User talk:NSH001/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes

While you are correct that navboxes should not contain external references as per WP:NAV, when you move something in a list with only one entry to notes as you did in Template:List of systems of plant taxonomy it has the effect of suppressing that entry completely.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's right, and was intentional. The list item should be replaced by an entry similar to any of the others, when the whole group and associated list will helpfully appear again. Regards --NSH002 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am following you - all that was necessary was to remove the link from the list item. anyway I fixed it - thanks for drawing that particular guidance to my attention. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, your navbox is non-standard. In theory, navboxes should be no more than navigational aids between a collection of closely related topics, so there should be no (or very few) redlinks, nor any unlinked items. I regard this one as acceptable, because I expect the items to gradually become linked as new articles are written. Moving the external link to the doc section was a little hint that, in this case, it is OK to have some references there. Normally, of course, references belong in articles, but in cases like this where there are no articles I see no problem in having supporting references in the doc section, pending creation of the articles. Regarding putting text in place of the link, I would rather leave that to editors who have some knowledge of the subject.

BTW, it was a rare pleasure to come across your Families of Asparagales article, and find an article written from scratch using short-form referencing. I detest the usual unreadable and uneditable mess created by the clutter of citation templates in the body of article texts, but people do it because that's what they get when they click the cite button above the edit window. Regards --NSH002 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
• Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect is cheap

so this was not needed. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true that "redirects are cheap", but template redirects are a slightly different matter from the usual mainspace redirect. I will usually clean up template redirects (but not, in general, article redirects) following a move, as it makes life easier for bots and script writers. Also makes it easier to see where a template is transcluded or linked to under "what links here". Regards, NSH001 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sound. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

But don't bother me with your soft secondary names. -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh

Any way you could do that article title switchover (if you consider it justified) at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015‎? I'm thinking that concerns of length should be addressed, and that we should have it as part one of 2 articles for this year, i.e.Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015, January-June? Once I get to the end of June, if this is okay, I'd open up the second half of the year's coverage with, July-December, etc. No obligations involved in this of course. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it would definitely be better as two separate articles, say something, January–June 2015 and something, July–December 2015. Moving the article is technically easy (in fact, you could even do it yourself!(*)). But I do think the article, and its predecessors in the series, are at the wrong title. It is clearly a list article, so it should be "List of ..." and as it stands it is clearly a list of violent incidents, so I think it should be moved back to the previous title. Same for the rest of the articles in the series. It is definitely not a "timeline". On a timeline article I would expect to see a more strategic overview: start/end of negotiations and wars, changes of leadership of all the armed parties/groups, influence of United Nations, US, UK, neighbouring states, political lobby groups, etc. I see it was Greyshark who moved it, with an edit summary referring to the "umbrella" timeline article. I think that article should be totally re-written along the lines I have suggested. Of course, moving the articles back is probably best done after going through the WP:RM process. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(*) Just click on the "More" tab at the top, then select the "Move" option, and follow the instructions. The only thing you have to worry about is to take extreme care to spell the new name correctly, including capitalization and punctuation (if any).

I confess that easy things are often those that defeat me. I'm comfortable with complexity, because it's a challenge. I've fucked up easy things so often here . .

The title was originally something like 'List of violent incidents in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'. Greyshark's change was without notice, and followed by moving on, ignoring my request to discuss the change. He also changed one or two earlier titles but not all of them, to reflect that view, but the incongruence, as you note, now stands. Yes, it is evident that this is not a 'Timeline' of incidents, because it ignores almost all of the political dimensions, which originally did not come under the heading or lead definitions of what is listed. That rules out 'Timeline'. In any case, there is not much hurry, since there's a week to think this over and find a solution. In the meantime I'll drop a note on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong navbox substitutions

@NSH002: I've noticed you're replacing the former monoaminergics and catecholaminergics templates with {{serotonergics}} and {{adrenergics}}, presumably per the tfd; unfortunately, you're placing the incorrect template on many drug/pharmaceutical pages by doing this substitution. I'd suggest you simply delete the templates instead of adding a substitute. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the note. I'm sure it's possible to fix these correctly, but unfortunately I made a mistake in AWB (easy to do if you haven't used it for a while). I've fixed quite a few of the incorrectly replaced navboxes, still working through the rest of them. Those cases where the monster templates have been placed (contrary to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) on an article not linked from any of the subtemplates should be deleted as you say. Give me a day or two, and if you spot any that are still wrong, feel free to let me know. --NSH001 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

all right

Well, thank you for having answered my message, NHS002, but at least it is possible to save my Template:United Kingdom & Ireland Radiotelevision Broadcasting, instead of deleting it? I mean after you have deleted it, save it in a page where i can still see it, you see I'm asking you because my parents are very proud of it, and they are ery sad at the idea of this template being deleted, so if you can help me still see this template after it has been deleted, I would be grateful to you forever. Thank you and goodbye.Luke de paul (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I change my name?

