User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Oh dear

@Xover@Jenhawk777, you may want to check out this comicbook. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What the… WHAT?!? I'm… It's… I can't even… Xover (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a dream, if that helps. Based on the works of Neil Gaiman. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

We'll see if this sticks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah. Your fair use rationale doesn't hold up so it'll be purged eventually. List articles generally can't get away with using non-free images at all, and almost all valid fair use rationales end up requiring the image used to illustrate an article about itself (so a film still to illustrate that film is ok, but not one to illustrate a list of films of the same genre). Xover (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth a try, it's rare to see images of SAQ:s as SAQ:s. And "Somehow we always find room for one more" was pretty good. There was a scene in Upstart Crow where Greene, Bacon and Oxford get together to plan the coming centuries of SAQ. Then again Shakespeare had his own plan in that series, which he explained to the audience in a Richard III manner, something like this: "As time passes people will become uncertain about what I actually did write, thus lazily ascribing more and more to me, until, finally, I'll be given credit for inventing the entire English language!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xover@Jenhawk777, I just stumbled on The Beard of Avon, this one I want to see. de Vere to Will: "I see a hunchback. You flesh it out (Will writes R III)." The Queen to Will (on Taming of the shrew): "Thou art in water most enormously hot." [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh heh. Yeah, a topic most apt for satire and farce. Or the bleakest tragedy. Don't think I've really ever taken notice of The Beard of Avon before, beyond the name popping up now and then, but I'll keep an eye out now. It sounds fun! Xover (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

One didn't have to look very far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also: “What reasonable human being becomes a Shakespeare scholar?” :) Xover (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"School was easier in Shakespeare's time, because you didn't have to study Shakespeare." Cunk on Shakespeare Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

...you've been reading comicbooks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Appreciation for guiding a rookie Wikipedian.😄 Sushant1432 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's not all brickwalls, or as someone put it, "rotating helicopter blades." Hope you stick around! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Wrong ink.

Well, not you. I've blocked your friend the IP for a coupla days. Bishonen | tålk 17:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen Thank you. Think it's related to [2][3]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

...apparently you did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just my opinion, of course. But it quacks like a duck, doesn't it? Bishonen | tålk 17:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC).

Yup. Now back to informing our readers about things of importance:[4]. Next step, asking her to upload an image of the text on Commons. The encyclopedic value can't be measured with rational means. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh.. you want to ask Angelina Jolie to upload an image of her Marlowe quote tattoo? Why not, go for it. Has the Telegraph published it? It's behind a paywall for me. Bishonen | tålk 19:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC).

They didn't, but the internet is vast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship

That article is crazy! User:WereSpielChequers, you let a monster in the door! Don't we still have DS for Shakespearean authorship stuff? Drmies (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies, I just tried to add one at 92.2.126.53 (my second ever after [5], it seemed like a good time to start), but someone ec:d with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And yes, that DS is alive and kicking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ha, irritating, those edit conflicts. It's funny, I mentioned the Shakespeare authorship thing in a write-up for the academic evaluation of Wikipedia articles, thinking that for lit professors it might have a nice ring to it, and be safely in the past--and now we see it's still happening. Here, though, we're not dealing with a cabal--just an IP editor. But they've been all over the place, and User:Vaselineeeeeeee ran into them too--though that edit on Culture of Italy is acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know you had dealt with this before, through User:Vale.devin. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That one I had forgotten. But SAQ is far from dead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

And you had to ping them at my talkpage... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Exactly why is not acceptable writing that John Florio added over a thousand of words to the English language? Are you allergic to facts? Do you like to censor people?Vale.devin (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, try asking whoever removed it, if their WP:ES didn't make it clear. And do it at a better place than my talkpage, like Talk:Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

But I looked into it and found 2 reasons. Pretty much anything in this article that is not sourced to a WP:RS about Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship should be removed, since it's outside the scope of WP. If you want to write about this subject in other ways, write somewhere off-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor thing, but you don't have to ping someone at their own talkpage, it has no extra effect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies Why are you writing accusing someone to'let a monster in the door'. Why? You deleted in a few minutes sourced information without engaging in a conversation! This is censorship!Vale.devin (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it's WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa SångYou should clarify which information is not sourced exactly. Regarding the information that Florio contributed to the English language is relevant to the theory, moreover in the article published by Frampton in the Guardian, it is clearly stated that many neologisms in Shakespeare plays are from Florio's works. The article link is in the intro too. Did you create different pages related to the Marlowian authorship theory? Can you be impartial on this topic?Vale.devin (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Take this to the talkpages of the relevant articles. And I may not be able to be impartial, I am a person, but I'll do my best to follow WP policies and guidelines, like WP:NPOV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunshine

		Sunshine!
		Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer, Gråbergs Gråa Sång!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't where you are, but I've had several! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad Midsommar to all my talkpage watchers!

