again, if you had done so much as a Google search for the Russian musicologist, you would have found some interesting journal articles explaining his influence. Some of these taggings - such as the massacre - were so bizarre that any non-admin making these would have been warned for disruption.

It's not a matter of "I don't think these should be deleted." It is that there was no way in hell that any of these were going to be uncontroversial (which is a requirement to use proposed deletion); all bar the railway station could reasonably be expected to survive unanimously, and the railway station (as a major urban metro station) could be expected, upon similar precedent, to be very strongly contested. This isn't even a grey area - you're blatantly violating the proposed deletion policy.

You'll notice that I didn't challenge all your taggings; some, as with the five you noted on my page, were quite clearly prod candidates, and were left intact accordingly. However, this consisted of less than 50% of your taggings under that account - many more were not even in a grey area. The only acceptable way to delete an article when the request is likely to be in any way controversial is to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This wasn't a one-off, either - you were violating the policy at the rate of one a minute.

If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second - spare me the patronising speech. I assumed, wrongly, that this had to be automated, based on the downright bizarre behaviour of the account. I thus blocked it accordingly. (If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.) However, I did make a mistake in ticking the "last IP address" box, and I apologise for that. Rebecca 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reasured you that I would not tag such articles again after hearing you concerns. I was only listing those article to make sure we were on the same page regarding where prod should be used. I don't think I have much chance of getting through to you on the other issue, so I am taking this to WP:AN/I.--BirgitteSB 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've stated that you would not tag such articles again; that's good enough for me. I've said as much at AN/I. I've unblocked your second account accordingly. Rebecca 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A favor returned, with thanks. TimVickers 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Sheep81 did a thorough copyedit of the article after you commented on style. Could you please read it again and reconsider your opinion on the FA status? Thanks, Yerpo 09:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tim Vickers 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently put a lot of work into improving the article Night of the Long Knives. I put it up for peer review, but haven't seen any comments yet. I see that you have have experience as a peer reviewer and I think that the article could gain from your insights. So, if you have some spare time, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.--Mcattell 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I enjoyed reading the article.--BirgitteSB 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent peer review of Autism; it has strengthened the article considerably. It took me a while to address the issues you raised, but I did the best I could and responded to the review in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Autism#Review_by_BirgitteSB. Eubulides 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address your concerns in the Featured List nomination. I have to say I was a little upset that you waited until the very last day of the 10-day period to post your concerns. More time to fix issues would be helpful in the future. Geraldk 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they were useful comments, and helped develop the list - I wasn't trying to question the validity of your input. And the more the merrier for FLC reviewers. It's just a lot easier to address the concerns when it's not the last day of review :) Geraldk 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 10-day period is a minimum. Most lists hang around for longer. The FLC says

Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases an additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support.