Sorry It's me again, Luke de paul, could you teach me how do I change my username, please.Roger Delacroix (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Luke de paul listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User talk:Luke de paul. Since you had some involvement with the User talk:Luke de paul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi NSH002. Just notifying you of this RfD as a courtesy since from your posts on User talk:Roger Delacroix you seem to be trying to help this user change their username, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry for the wait

sorry for the wait, I saw your message, but Now I am at school look can we do this redirect thing later, thank youRoger Delacroix (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Haalp for the usual dumbcluck fuckup

There's a lot of red ink below the Palestinian stone throwing page introduced after my last edit. What in the billhod did I do to introduce that incarnadine muck? It wasn't there in the previous editNishidani (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It´s been there since September, it is not always easy to notice. Just cleaned one up Tel Rumeida, see this version: it had "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Dayan" defined multiple times with different content".....and that was exactly what it was: <ref name ="Dayan" > was defined two different places. Will try to clean up the Palestinian stone throwing page Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sort of fixed it, but I´m not quite sure I got every referring tag right. You need to start using, say, page-number, in addition to author-name for those "ref name"s. Say <ref name =Graff160> instead of only <ref name =Graff>, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've always wanted to do that last thing, but it fucks up every time, and I've never figured out why. No wonder my primary school teacher wanted me to repeat year 1.Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra. Early morning, so brain isn't functioning at full throttle yet, plus I'm still getting over a horrible cold. Will check your diff later today. I note our brilliant, but rebellious, friend doesn't like being told what to do, but is well capable of learning from example, so will give some thought to setting up a referencing scheme to suit. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If I tended to learn by example I would have been a sockpuppet master from years back, so it's just as well I can't. I look on admiringly at the capable, rather than succumbing to the temptation to imitate. Perhaps that's why my mother always kept telling me to 'pull my socks up', even though, to my bewilderment, it seemed impossible in the circs, and I persisted in going around barefoot well into middle-age.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Discourteous of me not to respond to your side note re a heavy cold, N. Seems to be you're having a rough trot lately, after the knee injury. Your long-distance running should pull you through, I hope. I have the same problem: bronchitis. Overheard my wife complaining of sleeplessness to her sister, caused by my somnolent coughing. I was sleeping but hacking away apparently. Slipped out at midnight, bought a pack of fags and smoked two, which resulted in her catching, finally, 50 winks. Not the sort of provisional fix doctors would advise, but it works (in the short term)! I was compelled to run long-distance by my public school, after being forced to run on a Saturday as a punishment for setting off a fire-cracker in class, and unfortunately sprinted in 11th out of a field of 350 over 15 kms on the first try. It took a bit of willpower, but I managed, once they'd drafted me as a promising marathoner, to come last in successive competitions. So the freedom of Saturdays was won back, and I could restrict the pleasure of distance running to racing my dog in the pastoral and solitary backwoods around our home. Fuck authorities!Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta allegation false turkey the guardian commentisfree - ( thought you might read this- I don't suppose your mind is totally made up already or anything and so are willing to read articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.6.6 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

More bovver

Hope's all's well there, N. Knocking again to squeeze that bulging bean of yours for the usual technical insight and perhaps fixes. Could you chuck a shufti at the ref formatting on the Tel Rumeida which, unlike the main text, is all squeezed up, making the article look like an outsized body supported by tapering pins? Reminds me of the Lawrence Makoare monster in The Dead Lands. There must be some gnome my editing unleashed to make it trim down to the proportions of the final quote, though strain the cerebral hemorrhoids as I will, I can't nut it out (as usual). Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, well that was easy, nothing to do with ref formatting, though the latter is a huge problem on Wikipedia (basically I can't stand the common practice of scrunching huge horizontally-formatted citation templates in amongst the main body of article text, making it almost unreadable and uneditable). Cheers, NSH002 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it may be as easy as a poop in bed for people of your intelligence, N, but these things convince me that, in the grey bank matter, I'm sixpence short of a quid! Fanks guv.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Another contribution to the health of your knee

which needs rest from the track and marathoning, which I am sure requires an art of persuasion which I have, i.e. you are desperately needed to explain to me why at Islamofascism the bibliographical entry on Katha Pollitt refuses to keep a strict military alligment with the other entries, and, like that deviant ratbag in cadets more than a half century ago, who consistently broke the rhythm of our forced marches, leading to collective punishment parades that destroyed one's afternoon hours, and is causing great distress! Can you have a dekko and squeeze a solution out of a few of those illuminated synapses in that bulging cerebellum of yours to calm my dyspeptic sense of aesthetic disorder? It has beaten me for some hours. :) Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bollocks, you old rascal! Still, your hyperbole makes for good entertainment ...NSH002 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, it seems like my alternate guise is quite effective for stealth stalking (but I guess you've simply chosen to hide minor edits from your watchlist). (BTW, the problem was an invisible character just before the asterisk; they have the interesting effect that you can cursor over them just like any other character, except that the cursor doesn't move; you can delete them as well, just like any other character, with the delete or backspace key, except you can't see what you're doing. Nice little devils.) --NSH002 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Mycroft, my apologies. I musta been distracted by that George Clooney movie The Ides of March. No one, family and my wife's consulting ophthalmologist, can figure out why, with my bookwormish life, I still have excellent vision that can dispense with specs, but, to compensate for that knee, evidently you can go one step better, and see/intuit the invisible. I'm fucked if I know how you do it: rereading the above still leaves me flummoxed by perplexity, but admiring your uncanny canniness in these matters. Fanks!Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeezus. I'll have to whip out the checkbook with the number of slips I make that desperately need your attention. If only I could sent one of my Cornish pastries by email in recompense (you'd end up overweight, if I had to send one for every fix you manage).Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the work and for putting up the DYK nomination (whatever the result).Best Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hasta la Raíz