This is so, so, wrong... And yet... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The Magic Portal (short film)

Hello. I saw your reply at the Teahouse and I agree. I am surprised we do not have an article on this. I added numerous refs to the draft, but I did not add the VOX article as I have no idea about how to cite Youtube. DO you know how to format film articles? I have the sense this is close to ready. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 06:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply at Draft talk:The Magic Portal (film). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Jimbo talk

I was responding to Otr500, the author of the very long post that begins "Here is an example of issues with your current outlook and wording. I am ...", as well as the shorter response to Orange Mike directly above my comment. --JBL (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits by IP user 39.40.165.105

Would you mind reviewing the edits by User:39.40.165.105 - I see you have already reverted a recent edit to Esra Bilgiç. I don't have the background knowledge myself to make an informed decision. Many thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

Kiwipete, the rule of thumb is that a category should be obvious per text in article, you don't add Muslim/Jewish/whatever if it's not in the article, especially in WP:BLP:s, where such things can be extra sensitive. Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality goes into detail (!). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ruach deletion

Someone is making waves about the term support so you are needed to go and change the wording to delete. Botheration. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your request etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I love the idea that I have such [power... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I thought you would like to know that Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs is separate from Wikipedia:Press coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Also this is kind of a side note but did you note that the blog post is riddled with factual errors? Some such as "Two other users who have edited the ASPI page, Festerhauer and Telsho, have also been identified as sockpuppets of the Waskerton account.” are particularly egregious, Telsho is an ineedtostopforgetting sock not a Waskerton sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Hello! It's been a few hours, but there was a crayfish party, alcohol and some sleep that had priority. I know about WP in blogs, but per WP, [6], [7] and [8] it's not blindingly obvious that "blog" is the right classification, in this day and age it can be hard to say.

On riddled with factual errors, no, I've never come across the topic before. But in this context, it doesn't matter. Media mentions are media mentions, even if they are wrong. WP press coverage often has errors, it's a difficult topic for many journalists. For example, on the recent WP-nazi flag thing, some Swedish media reported that the vandal was an admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Syed Taha Bukhari

Hii@User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, can you help me in creating an article because i am facing many problems in Draft:Syed Taha Bukhari, like, it has been declined by revievers and i din't fully understood declined reasons, so i request to you please check it. Ttttt321 (talk). 16:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ttttt321! It's not a topic I'm very interested in, and I don't promise to do anything at the moment. Here are 2 places you can try to ask for help and advice: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts and Talk:Taekwondo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Mahammaddim

See now article talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Replied there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A user and 'his' software

Re your comment in Special:Diff/1045050264

Yes, I agree he could mean a software he just enjoys to use. But his contributions so far makes me suppose he rather intends to promote himself and his work. --CiaPan (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw their userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

maps

I've emailed the creator of the 2008 map. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Maps_without_citations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Fwd:Welcome

Thanks for welcoming me, I appreciate it really, and I hope to do my best for the community, if you want to correct me something, please contact me! It would be very helpful for me!! Thanks, Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 12:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The London Economic

I notice you've placed a {{lead}} on the The London Economic. There has been WP:BATTLEGROUND on the matter previously. I therefore request you elaborate on your reasoning for tagging and what you expect. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

OK ... so I see you are WP:SEALIONing me into a possible battleground .... hope you are very very happy with that if that happens. Rather than shame tagging go and sort it yourself please. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

So I did what you asked and now I'm WP:SEALIONing. Well, sometimes you can't win. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see myself at Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing#Behaviors. At all. I made one edit to the article, then, because you asked me, one at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You wearn't going to win unless you dug deeper into something weird rather than fly-by shame tagging. Loosely speaking TLE started as a blog: effectively became somoewhat respected for a while. Wikipedia blacklisted it for what I would allege was a kangaroo court with procedural errors and likely inappropriate slagging of a journalist identifying as female. The said I did find an article where said journalist was using an article to promote an organisation without that article being mentioned as an advertisement ... so the blacklist would ultimately have held but not for the reason given. The lack of editorial oversight is an issue, also possibly due to owner bias. Balancing that is tricky - hence the uneasily holding current lead. the {{lead}} is an incitement to BATTLEGROUND. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so to you, my adding the template [9] is an indication that I "hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Got it. To me, your comments here indicate that you don't WP:AGF enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I memrely say the say the shame tagging was without sufficent thought. My AGF on the matter went with the evidence accepted at the blacklisting disucssion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On North Platte