So if an Object pops up late, make it obvious that you are working on dealing with it. Geraldk, if you are really worried about running out of time, then explicitly ask for an extension. None of us want to fail a list on a technicality like lack of time. The limit is merely there to (a) promote a list that has clearly made it and (b) clear away the debris of a list that the nominator has given up on, etc. Colin°^Talk 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB – thank's for joining us on FLC. I've seen you around on peer review and you always seem to make good comments that show you've really read the article. I hope you stay a while. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 11:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and the welcome.--BirgitteSB 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I incorporated most of your suggestions. If you want to look at Night of the Long Knives again, and post to peer review, that would be great.--Mcattell 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award BirgitteSB the Editor's Barnstar for contributions in making Night of the Long Knives a readable and accurate article!--Mcattell 16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a recommendation that addresses the issue of encouraging proper sourcing which sidesteps (for now) the matter of pushing for deletion. Based on your earlier comments, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help in providing criticism for Night of the Long Knives. I have nominated it here it for featured article status, and would appreciate your assessment. Thanks, Mcattell 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of the Ordinances of 1311 article. I have now implemented some changes, and nominated the article for FA. Please feel free to comment on the project page. Lampman 18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love your idea of first and second class sources. I have borrowed some of your statements, with explicit attribution by edit summary, to use as working notes to try and craft a section describing and defining the distinction. You are welcome to work on my informal draft, especially since it was your idea. :-P It was a very good thought and is worth exploring. Cheers! Vassyana 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a first draft. Since it was based on your ideas, I'd be really appreciative if you would take a look over it and provide some feedback. Of course, you have ideas on tweaking/improving the draft, please be all means, have at it. Thanks again for spurring some thought on this! Vassyana 08:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Birgitte! You are full of great ideas and excellent observations - ""Free-content" means free as in freedom, not free as in beer." Brilliant! I love it! Dreadstar † 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that you used the 'free beer' example makes you one awesome babe in my book!  ;) You are so right about the many editors who don't see the vision of our project, the more involved I am, the more I really appreciate and admire what is being built here. I have come to really love the project and the good people I've encountered here. You're one of those good people, and I'm glad to know ye! Dreadstar † 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've made more revisions. Let me know your thoughts. Vassyana 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte, if the subject-matter isn't overwhelmingly-technical, might you be interested in reviewing the FAC of Oxidative phosphorylation? If you did, any comments or suggestions would be welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation. All the best, Tim Vickers 17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes certainly do use electron transport chains, and these chains of electron carriers can either be quite similar to those in animals/plants or very different. I can see how you got that impression, as prokaryotic metabolism is pretty much ignored in standard biochemistry texts, something I've tried to redress a bit in this article. Tim Vickers 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemiosmosis is the mechanism by which oxidative phosphorylation occurs. Oxidation is linked to phosphorylation by pumping ions across membranes and then letting them flow back across membranes, try to think about it like an electrical circuit - it's a remarkably accurate analogy. Tim Vickers 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, day from hell in the lab today, so I'll try to deal with your comments this evening. Tim Vickers 20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks for calling it to my attention. I'll revert if you haven't already, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I worked on the main policy page. When I look at the edit differences you singled out, I have to say I am not mad about either version. Frankly, I prefer the version I last worked on: [2] - this is an edit change but just look at the section under Sources - I tried to be precise and keep it simple. It may be that my style is just out of sync with others. But I think all the more recent versions, in tryng to explain things, just provide vague or unclear examples that muddy the waters. Now, to address specifics:

• I believe it is important to state that Wikipedia requires source based research
• I don't think we need any statement encouraging use of secondary sources or discouraging primary sources in the abstract. Vaguely encouaging someting is not a policy
• I think all we need to say is that primary sources may be used only if they meet two conditions ...
• I think all we need to say is that any generalization, or analytic, synthetic, intepretive, or explanatiory claim can be included in an article only if it is made explicitly in a verifiable source.

These princples pretty much cover it for me. I think the simpler and more straightforward the policy, the better. My sense is that some of these conflicts come from others in the past having added examples and explanations that are vague or sloppy and invite confusion and dissent. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I really think refactoring the talk page, or just having each person summarize their position, and try to narrow it down to if not one then two or three main points of contention, and limit all discussion to working through those points in separate, clearly demarcated sections on the talk page, it will be much easier to resolve the conflicts.

As to primary and secondary sources, I have my own view and it is pretty simple (to me!).

Primary sources are any recorded and verifiable documentation or source of information:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts written as eye-witness accounts of the reporter; historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations; written or recorded records of field observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

A secondary source is any verifiable source that analyzes, synthesizes, interprets or explains a primary source, or uses a primary source to analyze, synthesize, interpret or explain some phenomenon. In other words, it forwards a particular view of information, or uses information to forward a particular view.

I would keep it simple and try not to add anything more to these, or as little as possible. policies should not themselves include explanations of policies and I think people kept adding their own interpretation of the policy into the policy and that is when things went south. Keep the policy as clear as possible. i know people thought that they were clarifying things by inserting explanations and interpretations of the policy, but what they added I think just confused people and created more controversy.