NSH001, you did the original review on this DYK nomination, and the nominator has proposed two new hooks that may be more in line with the article and its sources. Can you please return to continue the review? If it is not possible, please let me know, and I'll call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Medical Foundation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medical Foundation. Since you had some involvement with the Medical Foundation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Muhammad Najati Sidqi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. It's good to know that my work is appreciated. Pelarmian (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Long overdue in my opinion (but then I don't give out many barnstars - don't want to "devalue the currency"). --NSH001 (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Haalp!

How does one get round the problem of date citational parameter violations at Manuel Musallam. The problem is, two publications list date of publication as covering two months, which is rejected. Humbly Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani: OK, I've "fixed" them. WP:MOS doesn't, in general, like "year" to be used as well as "date" (with a few exceptions). My view is that having "year" as well can make the templates clearer, especially for peer-reviewed journals, and I may well, if I find time, try and argue the case for it to be changed. The other one is a pedantic distinction between "hyphen" and "en dash", the latter being mandated for ranges. I know you love pedantry! Regards, NSH001 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I do, I do. Take to pedantry like a pig to shite. I'd furrow deep tracks through the labyrinths of unread folios, like a boar snuffling for truffles. I feel a sense of achievement when more crowsfeet crosshatch my rugose face as I squint more at the fine print of tedious books. That said, you've caught me by the short and curlies. Though I've seen it often enough, I've never troubled to look up the meaning, let alone the function, of "en dash", and I'll be dashed if I will, since I never see it in pre-computer age books. Thanks, N. And a belated augury for a year of sprinty dashes peppering your marathons. Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani: Well they're just dashes the same width as the letter "n". Ditto for "em" = "m". They're the first two items you can click on the list provided below the wiki edit window under the "Insert" drop-down. MOS:DASH is your bible. Oh, and I haven't run any marathons for several years now - maybe I should try to remember to keep my user page up-to-date. Hope you're over your flu now. --NSH001 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Always atcha, no rest for the wicked, I can imagine you harrumphing. At Vardi what's going on with the URL–wikilink conflict redlink in the refs, chief?Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that we have no cat for 'victims of McCarthyism', whereas there would be a huge number of actors, scholars and prominent figures generally who could be scooped into this classification. I was doing the Meyer Reinhold bio, and checked Moses Finley, E. Herbert Norman and Owen Lattimore, all extraordinary scholars, to get what I should would be an obvious cat, and found only Category:McCarthyism. That is too vague since it just bundles up the thugs and their victims, without diferentiation. I'm sure we need a 'Scholarly victims of McCarthyism' sub-category, but how does one go about doing that? (If this is not excessively bovversum) Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, my instinct is to be careful about categories such as this, where the criteria for inclusion may imply judgement and may be not absolutely clear-cut. Anyway, I can't see a clear reason for not having the category, so I've set up Category:Victims of McCarthyism. Slightly worrying that no-one's already set up such a category, but then possibly today's yoof may not even have heard of Senator Joe. (BTW, I saw that someone else had already beaten me to it on Vardi.) --NSH001 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, N, I basically agree, and don't have any record for plunking CATS on pages, except creating one because it seems required. I don't think there is any judgment involved. It is a fact that McCarthy's witchhunt devastated or disrupted a lot of promising careers. Everyone knows about Hollywood, but off-hand I can think of quite a lot of great or promising scholars whose careers were damaged. I might also add that I think that McCarthyism had an anti-Semitic edge: of course, American Jews were in the forefront of civil rights so they figure prominently, but when you think of how just one bright trio like Finley,Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, all graduates of just one obscure discipline, were all hit, it looks odd.Still, I go by your better judgment, and thanks for the help. I'm running up more debts thsn sa failed bank.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Category specialists like criteria that are clear, unambiguous and objective, for good reason. Suppose you have someone who was subject to attacks in the press, and whose career probably suffered as a result, but it's difficult or impossible to prove it. Does he or she belong in the category? Some of the longest, time-wasting and most acrimonious disputes I've seen on Wikipedia have been about categories. --NSH001 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Susan McMaster page, Morningside and Go

Hi -- thanks for looking over my page -- actually, the page about me. I hadn't known about it for some time, and just recently found your question about links by which to check Morningside and Go. Morningside was the long-lived morning show hosted by Peter Gzowski onCBC radio in the 70's-90's; in fact Peter had me on two times in each of those decades, plus repeats. Go was the Ottawa pre-cursor of Brent Bambury's current national CBC radio show Day Six. Peter is sadly dead, but Brent might easily remember me. Another CBC radio show with my work was As It Happens, also a show called Wordbeat hosted by dub poet Lillian Allen (I notice you have poetry on your page, so thought you might recognize her name?). I don't know if these are archived or referenced on-line... -- all best, Sue SusanMcMaster (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SusanMcMaster, Wow, I'd forgotten all about that (more than eight years ago!). I see the links have been corrected long ago, as one would expect. Thanks for the reply, and the interesting information. --NSH001 (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Zeeman