Hey! So since you said I could probably provide pictures since I live there, what pictures do you think would benefit the article? Just curious since I've never actually done this before myself. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Replied at [[10]]. I've done a little on Commons [11], the upload wizard is quite friendly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Vukky talk•edits

13:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Danish withdrawal from the European Union

Why is the photo of Søren Espersen on this page Danish withdrawal from the European Union? Regards, Wname1 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Because you put it there.[12] Why are you asking me? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the photo because many do not accept Søren Espersen's text. Au revoir, Wname1 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to present these two themes on Danish withdrawal from the European Union page? https://www.facebook.com/Danexit-vi-vil-ogs%C3%A5-stemme-om-EU-medlemsskabet-1749327048658419 and https://www.facebook.com/groups/709143369557268/ . Wname1 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not with those sources per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you want to discuss Danish withdrawal from the European Union, do it at Talk:Danish withdrawal from the European Union, that's the place for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

New article

I have started a new article and would love any input on it that you might have - if you have the time and the inclination. [13]. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I commented. Classic Jenhawk-crocodile! My draft Draft:Shakespeare coat of arms is a little shorter, but each to their own (If this was Upstart Crow, Shakespeare would say ""Each to their own", that's one of mine, isn't it?"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously Xover, this topic (the coa) is annoyingly complex. The more I read, it's starting to feel like a Shakespearean version of Dynasty. Oh well, I'll get there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I know - and Richard wants me to expand it!!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Heh heh. Welcome to the Thunderdome! It is devilishly complex to handle in Wikipedia form because there is so much room for interpretation in the evidence, which scholars have engaged in with gusto; some more responsibly than others. It also has relatively recent developments (stemming from research into the Heralds), so we can't just lean on the sober authorities (Schoenaum) and call it a day. No, I think you're going to have both "teach the controversy" (discuss the disagreements and uncertainties) and cover the historiography (how the scholarly views on this have developed over the years). Xover (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Xover Is this a suggestion for my article or Grabergs? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It's for mine, but hey, if you feel it helps ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xover, would that be Schoenbaum? You mustn't misspell to us ignorant people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. I should have linked him for clarity. His and EKC's main works are so fundamental that I tend to refer to them by initialisms: SS,CDL (William Shakespeare: A (Compact) Documentary Life), EKC,FP (William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems), and EKC,ES (The Elisabethan Stage). Chambers and Schoenbaum are both extremely thorough and sober scholars, each of their eras, and can be relied upon to not engage in sloppy research or fanciful speculation. While they may both be superseded on certain points (the CoA being one), they are always a good place to start. Xover (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well, they are good suggestions, but confusing for me, because I think that 'teaching the controversy' and 'covering the historiography' is what I have done - in fact, in this controversial field that I write in, I think it's what I pretty much always do. But perhaps my perception is off, so tell me if you think so.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, like I said, he wasn't talking about your article. I didn't mean to imply that I found it applicable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Obama FAR

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I've been searching for potential adminship candidates for a while, and your name keeps coming up. Based on some pretty detailed research into your record, I think you'd be a strong candidate, and a real asset with the mop. If you would consider running, I would gladly nominate you, and I suspect you could find others who would be willing as well. Let me know! Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, thanks for asking, I do appreciate it! Well, I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, that's apparently a plus. I'll remember that you asked, but atm I'm not interested in trying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was quite the surprise...I will respect your decision regardless, but may I ask why? I've approached candidates who refused because they want nothing to do with admin work, and others who refused because they were worried they'd fail; and if it's the latter, I'd like to offer some persuasion to the contrary. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure there is possibillity of failure, no GA, FA, little afd and ANI-stuff, but on the other hand there also seems to be a "demand" for just reasonable-appearing editors (like the owl who was not what it seemed), and I hope I've appeared that way to reasonable editors, such as yourself. Mostly. But I like to edit WP on my own whim, and admin-stuff would go beyond that. I see little point in having admin-rights if I'm unlikely to do very much with them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect your record is stronger than that of many successful candidates as is, but I cannot argue with your other point. I'll be the first to admit a lot of admin work isn't fun, and I don't exactly do it for fun; so I'll stick to noting that my offer of a nomination stands, and if you find that having the tools would be helpful to stuff you do want to do, let me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and I will! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Bible