Key to understanding these definitions is that the focus is on how they are used. So it is conceivable that the same document can be both a primary or a secondary source depending on how it is used. The Biblical book of Chronicles when it was written no doubt drew on a variety of sources and in its time would have been considered a secondary source. Today however it itself has been the object of scrutiny by clerics and theologians, as well as by literary critics and historians - in this context, it is a primary source. Capiche?

Anyway, it now seems like there are two major sources of contention: what is the difference of primary and secondary sources, and should the policy privilege the use of secondary sources. Is there a third? A fourth? I urge you guys to settle on two or three clearly defined points of contention, create new sections for each on, archive the old talk, and try to lay out the arguments and alternatives systematically. The way the talk page is currently organized I can't see how any progress will be made. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear perhaps I was not clear. "However please read the policy and explain to me how the average reader (either new to the concept or familiar with the concept in field that defines these terms in conflict with how we define it) could ever pick up the point that it matters how the source is used" - I do not mean to say that the text of the policy is perfect, and that it cannot be improved upon. It is not perfect, it can be improved upon - but I think improvements must be made espceially judiciously and carefully. Beyond that, I would say that I doubt that an effective policy will ever be 100% clear to all newbies. Judging by my own experience, I think most newbies will get the gist of things, but will also get into conflicts, and will learn from mistakes, and will sometimes need other editors to explain things to them. I see nothing wrong with this. So while I am sure the policy can be clearer, I would not make complete clarity to all newbies a standard, and I think there will always be a role of the policy and other talk pages as places where more experienced editors can explain the policy to less experienced editors. I also believe that a good number of people who claim to find the policy confusing or unclear actually understand it and simply do not like it. Wikipedia will always attract people who chafe under NPOV and NOR and we just need to get used to that. In any event, I was expressing my own view of the policy. If you agree with me and think the policy is unclear, are you proposing a particular remedy? Adn, is your proposed remedy one of the points of contention currently on the talk page? Much as I enjoy seeing my own views represented, there is so much debate that is all over the place right now on the talk page that I would rather see people currently active on the talk page sort out their conflicts than risk complicating things further by pushing my own proposed edit change. Perhaps once everyone on the page agrees as to what the main conflicts are, I can then post my own comment and know it will be constructive. Right now, I fear that I can't do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly revised my proposal, in an attempt to reflect legitimate concerns raised on all sides on the policy talk page. A major change is dropping the language discussing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I try to rely on the "reliable third-party publications" distinction made by Wikipedia:Verifiability that has a clear and exceedingly broad consensus. Please take a look over the new draft and let me know your thoughts (User:Vassyana/Sources proposal). I'm interested in soliciting some feedback before submitting the revised proposal. Thanks! Vassyana 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" don't know what you think I have been "contending"." - Brigitte, I do not follow you. Where do I say I think you are contending something? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I ask if your position is under contention, I mean, are there people who disagree with you, who are contending your point? You seem to be defensive and I do not understand why. Have I in any way attacked you personally, or your position? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do hope it is a misunderstanding and if it is I am sure it is a good-faith misunderstanding. I don't want anything particular out of you, personally. I do wish that all the people editing on the talk page for NOR would focus on whatever conflicts they consider most important, and work things out. Since I have only been following the discussion the last few days, and have not had the time to read everything - like I said, it (the talk page as a whole) really is confusing! - I have no idea how involved you have been. Maybe you have just made a few comments here or there - or maybe you have largely by yourself been fighting against trolls who wish to dismantle the whole policy. I have left enough comments in the past few days that you should know pretty clearly where I stand in terms of what I think the policy should say. If you think we are on the same side and you think there is something I can do to be supportive of you, let me know. However, my initial comment under "advice", and all subsequent comments, were addressed to all the editors, and all I want is to see thirty threads replaced by 1 (or more but no more than 4) and see people work together to resolve any conflicts. If you have been trying to do this, in your own way, I wish you would see my comment as being supportive of your efforts. I left a similar comment on your talk page and also Dreadstar's only because you are the only two editors to have commented on my talk page, so I did not mean to single you out as being especially responsible for what is going on, only to single you out as one of two people who I had already had some contact with. I hope this clears things up, really! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not worry about it. We (dedicated veterans) have all had bad days here and you don't need to explain - I am just glad we could sort it out in less than 12 hours - in the past some times it has taken me weeks to work out the dumbest little things! I will check in on the policy when I can because I really care about it and I mean it, let me know what you think I can do to be more supportive and/or constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you note you were having a rough day and I just wanted deliver a few hugs, smiles and assurances that your presence is highly valued. Be well!!! Vassyana 21:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--BirgitteSB 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, I archived a good deal of the talk in an atempt to focus the discussion in order to resolve some issues one at a time. I hope you agree this is a constructive move. COGDEN recently restored over 180,000 bytes of talk I had archived. Even having archived, the talk page is rapidly reaching the optimum length for a talk page prior to archiving! I believe COGDEN restored archived talk in order to prevent a resolution of any conflict, because it would enable him to dominate the talk without actually reaching any agreement. I believe there are a few editors who have made it clear they simply do not support the policy. If they restore archived talk as a way of avoiding addressing the issues, I will rearchive it. If you object I would appreciate knowing. if you think this is reasonable, I would appreciate your keeping an eye on the matter too. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw - thanks! I added my two cents. But perhaps I would insist that any thread re-introduced be relevant to what is now on the page ... or be defered until we resolve some issues, archive, and then be re-introduced. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right. What I hsve seen has led me to question the good faith of some editors - but I could be wrong; I hope so. That a tak page shoul dnot reach seven or eight huncred kbs is another matter! Anyway, f you think you can guide people towards some sort of agreement, more power to you and I would be glad to see you succede. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I ppreciate it! I am just trying to keepo the topics small while responding to the issues participants seem most desirous of addressing. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to discussion with Slrubenstein, I realized I was making a somewhat novel distinction for reliable sources, though I believe such an analysis is firmly rooted in existing policy. I've raised those concerns about distinction at the appropriate place. Since my idea of those concepts was fleshed out based on ideas you presented, I thought the discussion might interest you. Cheers! Vassyana 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more on the lighthouse sourcing business:

Both the Coast Guard pages and lighthousefriends are essentially of the "local historical society" ilk. Robert de Gast's book is really a work of coffee table photography, but the quality of background work has made it one of the standard references. However, all of these works have mistakes in them, and one simply has to exert some level of judgment in choosing which to believe. It's not entirely possible to avoid some level of synthesis in doing this-- the dreaded "original" of "NOR".

As I said, I ran into some problems with the locations of these structures. The USCG site gives them descriptively; de Gast uses snippets of charts. Lighthousefriends gives lat/long coordinates, but in some cases these were inaccurate, and in at least one case they were just flat-out wrong. And since they only discussed extant lights, my choice for the destroyed lights was to work from charts and Google Earth (or something similar), or simply omit locations.

We cannot justify including patently incorrect information. I checked LHF's coordinates because I could, and because I am conscientious about fact-checking. And since I could check them, I used charts and Google Earth to obtain coordinates for the destroyed structures as far as I could, approximate where necessary, but exact where the location could be exactly determined. I don't consider this "original research" in the sense that the policy was formulated to counter. Indeed, I'm starting to conclude that part of the issue is that people do not (for various reasons) understand what is and is not research.

I have some further to add but my son is anxious for me to get him home, so I'll have to break here. Mangoe 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing....

"Why is lighthousefriends.com considered a reliable source?" Well, yes, that is an important question. But let's back up a second. Why is any of the three secondary sources considered reliable? Robert de Gast, after all, was primarily interested in text to accompany his (beautiful) photographs. The Coast Guard sounds very official, until you look carefully its pages and see that they were actually written by volunteers from lighthouse societies, putting them on the same level as lighthousefriends.com.