I only heard about Christopher Zeeman;s death from your edit to his bio here. Can you point me to an official announcement?Billlion (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Billlion, I added a cite to the announcement by the Mathematics Institute, which is the best source I could find, but seems official enough to me. No doubt obituaries will appear in the newspapers over the next few days. Very sad, he's far and away the most brilliant person I've ever met personally. --NSH001 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Billlion (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Billlion, I see you found the Christ's College announcement (pity they can't spell "Principal" correctly). The recent photographs are very different from how I remember him, when the Warwick maths institute was new and exciting. --NSH001 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

For your assistance in Operation Stuttgart

	Calatrava Medal of Merit
	This Calatrava Medal of Merit is awarded to NSH001/002 for creating Template:Districts of Stuttgart and thus participating in Operation Stuttgart. Vami IV (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Vami IV, thank you very much, it's appreciated. (though I do have some reservations about the military overtones of the word "Operation"!) --NSH001 (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it sounded cooler --Vami IV (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning

I am officially asking you to stay away from me. If you have a problem with me, take it up with an administrator. Otherwise, I will file a complaint for harassment.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101, I gave you some good, and I think, very helpful advice. You should heed it, otherwise you will just get into trouble. Your work on Lydia Canaan is appreciated, by the way. She deserves a good article. --NSH001 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, just by reverting my deletion of discussion on the article Talk page, you were informing me, teaching me, that it is against Wikipedia Policy, as I had no idea, and I'm not embarassed to admit that I'm still learning. Even your therefore redundant message on my Talk page was ok by me, except that you falsely accused me of trying to hide an honest mistake, and by doing so were not assuming good faith. Were you actually the careful, logical, and fair personality that you present yourself as, you wouldn't have done that. Not only was it a false accusation, but an absurd one: the only way I've learned what little I've learned about editing has been through countless mistakes. How else does anyone learn anything? I constantly correct my own edits, stating that I've made an error. Silly of you to think I'd want to "cover up" a mistake, hateful for you to imply that. And not that I owe you any explanations (because I don't), but I don't like a dirty Wikipedia. My intent is always that things be clean and astetically pleasing. Yes, I understand the concept of archives, etc., and how they are helpful to editors, so please don't use this as an excuse to condesendingly (and pointlessly) masturbate on WP. I'm explaining my intent and disposition in general, only. I also don't like unnecessary tags that vandalize and discredit articles for readers who are not editors and don't understand. Call it OCD, but I also like a pure User Talk page. This feature was designed for practical communication, and there is a reason why editors are allowed to blank it for maintenance purposes. I'm interesting in editing only, and not making Wikipedia my nerd social networking site. But even I were interested in strengthening some ego identity by advertising political views or talking about what kind of pies I like to bake, I'd have still removed your messge on my Talk page, as I choose not to allow such negativity into my personal space if I don't have to. You further slandered me right here on your Talk page by implying once again that I had knowingly done something wrong by tellling me that I should heed your advice. And then you tried to sugar coat the entire thing my complementing me. Positivity and goodwill are helpful, but not so much after the fact, and even less so when insincere. So allow me to give you some helpful advice, aspiring administrator that you are: assume good faith, as is Wikipedia's policy. Otherwise you'll just end up getting into trouble.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please learn to read carefully what people write to you. You can do whatever you like with your own talk page (well there are some exceptions, not relevant to this discussion, see WP:TALK), and I never said otherwise (my first words were "With the exception only of your own talk page"), so much of what you've written above is based on a misunderstanding, and is therefore irrelevant. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I referred to "your own comments"; I assumed it would be obvious from the introduction that I was referring to said comments on talk pages other than your own. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. But I make no apology for my comment on your talk page. Explaining a revert on a user talk page is just a common courtesy, and happens all the time on Wikipedia. Whether or not I regard your behaviour as dishonest is irrelevant, I merely pointed out that other editors certainly will regard it that way, therefore it's best to avoid problems in the future. Your other insults above are not worth a reply. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. You will note that I don't remove negative material from my own talk page or its archives (vandalism and a few standard automated messages excepted).

Perhaps it is you who should cultivate the skill of good reading comprehension by rereading both your comments and mine. I'll assume good faith, as surely you would never purposely assert something incorrect. First of all, I referenced both the Talk page of the article in question and my User Talk page. If you'll reread above you'll see that I purposely made this distinction very clear to avoid any confusion. I only mentioned my own Talk page to illustrate my general approach, as to facilitate your understanding, as I assumed that you had been presumptuous rather than outright insidious, and to also indicate another source of slander. So secondly, you're asking me to believe that you were merely anticipating that others would violate Policy by not assuming good faith rather than you yourself not assuming good faith? What a convoluted rhetorical fallacy. It would appear that, ironically, you initially projected on to me your own reluctance to admit error, and thus the spin. Look, I don't have the same desire as you to be "right"; I have simply defended myself against false accusations and what I perceive as a biligerant attack by a seemingly authoritarian personality. The reason it took me so long to respond to you is that I consider it an utter waste of time, and did not want to dignify your slander with any response at all, though I did decide to reply, as bullying in general makes me uneasy, and I feel that it may beneficial to others who encounter you that I not lend my strength to any future mishandling of any other new editors, as bullies tend to be emboldened when no one stands up to them. But had I known that you wouldn't even read my comment carefully enough to understand it, I'd probably have reconsidered wasting even more time. With all due respect, as far as your Talk page (or any of your activities on Wikipedia), I am not concerned. I tend to take a greater interest in my own activities and conduct; I find that my time and energy are better utilized that way.WikiEditorial101 (talk)