Since you commented before on the most recent discussion, any further input would be appreciated. I believe the discussion may be venturing into un- (or even counter-) productive territory. I’ve tried to impress that atheist and agnostic views on the Bible do indeed belong in the article, and are welcome, as we are not in the business of quashing viewpoints. But a scholarly approach conforming to WP standards (and style standards, such as in the lead) is necessary. Instead it seems to be devolving into a mud-slinging discussion fueled by anger or at least misunderstanding. That’s my take, anyway, and I’d welcome honest feedback on a better approach from me and/or a way forward. Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add am, but we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Through the jungle

I finally finished the article - with a ton of help from the wonderful Avilich who deserves as much credit for it as I do - surviving learning things the hard way while researching over 200 sources and fighting off bandits (well maybe not the last part) but it seemed that bad at times! I had no idea a draft wasn't a draft!! I have always copied stuff to my sandbox and worked on it there!! I guess I'm lucky I didn't get in trouble before now! But at least now it's done. It's only my second article I have ever created. So, on to humor! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read [14] yet, but slightly to my surprise [15] I'm told it's actually a source we can use. My current thinking is to hunt down 3-4 more sources to demonstrate WP:GNG, then publish a bare-bones start with some mostly empty sections (Humor in hinduism etc). Professor Gardner kindly included a bibliography, so that should be doable. The_Bible_and_humor#See_also may have something inspirational. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Religion in The Simpsons. I love Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Shakespeare's signet ring (possibly).jpg

The file File:Shakespeare's signet ring (possibly).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Public domain image found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I know bot, I prodded it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

PD-art

Re Special:Diff/1053871554, I think the ring, if it was first found in 1810—and is therefore at least 211 years old—qualifies for commons:Template:PD-Art. That photo is obviously way better than the low-res drawing in the knot book, so I think you'd be fine to upload a version of any resolution you like to Commons. I take it "PD-art" also applies to art-ifacts such as an antique ring. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings As written, it seems to insist on "two-dimensional". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh, odd that it should depend on the number of dimensions … Ah well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, do you know any useful loopholes here? I boldly uploaded a non-free image of Shakespeare's signet ring, then my collegue helpfully added an old sketch of same, thus, as I understand it, removing my rationale for the non-free image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

NOWWAITAGODDAMNMINUTE!! @AleatoryPonderings, Commons should be ok with this one, shouldn't they? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think so?! The bottom of that page is odd: it says "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated", but then has an icon indicating Crown copyright right next to it. That seems to be a standard footer on all UK government pages, though. I think a good faith claim can be made that the image is licensed under commons:Template:OGL3. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why, it's the same photo just rotated. Hmm, loopholes..

1. This similar (but not identical) photo is available with a CC-BY-NC-ND license. Try to convince them to drop the NC-ND for just this picture. (and specify a license version)
2. Is the ring on display at Shakespeare's Birthplace (which you can visit)? If it is, go there and snap a pic. They have a policy that says "You can take photographs for personal use only, but flash photography and filming is not permitted at any of our sites" which isn't legally enforceable in any way but they could theoretically ban your ass for future visits. So upload anonymously and maybe not the same day you visited the place.
3. If the ring isn't on display (and you can't convince them to take it out of storage for Wikipedia, I don't know where they keep it anyway), you could argue that the illustration doesn't depict the actual ring thus making it not a free replacement. And a free replacement is impossible to create if they won't show it to anyone.
4. Create a 3D model of the ring and take a screenshot from any angle you want.
5. Buy a replica and snap a pic of that. Though given the extremely low threshold of originality for the UK, you may need to tag it PD-USonly. The reproduction appears to be a carbon copy so at least in the US I wouldn't expect it to be copyrightable, but consider consulting Clindberg if you want to go this route. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

c:File:Shakespeare's signet ring, photo.jpg is a problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz Why? I'm not going to buy a replica, they were like £1,700. I'd like the fridgemagnet though. Stratford is not within easy walking distance from where I live, though theoretically I can get there by taking the train through a few countries. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones, do you feel like strolling over and get a pic for us? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that I don't know if it's on display or not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The ‘WS’ signet ring is on display in the exhibition at Shakespeare's New Place. Though Gareth is closer than I am, he's still in the next country, but who knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Before the American Revolution, a stroller was the British word for a vagabond.. Therefore, I never stroll.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