So which is the most reliable? Well, objectively, the one that has the least mistakes and misinformation. In the case of dealing with these sources, one can see that the LHF.com people are actually visiting the sites, because they have modern pictures. Ditto de Gast, some twenty years earlier. All three are clearly working off the same historical records, and at times are having to deal with the problem that those records aren't entirely consistent.

What it comes down to is that all three are "reliable" sources-- after all, I have chosen at some level to rely upon them. The charts and Google Earth are also reliable-- more reliable on some points. But in the end one still has to write the article, and choose what to take from each source; there's no way to avoid some degree of "originality", which sources do not really have anything to do with.

Reliability is only a starting point, and doesn't really have anything to do with originality of research. That's really the locus of the problem, at present. The selection of sources doesn't govern how they are used, and it's that use that is the core of the problem. Mangoe 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial issue for Wikipedia policy is not that these sources are verifiable meaning not only that another editor can verify them (e.g. find them at a good library), but that the point of view expressed is easily verifiable (and not that of an editor). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have created a new page, Wikipedia: Proposal to replace No Original Research. Can you go over the talk on the now too long talk page for NOR and identify any talk you think belongs with this nascent proposal, and move it to its' talk page? I will ask Dreadstar and Jossi to do the same. I have already done a fair amount of refactoring at the talk page, and given that I just created this new proposal page, I would rather trust someone else's judgement as to what talk, specifically, to move. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since others are taking stabs at rewriting this policy, I have decided to try my own. Before I share it with a wider group, could you go over it and make such edits as you see fit? Thanks [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and take look at this later today. I am leaving for vacation at the end of this week and I have a great deal to do before I leave. So I may not be very active this week and will then be absent the next week.--BirgitteSB 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - I am hoping it would not take much time on your part ... of course I appreciate your situation, Slrubenstein | Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your monobook is in Category:Wikipedia tools. This is most likely because when you were copying scripts into yout monobook you accidentaly copied their category. Since your monobook is not a tool itself, please remove this category from it (like this). If you intend for your monobook to be a tool, please consider creating a subpage with a more descriptive name, and moving the category there. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but User:BirgitteSB-prod monobook is. Guess the talk redirect me to you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BirgitteSB, Thanks for the clarification on {{unreferenced}}. Cheers! Toddstreat1 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Best regards, Pete.Hurd _primarysources" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brigitte. Next time you need to have me contend with a lecture on {{Unreferenced}}, please provide a diff or an article name so that I can at least have the foggiest of what you refer to and not contend in vain. Else, it could look like patronizing under the influence of the Guantanamo Courts Kool-Aid, and you wouldn't want that, Brigitte. A thousand and one thanks in advance.

And now for an amiable lecturing of my own: you should archive this page on separate subpages, as per WP:ARCHIVE. Currently, having the entirety of your archives be downloaded each time someone has to visit your talk page is an unnecessary strain on the bandwith resources of Wikipedia, not to mention what it does to my puny modem. Cheers. — Komusou ^talk @ 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip; the deed is done. Best, Precious Roy 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As things seem to have calmed down for the moment, I'd just like to thank you for your help on this. It's good to know that the support's there when you need it! Regards, "some random guy" aka Ghmyrtle 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, remember me? You reviewed an article I was working on, Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. I've nominated it for FA here. Since you reviewed it before and offered needed improvements, could you take a second look? Much appreciated. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on there. You tagged Kiwi for CSD alleging copyvio from here. Not so, It's the other way around. I was born and bred in Waverley so I naturally took an interest in the stubbish article about this horse. I expanded the Kiwi article a couple of years ago, particularly here. That's my work, not theirs. They have lifted the Wiki article. Moriori 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's still an orphan due to few incoming links. Can we make some? Bearian 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Birgitte, would you like me to nominate you as an admin? You seem very well-qualified and I'd be very happy to put you forward. Tim Vickers 02:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, if you ever change you mind just drop me a note. Tim Vickers 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon BirgitteSB, I have been made aware of your edits at the peer review of Manchester Airport. Three articles: List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 have been put up at AFD, and so could I ask your comments on the deletion debate? Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input. Regards, Rudget _ 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Gemmei

NOTE:This is copied from [[Talk:Daijō Tennō]} -- just wanting to ensure that I don't make the same mistake twice (if, indeeed, it was a mistake not to post this message here to begin with ...?