This is now getting seriously weird. Let's just summarise the course of events:

1. You unilaterally promoted Lydia Canaan to Featured Article (FA) status. No consultation, let alone going through the (very long) FA process.
   • Foolish because, as an editor of 21 months' standing with 2,500+ edits, you should know better. It strains credulity that you were not yet aware of the existence of the procedure for getting an article to FA.
2. You completely blanked her article's talk page. Also foolish, because it's against policy (WP:TALK). But it would still be foolish regardless of policy.
3. I posted a comment there noting that the article had been inappropriately rated as FA.
4. You then blanked that comment.
5. I restored that comment, and gave you a short, friendly warning about your behaviour.
6. I restored the rest of the material that you had earlier inappropriately removed from the talk page, and then set up the talk page properly.
   • You should be grateful for this, since if (as appears to be the case) you share my high regard for Ms Canaan, you should be happy that she now has a proper talk page. Not least because no GA reviewer (let alone any of the experts at FAC) is going to pass an article with a blank talk page.
7. Instead, you post the above "Warning" on my talk page, accusing me of "harrass[ing]" you. BTW I have no "problem with" you, except for the waste of time I have to spend dealing with your rants here.
8. Based on a total misunderstanding of my friendly warning, you:
   • accuse me of "masturbat[ing] on WP"
   • accuse me of "making Wikipedia [my] nerd social networking site"
   • accuse me of "slander[ing] [you]"
   • saying that you assumed I "had been presumptuous rather than outright insidious"
   • accuse me of "not assuming good faith"
   • accuse me of making a "biligerant[sic] attack"
   • accuse me of insincerity
   • ... plus a few more unpleasant things
   • all this despite saying "I'll assume good faith, ..."
9. Now, do you seriously think that little lot is going to persuade me or anyone else? All it says is that you have (badly) misunderstood my message.
10. I warned you that your behaviour "will be seen as trying to whitewash and cover up your own mistakes". That remains the case, despite your OTT reaction. It is still good advice to tell you to avoid doing things that will be seen badly by others.

Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And so now I'm on trial in your court, guilty until proven innocent as to my intent? And basing your unfounded judgement on what you think I should or shouldn't know about Wikipedia after 2,500 edits?? Really??? Again, I don't know who you think you are or why you think that I should answer to you personally for anything or explain myself to you, but most of my edits have been to Lydia Canaan's page. I unfortunately have not had the time to learn the many workings, facets, and rules associated with Wikipedia. Yes, I really was so completely ignorant regarding who can rate an article and how it can be done that I thought that I could rate it, and give it the highest rating possible. As I'm the only major contributor to the article in question since 2009, having done numerous major rewrites and revisions and have been the only one working on the article and thus there has been no discussion at all since I turned an error-ridden, subjective stub into what I think is a decent article, I had only even looked at the Talk page probably twice in two years. So I'm guilty of being ignorant, and probably guilty of all sorts of things from the perspective of your particular branch of Wikipedian philosophy, but I am not guilty of knowingly breaking any code of conduct. And as for your accusation that I was trying to hide my mistakes, might I remind you that all of the other discussions removed (besides your comment) were from years before I edited the article and thus had nothing to do with me or my edits or my errors? And that I removed them long before you came along and corrected my mistake? Further proof that your charge against me is false is that when you made me aware that nominating the article for a GA rating was the next step, I immediately took that step. Had I known otherwise, I'd have already done so. And therefore I actually am grateful and thankful that you:

1. made me aware that I must submit articles for rating if I believe that they deserve a certain rating
2. made me aware that I cannot "cleanup" article Talk pages the way that I can my User Talk page
3. added the other things to the article talk page that improved it, things I didn't know needed to be there and things I wouldn't have known where to retrieve the code for
4. rated the article as "B" so that I could nominate it for GA rating

I just wish that you had done these helpful things while assuming good faith rather than attacking the integrity of my character based on some editing blunder.

Also, I wasn't referring to your User page in particular — most Wikipedians are into that; that was perhaps a less relevant element of my rant meant to defend/explain my compulsion for deleting things, citing my roguish desire to have a Zenlike User page as an example. As far as User pages go, yours is actually rather cool, and I found that I agree with your politics 100%. I've lived in both Israel and Palestine, and have seen first hand the brutal oppression and outright attempt at genocide of the Palestinian people, who I found to be the most loving, peaceful, and hospitable peoples I've ever encountered. Thank you for the loving work you pour into their cause. And I'm sorry that I said that your compliment was insincere.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that, we seem to be getting somewhere now. You're not (and never have been) "on trial" in anyone's court. I'll offer you another piece of advice (this applies to everyone, including me): if you form an opinion about another editor's motivation, keep it to yourself! I suppose that's included in WP:AGF. Regards --NSH001 (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and advice noted. Thank you for the tea. It will remain :) WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You've inspired me to put something on my User page, too.WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I suppose even a rogue nerd like myself can get with it a little bit. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Another plea from the headache man, with apologies in advance