@AleatoryPonderings: No, it doesn't apply. PD-art is not a license, it is a statement that the WMF, community and US law do not believe that you can claim copyright over a faithful reproduction, which in this case means a copy. So using a photocopier, scanner or similar doesn't give you any rights because there is no creative process. A photo of a three-dimensional object is a derivative work, the photographer picked an angle, lighting, background, maybe camera settings, stuff like that. A few countries have special copyright rules for "simple" (non-artistic) photographs, most notably Italy, though I suspect this might not even be considered that as there was preparation (white background) before taking the photo. Not relevant here anyway as Shakespeare wasn't Italian. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Not an adherent of the Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, are we? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't Shakespeare a lizard people? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I'm at a bit of a loss now here. There's a photo of the signet ring on gov.uk, according to the metadata taken with a Canon EOS 450D in 2014. There's also sbt-1868-3-274-ws-signet-ring-c17th-sbt-009.jpg from collections.shakespeare.org.uk which is visually indistinguishable. It has exactly the same angle, same lighting, even the shadow matches. I compared them in an image editing program and I can't prove these are different photos. If I can't even prove it after close inspection, any person who just looks at these would say they are identical. The only perceivable differences are that the gov.uk version is rotated 90 degrees, lower resolution and slightly more saturated. The saturation is likely a color profile issue as applying Adobe RGB (1998) to the shakespeare.org.uk image makes the color indistinguishable too. This would be a clear cut case, but there's one problem. The shakespeare.org.uk photo was taken with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II (not an EOS 450D) in 2015 (not 2014). The leaves two unlikely scenarios: either gov.uk took the photo from shakespeare.org.uk and fudged the metadata, but in that case I would expect to see a newer date on the file, not older. The other scenario is that these two photos were taken independently but truly visually indistinguishable. Where does that leave copyright? They can't both be the copyright holder. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We could simply trust gov.uk until SBT says we shouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That was a good link btw, it had a whole gallery. Added it to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty odd, it sure looks like those two are the same photo. For your main question, if a photographer was trying to copy another photograph really exactly, it's probably at the least a derivative work, and if not a copy with no additional copyright. If two photographers manage to create an identical work independently, then yes they each own the copyright over their own photographs. I suppose it's possible the uk.gov image is a photo *of* the original photo. I'm not sure there is any other way to explain the EXIF differences, unless while editing the EXIF of the larger one from the Trust, that mistakes were made which overwrote all the date / camera / other info with that of an earlier photo. The uk.gov page is an article about the collaboration with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, so you could take that as an indication of "where otherwise stated", i.e. it's not Crown Copyright at all. Seems most likely to me that the original photo is owned by the Trust (they are claiming ownership with a CC-BY-NC-ND license) and the uk.gov article simply used an existing Trust photo. If the uk.gov photo was just a copy from the Trust, with an EXIF mistake in there, obviously it's not Crown Copyright at all so there is no valid license on it. If it was a photo of a photo, or a slavish copy of the original photo, then it's really just a copy and the copyright is still with the Trust (meaning again, no valid license for us on either photo). If they are two separate photos that just happen to be virtually identical, then both licenses would be valid, and we could use the lower-resolution one. I think it's most likely that the photo on the gov.uk page was simply used with permission from the Trust, and does not fall under Crown Copyright / OGL at all, but the EXIF stuff is surely confusing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shakespeare's signet ring (possibly).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shakespeare's signet ring (possibly).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Shakespeare coat of arms

On 24 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shakespeare coat of arms, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Shakespeare wanted to impale his wife's family on his coat of arms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shakespeare coat of arms. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shakespeare coat of arms), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare’s signet ring

I've added a comment on the talk page of Shakespeare's signet ring that may be of interest. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Replied there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you, GGS, for all your help! GG BlackTea (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Esra Bilgiç "Controversy" addition--

Hi Grabergs -- thank you for the warm welcome and Wiki guideline explanations (I'm new to this!) I firmly believe the aforementioned section is warranted & necessary as this particular 'incident' caused a significant uproar when it happened (hence the Dawn article; there are others as well). I've eliminated some adjectives and have just stated the bare facts in this new edit; is it appropriate now? Thanks again :) Rosewatergul (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rosewatergul, thanks for talking and again welcome! You may be new but so far you are doing things right!