The first to style herself "Daijō Tennō" was Empress Jitō (持統天皇, Jitō-tennō) in 697. Also, Empress Gemmei (元明天皇, Genmei-tennō) abdicated and took the title "Daijō Tennō" in Wadō 8 (715). Neither women did anything post-abdication which turned out to be anything like the cloistered rule of Emperor Shirakawa in Heian era Japan .... In my view, it would be inappropriate to merge Cloistered rule and Daijō Tennō at this time. --Ooperhoofd 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if you had brought this up before the merge happened since the history shows you have edited the article during this time period, but I am not going to argue over the issue. However I do expect you clean up to Cloistered rule which has all this material repeated in it from the October merge and remove the merge tags. Reverting my edit alone does not help the status of these articles. BTW finishing up a merge that was done in October is completely appropriate. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean their edits are "not appropriate". -BirgitteSB 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitte -- There are several issues here.

FIRST: The first and most important, it seems to me, is a matter of common courtesy. Your response suggests that the the words "not appropriate" were ill chosen -- that a connotation of offense or some other unwarranted association is implied. That wasn't my intention, but now that you bring it to my attention, I can readily imagine situations in which that reading would be precisely on point. Although I have not myself encountered the word "appropriate" in a Wikipedia setting, I can guess that it has a specific usage in this venue. In any case, I meant neither disrespect nor derision. In this context, why not consider the following:

• Please suggest an alternate, non-controversial way I could have/should have explained my response to the merge of daijō-tenno and cloistered rule. Other than this plain apology, there is nothing I can do to retrieve the sense of frustration and annoyance I inadvertently caused you; but with a little more care, I can avoid a similar needless blunder in future.
• Please suggest an alternate action I could have/should have considered other than "undo." Perhaps it would have been better to place a heads-up message at Birgitte rather than at the discussion page for Daijō Tennō ... or maybe a better protocol is to leave word in both discussion venues. I dunno.

Bottom line: I am sorry to have caused annoyance. It is very clear that YOU did nothing wrong. In fact, it's clear that your actions were not only justified, prudent, modest and timely; but that you had every reason to feel that you'd accomplished a thankless task for which your only reward was knowing that you'd done something to help make Wikipedia better. Instead, you reaped an entirely unwelcome and un-looked-for harvest of disagreeable complaint. I entirely empathize -- been there, done that.

SECOND: You are quite correct in observing: "It would have been nice if you had brought this up before the merge happened since the history shows you have edited the article during this time period, but I am not going to argue over the issue." But in this case, I didn't understand what to do or say until just yesterday. I just didn't "get it" .... For this I need have no apology. There is no explaining the time it takes for anyone to come to understand something as simple as 2+2=5.

THIRD: You have plainly construed my objection to this "merge" to mean that I believe:

• Cloistered rule ≠ Daijō Tennō

Yes, this is correct. I do note that Švitrigaila expressly argues that these two articles were (or are), in his/her view, duplicative, redundant, unnecessary ... but at Talk:Cloistered rule, you will see that, like me, Tensaibuta does parse the consequences of this merge quite differently. The exchange of views in which Tensaibuta participated prior to the merge involved Shimoxx and Aotake and Fg2 and Spirituelle; and the focus shifted over time as various aspects of the Insei system were considered. The somewhat scholarly commentary examines the ramifications of this subject across the span of serial post-Taika Reforms (大化の改新, Taika no Kaishin) or post-Emperor Kōtoku (孝徳天皇, Kōtoku-tennō) Imperial history. My approach was quite different. I only identified one very specific illustrative example to explain why Švitrigaila was mistaken. I focused solely on Empress Gemmei, the first to take the post-abdication title of daijō-tennō.