N. What the hell have I done wrong to get that message under Simon Szyszman in the Khazars bibliography? Best as always.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Duly fixed as requested. I also let my little baby fix some errors and make the cites nice and easy to look at. Some of the cites are missing the publisher, which looks especially odd when "location" is specified and "publisher" isn't, so you might want to take a look at that. Google shows the page numbers for Petrukhin 2010 as 151-163 but I left them as 149-161 in case you're referring to a different version. Petrukhin 2007 had a wikilink in "last" which caused it to sort out of order, so I fixed that too. You might want to take a careful look at the two cites I templated (Kovalev and Petrukhin 2010) since it's easy to make a mistake in that process. Anyway, all the red error messages have now gone. It's always a pleasure to help a good editor! --NSH001 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That's very good of you, N. I'm once more deep in your debt. I'll try to get round to the issues you point out that require further work in due course. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, think nothing of it. As someone once wrote:

A daimen icker in a thrave
’S a sma’ request;

That is, my little effort compared with the huge debt every reader of Wikipedia owes you. (I love that Scots vocabulary!) Regards --NSH001 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank You very much for tidying-up the Template:Chief of the Naval Staff (India). Actually I wanted to create the template the same way as it now. But I couldn't and I was looking for assistance. Thanks again for your help. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 00:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with tidy up

Thanks for tidying up Template:Chief of the Naval Staff (India). I need some help with Draft:Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. In the under construction and de-commissioned submarines sections, the Nuclear-powered submarines and Conventionally-powered submarines sections are joined without any white separation strip. I was unable to fix the issue, please correct that. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Hmains (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't really care one way or another

But seeing Muhammad Najati Sidqi rated as Start Class gave me a laugh tonight. Jeezus! Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, neither could I, really. So you can blame me for the rating. I tend to be quite harsh in rating my own articles (I don't think there's a single one of the articles I've written that deserves a "Good Article" rating) and pretty much automatically rate any new article I write as "Start". I'd rather rate my own articles harshly, and let someone else upgrade it if they think it deserves it. I pay no attention to "C" grade, but will upgrade articles to "B" if I've spent a lot of work on them and they meet the criteria (Chrissie Wellington, for example) and that's as generous as my ratings get. The Muhammad Najati Sidqi article is obviously worth something better, but I'd rather let someone else assess it. --NSH001 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, Mea culpa - here's one article I did rate as "C", after re-writing the whole thing from scratch. --NSH001 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You & Me (Marc E. Bassy song)

@NSH002: Just letting you know, I've changed back the referencing style to define references where they are invoked. The page is now up for WP:GA nomination, and perhaps somebody will point it out there, but it's prohibitive to section-editing to define all the references at the end. It forces editors to either load the whole page where they would only normally need to edit a section (which can lag for users on slower connections or even if the page becomes longer), or makes them edit two sections, which can be time-consuming depending on what it is. It might look neater to some, but it gets very complicated if the page gets longer and more detailed. I'll raise it at the GA nomination too, because this isn't a very common referencing format on music articles on Wikipedia anymore due to the nature of charts and their constant updating, and thus it would require multiple section edits when it need not. Ss112 07:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

dreams of peace
... you were recipient no. 618 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda ! --NSH001 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I made a barnstar, have a copy

This barnstar is awarded to NSH001 for his contributions to Operation Stuttgart. NSH001 has assisted in the production of templates and numerous small edits to various pages covered by Project Stuttgart. Vami IV (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Gott Mit Uns

Thank you very much, Vami IV! --07:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Dill asks for the dope

Thanks for those cleanups. Could you throw some crumbs of enlightenment to this benighted mind re the diff between the sfn and harvnb, and tell me if I ought to chuck the latter? Cheers Nishiduncy Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer {{sfn}} because it's simpler and reduces template clutter. You can still use {{harvnb}} if you need to include a note or something as part of the ref, so for new material where you don't need to incorporate a note, yes I recommend using {{sfn}}. But don't waste your time laboriously changing existing stuff from harvnb to sfn; my little baby can do it automatically for you if you want. --NSH001 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Good'oh. I can just use sfn everywhere then, if there's a bibliography-citation section including the source. That will save my time, and also reduces your workload in coming round with the mop and bucket to clean up my geriatric messes.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about my workload. My little baby does all the work, and your stuff provides a very good stress test for her, so I appreciate it! --NSH001 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

More badgering

N. Could you look at Mangala people, and see if you could rewrite the article name as Mangala by a redirect after disambiguating it? I intend, if time allows to do all 500 tribal articles, and it would be nice if we could just have, for cross article coherence, the simple tribal name, as in Yawuru, Jaburara, Karijarra, etc Sorry for the bother, and thanks for keeping an eye on these articles as well. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, to move Mangala people to Mangala would require a requested move (WP:RM), since the latter would have to be deleted to make room for the former. Since Mangala gets about 150 hits/day, this RM would be unlikely to succeed. You might want to think about naming all these articles as "xxxx people", another way of gaining consistency (and would also avoid clashes with "xxxx language" articles). Shouldn't be too difficult to move any existing "xxxx" articles to "xxxx people" if necessary. Regards --NSH001 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just leave it as anomalous. It would be unfair to the Indians, I see.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