I did a rewrite [16], see what you think. You went a bit beyond what the source said (but less so than the first time), and per WP:BLP (if you stick around you will encounter a lot of these policies and guidelines) we need to be very careful when we write about living people. Also, separate controversy/criticism sections should be avoided if possible, as they tend to become shit-magnets (WP:CRITS). I did a quick googling, but didn't see any other WP-useful sources than the one you used.

You've reminded me of the Talk:Esra_Bilgiç#Negative_reaction_BRRD discussion, I may look into that again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Your solution is perfect and it fits the article as a whole much better this way (as opposed to within a separate unnecessary section). Your rephrasing is on point too! Thanks again and I will read through all those helpful guides you linked :) Have a good day! Rosewatergul (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add, the other news sources are in Arabic and Urdu. :) I will find them again & perhaps include them in the citations :) Rosewatergul (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-English sources are ok, some guidance at WP:NOENG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out

This is Noam Cohen, I write about Wikipedia a bunch. I want to write about the editing to the North Platte, Nebraska, article and would like to interview you about it. Can you email me at noamstuart at gmail.com or via my Wikipedia page. Talk soon, Chomsky1 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chomsky1 Thanks for asking, but I decline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits / amendments to James Rowe

Hello,

• Youth Coaching Career*

- Point 1 - In article 21 it clearly states James left his role and was not dismissed - Point 2 - nor does it say anything about numerous complaints of impropriety in relation to young players in the academy - Point 3 - it does not say he was banned from the FA and this is a false statement as he never has been -Point 4 - the article can’t be read by anyone that isn’t a subscriber and therefor it shouldn’t be used as a reference

Legal action will be taken against the IP address that has made these slandering statements today please make amendments immediately.

Nothing in this statement is well sourced as commented by yourself. Rosie0706 (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rosie0706 Take discussions about James Rowe (footballer, born 1983) to Talk:James Rowe (footballer, born 1983). You have been on WP since June, so you know about article talkpages by now. Also, very important, see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 GGS. MarnetteD|Talk 12:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much and backatcha! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

Grabergs,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity Thank you very much and backatcha! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved from my userpage

Hi GGS - Many thanks for your warm Holiday Season greetings! And again for your (and WW's!) help this year. All the best to you for a productive, and enjoyable, New Year. Kind regards GG/BlackTeaBlackTea (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Grabergs Graa Sang! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do around here, and especially for your help at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad we have people like you around to help. I wish you a very happy holiday season, and may the coming year bring you great joy and good fortune. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth Thanks and a Merry Christmas to you too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happpy Holidaze

In space, no one can hear you carol. Ho! Ho! Ho!

Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

God Jul!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

God Jul och Gott Nytt år *Treker! Hmm, let me know if that ping worked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It worked!★Trekker (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era

Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen | tålk 08:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

You too, socks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and the same to you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Just incase. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

IIRC these won't archive unless there's a timestamp at the bottom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you!! Yolanda T. Marshall (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"About"

Maybe it shows: the discussion fills me with actual pain. It's 2022: artists sing their songs, tell their stories, paint their visions, and all that's perceived is only the color of their skin (broadly sepaking). –Austronesier (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is too much of that, absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Quiet2

thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this notable

[17] For WP:PRESS?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ianmacm I guess you can argue that This set of pages lists any press coverage of Wikipedia that covers or discusses Wikipedia as a project – that is, any aspect of Wikipedia overall, such as its structure, success, information, goals, history – or views on Wikipedia in general, and so on. is covered here, since they do talk about structure of WP a bit. And Milton Keynes Citizen has a WP-article, sort of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's interesting because the media coverage shows some problems with understanding WP:GNG. There has to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to make a standalone article. The latest draft is here and most of the sourcing seems OK, but there have been NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Reply tool might get here soon, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing from Reddit?