The more interesting point to make here is that you seem to have understood Daijō Tennō as something like a mathematical sub-set of Cloistered rule. You seem to have construed the retired emperor as a subset of the system in which he exercised significant political and other powers.

• Cloistered rule ≥ Daijō Tennō

Without going into it too much, I assumed the exact opposite: that Cloistered rule was and is self-evidently a logical sub-set of Daijō Tennō -- not quite in the same relationship as a work of literature (Chushingura) can be seen as a logical subset of an historical event (Forty-seven Ronin) ... but a plausible connection which might be argued with some merit. I assumed that engagement in Imperial government after retirement was amongst the options which were possible, but that it was also possible for an emperor to devote himself entirely to spiritual pursuits as a "mere" Buddhist monk.

• Cloistered rule ≤ Daijō Tennō

The difference between your seeming assumptions and mine is a little like the difference between the hand saw of a Japanese carpenter (cuts on the pull-stroke) and the hand saw of a European carpenter (cuts on the push stroke).

I have more to say, but this is already taken more time that I'd originally anticipated. Frankly, I can't tell whether what I've just written will be perceived as helpful, thoughtful, constructive or simply tedious, rambling, irrelevant. The response -- if any -- which this posting engenders will guide me in better assessing what I might want to write in future. --Ooperhoofd 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded over there already. But thank you again for being so kind about this after my own poor attitude.--BirgitteSB 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hi BirgitteSB ! I created subsections per template you added. Please check-- y'r welcome to contribute to or improve them! Thanks, IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks great!--BirgitteSB 16:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, keep on rockin'! IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 09:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you were involved in the 1st deletion discussions, you might be interested in knowing thies articles are up for deletion again; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). A couple of editors are attempting to use this AfD to permanently remove any destination list from the Manchester Airport article. --Oakshade 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Birgitte. Today I did a cut-and-paste merge from List of altitude records reached by different aircraft types into Flight altitude record. The former had been marked for merger since Dec '06. It really was no list at all, but rather another version of the same subject. I see that you removed the merge tag recently (because it was so old). I am leaving you this note, in case you care about this topic. I hope you have no objection to the merge. (Perhaps you were simply cleaning up old tags.) Best regards, Hult041956 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I was cleaning up some old tags that either had no discussion about the proposed merger or else had objections with no one working on a compromise for many months. I personally have no objection to the merge. Thanks for boldly taking care of it.--BirgitteSB 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can shine a light on something for me. As a new contributor, I gave myself the job of tackling the old mergers list. It's useful work, and easy in most cases. What I've found is that many old merge tags have no discussion at all... not even a kick-off by the person who placed the tag. At the least, this seems unhelpful (drive-by) tagging. Is there a place on WP for guidelines or discussion of this practice? Best regards, Hult041956 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this too, although I am uncertain that it is always unhelpful. By the time we are looking at mergers tagged for a year perhaps twice as many simple self-explanatory mergers have already been done and removed from the category. So there is a selection bias for those working through the old tags always coming across the most unhelpful of taggings. Sometimes two days into a month I will pick a current month category and examine if all the new tags placed are appropriate and then leave notes on the talk pages of people who do better to handle things differently. But once a months have passed there is not much to do except clean up. I don't know of any larger discussion of tagging practices but you could always start one in the village pump. I have always found people in those general discussions fail to really see the issue, sometimes you just need the experience on trudging through the backlogs to understand what is going on with these abandoned taggings.--BirgitteSB 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating answer. Thanks. Guess I'll just keep "trudging through." Hult041956 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wanting to use your non-expert review skills. This article is a FA but it is not written in a very approachable style. If you have time over the next few days could you give it a quick read through and note on the FAR page as to which parts you find most confusing? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten that was there was trying something out and didn't delete it, gone now! --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you might want to archive your talk page. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]