But could you look at my fuckups at Mua people within the next month or so. I gather from the fact that clicking on some refs doesn't work that I stuffed up. My primary problem was to get Shnulkal, with three papers dated 2008 from the same volume, differentiated. I adopted a procedure used for Kallman at the Shakespeare Authorship Question page but it doesn't seem to work. Nothing technical I filch works anyway. No hurry, and sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I figured it out. A misspelling = mismatch. Slowly learning Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well done for figuring it out! Yes, I've been aware of these blunders for a long time. I will shortly be putting my little baby to work on the backlog of all your mistakes, but she won't be able to fix these for a while. At the moment I'm improving her algorithm for moving refs en masse to LDR. Once I've done that, I will get her (one thing at a time!) to do mass transformations into short-form referencing; it won't be difficult to add a check for consistency between the existing short forms and the long cites they (are supposed to) refer to. It might be possible to fix some of them automatically, but not in general: for example, if you write a ref to a non-existent (Smith, 2009) but there is a (Jones, 2009) or a (Smith, 2010) to choose from. No need to apologise, BTW ... I just love challenging problems (for example, finding a better algorithm to fix all your typos ... not forgetting all the misspellings from Hebrew speakers and other languages). --NSH001 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's a consolation. I can allow Old Timer's disease to lay siege to the brain cells while, unperturbed, I hammer the keyboard, assured that there's an algorithm in the wings which will reconstruct what I meant to write while paraphrasing sourcessorses. Phew! That's a relief. It almost overcomes my anxiety about a possible neurological disturbance in my reading skills as I peruse pages like this, dead certain that it's my fault.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

Thank you very much ...feel great to received such type of suggestions... keep it touch..

Sunresh (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How?

the chicken hawk note to show up in the notes at Wik-Mungkan people, guv'na? (Hat still gripped in shaking hand, he turns with bowed head and totters off, hunch shoulders eloquent of shame) Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, NSH001. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fucked up again + some more on how to get rid of LHTs

See Dyirbal people. I keep staring at it, making it conform to the others that are accepted and can't figure out what I did wrong. But then, I'm a bit weary-eyed today.Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, Dinna worry yer auld heid aboo' it! Yer ge'ing tae yoost tae pu'ing "p=", where {{efn}} merely expects some plain English. Well, except that the main point of using {{efn}} is that you can nest another <ref>...</ref> or {{sfn|blah|blah|p=123}} within it (the {{efn}} ), thereby getting round the restriction that you can't nest one pair of <ref>...</ref> inside another pair of <ref>...</ref>.

So what happened was that you wrote "p=154" instead of simply "p.154". Then {{efn}} attempts to parse the bit to the left of the "=" as if it were a template parameter, finds gibberish, complete with an opening parenthesis, and gets a bit upset. So now you know!

All part of the service, provided with great pleasure --NSH001 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh!!! I'd just switched this monitor back on after snaggen a filum, saw the fault wasn't fixed, sighed monstrously:'nane for thee a thochtie sparin!', added a bit, found an edit conflict - it wuz you fixen my gerryatrick mess,- and sighed with relief! Thanks mate. I'd throw a dozen barnstars your way if I woddn't a tad weary. Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I dinna thocht I grasped that explanation, but it worked beautifully this morning at Yidinji people. Whadda relief. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jolly good, old bean. I'll have more to say on nesting one ref inside another ref (prob on your talk page) when I finally get round to systematically tidying up all your new Aboriginal articles. Might become a bit clearer then (or maybe not ). --NSH001 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That means you'll never get round to it. There's enough mess there to keep Sad Sack on duty for the coming millennium. Unfortunately since I now calculate I have to do 500 articles in a year, I just rush through from one to another, without even stopping to reread what I've written. Still, I've done 83 in 2 and a half months, so the project looks possible, even if I'm bothering quite a few folks with clean-up tasks and jstor requests. By coincidence re cleaning, I dreamt last night of the word 掃海艇,mine-sweeper.I'm laying a lot of stuff under the wiki ocean. I'm glad you don't mind netting mine, ugh! as bad a pun as Arthur Capell's about semantics being 'some antics'.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately I can automate a lot of the work (but the automation won't catch everything, and can never replace human judgment).

I call my script affectionately, but temporarily, "little baby" as she's not that little now, and she still requires a lot of education (as does her daddy). Her main job is to clear out long horizontal templates (LHTs), remove or reduce template clutter generally, and fix any errors that can be fixed automatically, and just make wikitext easier to edit.

What to call her when she grows up? My first idea was WP:42 for obvious reasons (plus I like short names), but that's already been grabbed. Maybe "ETVP", but that's too boring, or perhaps "Andromeda", as she'll be a star when she grows up.

The main ways of getting rid of long horizontal templates are (1) leave them in-line, but in ETVP form; (2) move them all to list-defined references WP:LDR; (3) switch to use short-form referencing, which is also my preferred method in most but not all cases; (4) some combination of the above; or (5) use parenthetical referencing.