Any interest in moderating reddit.com/r/pitbulls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tazdeviloo7: That's a weird and completely random thing to ask a Wikipedia editor. This CANVASS attempt over at Reddit [18] wouldn't have anything to do with your and Unbiased6969's sudden appearance in the Pit Bull article, would it? Pinging @Valjean: who is involved in the content dispute as well. Geogene (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why am I being mentioned in this trash? I see you are uninterested in arguing facts about pitbulls, but are more interested in making accusations and conspiracies, so why are you on Wikipedia? To harass people and prevent improvements on a page you are clearly biased for? Gråbergs Gråa Sång, not sure who you are, but sorry this garbage is on your talk page. The stalking that is going on ain't my thing, so I am out of this thread. How is this even a thing allowed on wikipedia? Now quit pinging me in this trash and let me know when you're actually ready to discuss the subject matter and not create drama. Jesus.Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm really "not interested in arguing facts about pitbulls" with you. That much is true. Geogene (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

(Cascabela thevetia) flower at Kollur 1	Thanks
	Thanks, I could not figure out how to thank you, so sending this. AnastasiusHartmann (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This is as a good way as any! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Dumb joke

It seems that in the early days of the travels of the starship Enterprise (TNG), there was a problem with the replicators making replacement uniforms for those that were torn in normal use.

However, O’Brien, the chief engineer collected rare antiques. He had a manual typewriter in working condition, an early Atari gaming machine that almost worked, and among many other items a beat-up non-working old Singer sewing machine.

In his spare time, he tinkered with the old stuff trying to get everything in working condition and looking like new.

After a difficult away mission where many uniforms got torn, Captain Picard, always one wanting good military order, asked his senior staff for possible solutions to the uniform issue.

Finally, Chief Engineer O’Brien spoke up. “Captain, among my antiques, is an old Singer machine that could help, but it is not in working order.”

Without hesitation, Picard loudly ordered him to, “Make it Sew!”

I feel I should apologize... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just stumbled on William Shakespeare's Star Wars trilogy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair comment!

It's been a long, intense day of targeted, individual posts and updates. Errors were made. But the invite stands. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes [19]. We're good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mentorship Program

Hello, Grabergs Graa Sang (+three O's on top of the A's)! The English Wikipedia has been experimenting with some new tools for new editors, called the Wikipedia:Growth Team features, which you might be aware of from the Teahouse talk. One of these features is a mentorship program, where new users are given an experienced editor to whom they can ask questions directly. This feature is only given to 2% of new users currently, but this test subject will expand to most likely 80% in the near future. Since there are only about 50 users signed up to be mentors, this will be a tough workload for us, which is why I'm reaching out to some Teahouse regulars to see if they're interested. The questions you'd receive are nothing you haven't seen at the Teahouse and are relatively simple enough to answer (you can see examples on my talk page). If you're interested, you can sign up here. Panini!^🥪 13:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Panini! Joined! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m not Bill Palmer

Just a heads I’m not bill palmer since if I was him I would be launching ip attacks against the page like he did last time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Persesus I believe you. However, then you shouldn't upload "Bill Palmer selfie" as "own work", because that reads like you are claiming you are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding but the whole image thing with him is a mess since he uploaded the photos himself but the only problem is that he deleted them months or years later --Persesus (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Persesus That someone uploads an image at say twitter of their website does not mean they give the copyright away, it means you can look at it at twitter or their website. It is possible "give pics away" if you are the copyright holder (usually the photographer), but it rarely happens. For example at the bottom of this page [20] it says "©2022 Palmer Report". Case closed, as far as WP and Commons are concerned.

Some websites take a different approach, then they write something like this or this. This is why WP has such nice pics of for example US presidents. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

got it --Persesus (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Image reinserted in article, we'll see what comes of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing RFC on Bible

Markbasset has suggested closing the Rfc after his excellent summary of the views as being in support of one of the versions offered. Would you care to put in your two cents - or the equivalent Swedish money? It's at the end of 'Arbitrary break'.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

22 öre added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus Done. You may be interested in the discussions at Talk:Asquith Xavier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11#Category:Works_about_race_and_ethnicity

@Austronesier, @Colin M and @Marcocapelle, FYI there is a closure of the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It looks like the categories like Category:Jewish American novels are still under Category:Novels about race and ethnicity, since the latter contains Category:American novels by ethnic background which contains the former. Is this an oversight? Fayenatic london could you clarify what you see the intended semantics to be for a category like Category:Jewish American novels, according to consensus? Colin M (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was an oversight. I have removed that parenting and provided some "see also" links instead. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: thanks, but I'd still be interested in getting clarification on the inclusion criteria for these categories. Could you confirm that your reading of Category:Jewish American novels is that it should contain exactly those novels which have a Jewish-American author, regardless of subject matter? Colin M (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good question. Jewish American literature would be a sensible place to start; but after referring to "writing about Jewishness in America", it only points up the difficulty of such a subjective criterion. My initial conclusion is that the alternative which you have set out is the only workable criterion. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marian Ewurama Addy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In gratitude

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Thank you again for your kind comments and friendly gesture. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Us Borg has to stick together. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've made me lose faith in Wikipedia

The entry for the Palmer Report is the worst thing I've seen on this website allowed to stand for more than an hour. Nevermind whether the facts are true, how can you even claim the article has an editorial tone? There are weasel words ("fake news") in the very first sentence! I've always known logically that bad actors can make Wikipedia unreliable, but this is the first time I've seen bias like this not only persist but get semi-protected. I can only hope Mr. Palmer really does take legal action and that it exposes this place for how poor a source it can be. Anonymousthrowaway (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's something accomplished. For the curious, context:[21]. Funny thing, I've never edited that article, but perhaps the dark side is strong with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just want to notify you of an edit I made to your page

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Here and here

Changes

Gråbergssång → Gråbergssång

Omer Benjakob → Omer Benjakob

Dear Wikimedia, With Thanks, Donors. → Dear Wikimedia, With Thanks, Donors.

QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka No harm done, but in general, there is no reason you should be copyediting other people's userpages, consider the spirit of WP:TPO/WP:NOBAN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: OK, noted. Will consider in the future QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Kennedy Mavin (16:04, 24 March 2022)

Hello, how can I edit --Kennedy Mavin (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kennedy Mavin Hello! Try starting with these: WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Dansk udtræden af Den Europæiske Union

Sorry, I forgot where the Danish site is where can discuss an added item beforehand with Danish professionals whether it is acceptable or not. Could you please tell me this page once again? Thanks, Wname1 (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wname1 If I understand you correctly, [22] is what you're after. However, this [23] is not how to edit that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I mean where, like Teehouse, you can write something on it and a lot of people can look at it afterwards. I think it is https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hj%C3%A6lp:Nybegynderforum , is it true? Wname1 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nybegynderforum is their Teahouse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Pringles

I thought that this was interesting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ianmacm Yup. Also, possibly, a WP:OUTING problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. Having looked through the Mashable article again carefully, I don't believe that it contains any information that was not already put into the public domain by the two people involved. It did not involve journalists doing research that led to WP:OUTING the people involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that if the editor haven't volunteered their name on-WP (they may have in this case, but I haven't seen it), it can be considered WP:OUTING. This sometimes leads to problems, but it is what a strict reading implies. I've recently been in a couple of related discusiions, and it's an interesting topic of discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10, you may find the Mashable article mildly interesting per related discussions. Compared to previous examples though, Mashable is less of a WP:RS. Not surprisingly, it's used as a ref in the WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia in 2007 must have been quite the time, from what I can gather. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few entries on the WP:HOAXLIST from then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Vilasini Ramani (17:55, 31 March 2022)

Hi, I want to add some information to an actor's profile about a short film he has acted in, which I directed. Including this information to his profile will help me immensely as an upcoming filmmaker. How do I do this? --Vilasini Ramani (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vilasini Ramani, hello. Well, the answer is, I'm afraid, that you don't, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In short, WP is not here to help you as a filmmaker. Do you have a reliable source, WP:RS, that mentions this actor being in this film?

Anything added needs a decent reference, especially if the article is about a living person, see WP:BLP. You can find a general intro to editing at WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't ask for help

Today has been another, good example of a principle I'm learning the hard way: asking for help on WP means people will not just answer my question but will read my work and comment on a lot of other things, sometimes but not always constructively. This is not the first or the second such instance. Ask for help, and you often get "help" you didn't ask for. I almost didn't ask this morning, and if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. deisenbe (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The risk of people reading your WP-work is sort of built into the system. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adam Weitsman

Hello! I have been working on a page you have previously worked on-- Adam Weitsman-- to get it to follow wikipedia's notability and non advertising rules and am wondering if it is appropriate to list his net worth. He is worth around $1 billion. I see some with it listed and others with it not. I am coming to you because I am unsure and do not want to post anything that would go against wikipedia's guidelines. let me know Dwals1022 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dwals1022 The refs I've seen for that have been crap from the WP:BLP perspective, one was a crypto-something and one was from a gaming news-site. What have you got? IMO WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dwals1022, I've moved your question to a separate thread, per local custom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)