(1) was done long ago (2) is also done, but I don't like the way I did it, so I'll probably re-write large parts of it; and I've yet to start on (3), probably the most important option. Then I'll need to make it much more robust, so I won't get inundated with people complaining about bugs. Then I'll need to turn it into a form that other editors can use (I can use it, but it's not reasonable to expect other editors to use it in its current form). Haven't a clue how to do that, but that hasn't stopped me so far. Then it has to be documented. So quite a "little" project! And that's just for one tool to make it easy to do the switch. Probably more tools will need to be written, or amended, or integrated into "little baby", because one of the reasons that long, horizontal templates (LHTs) abound is that LHTs are the default format produced by the main cite template-generating tools. Then we've got the whole project of persuading wiki to get rid of LHTs completely - that won't be easy either, given how ubiquitous they are. As I see it, only a slow and careful strategy will work. --NSH001 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought Aboriginal languages were difficult enough, having downloaded several grammars, but creating things like that looks just as complex. Given the slightly pleonastic albeit endorsed by tradition, provisory name, I guess, since it shortens references, that it will be almost true to the lyric: 'don't say a word (more than necessary)', a habit I should adopt. Best wishes for the baby!Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Grossly offensive" (etc) messages

Thanks for the revert. Sometimes I think such comments by sociopaths are worth preserving, if only to evidence the fact that a lot of people who think they are normal are in fact sick. To think that an incapacity to do harm, and a profound empathy with the suffering that must in part motivate people who do evil is a sign of 'derangement' is to be deranged. But it is fairly commonplace. All the best for the upcoming year, N.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I think it is much better that a 3rd party revert that sort of attack. Worth noting that I preserve such attacks on myself in my "fan mail archive" (see the link in the archive box at the top), when I can – but the anti-vandal police hereabouts are so fast and efficient that usually the messages are revdel-ed before I can get to see them. Hals- und Beinbruch for your new year! --NSH001 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cities in Azerbaijan

Greetings.

Now that I have seen, that all the cities and towns in {{Cities in Azerbaijan}} are indeed listed in {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}} which I have overlooked, you can redirect this template to that template or delete it - whichever method the administrators see fit to choose. --Sondrion (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but it's not up to me, it will be decided by consensus at the TfD, where I see you have already placed the above comment. But as a general rule (there are some exceptions), I think template redirects are a bad idea (they make life difficult for bot and script writers) and, in contrast to redirects in article space, should normally be replaced by their target and then deleted. --NSH001 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

your local idiot calling

Several attempts to fix the redinked 'line feed character in |title= at position 57 (help)' in the ref section at Dundalli have failed. Could you deign to consider the puzzle for a nanosecond and pass on the to you, Mycroft, obvious fix? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The solution was indeed obvious [1] (for talk page stalkers, Nishidani is really quite brilliant, but likes to pretend he's stoopid ). --NSH001 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I now see it, though I didn't the first time around. Buy the whey, you made a misspelling above, writing 'quite brilliant' for 'quit (being) brilliant' many years ago.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ernest Westlake of Quaker persuasion collected 13,000 stone implements remaining from the exterminated world of the Tasmanian aborigines, now the focus of scholarly attention. Nugatory payback for your pertinacious correction of my many slipups, to put that with the politer form of the substantive! There's always a connection. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We've hit the 100 mark for the Aussie tribes today, (nbot counting 17 bios of anthropologist and linguists) and that must mean we've done somewhere around 20-25% of the work as projected, which is not bad considering 5 months. I've been slow the last month because of other, professional work needing to be prepared. Your careful control of minutiae is a constant source of joy. Thanks N.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, good to know. It's really the precocious infant who looks after the minutiae, I merely tell her what to do! --NSH001 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

sfn

Hey, on Talk:Refugee you said sometimes sfn is not best. Not gonna argue, but I am very interested in this question. When is that true? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See the section on referencing style at the top of this page, and the discussions linked to from that section. There are about 4 or 5 different ways of getting rid of LHT clutter. My personal preference is for short-form referencing, but there are bound to be cases where one of the others is best. We also need to allow for WP:CITEVAR, and I don't mind very much what style editors choose, as long as it gets rid of LHT clutter. --NSH001 (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If by LHT you mean sticking the whole stinking {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} or whatever templates in an article's body text rather than in a separate section at the bottom of the page – and that's what you want to eliminate – then I am firmly of the same mind. {{sfn}} has the added benefit of offering page numbers. I have not used other referencing systems in a reasonably longish while. I am no longer a fan of <ref></ref> or <ref name= "foo"> tags.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I define LHT in the section I referred you to. Please take the time to read it (a lot of thought has gone into it), and the discussions it links to. I also describe there the idea of ETVP formatting for cite templates, which makes them nice and easy to read (also a lot of thought), and not at all malodorous. The best way of understanding these ideas is to look at the examples I give. --NSH001 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll be offline but for the mo

I think one should reconsider putting the some words sections under language. I intended this as a wrap up note to tourists browsing up on the areas they visit in Australia, so that some might learn what the local indigenous people say for key things. It's a sort of 'curiosity' bit, and not meant to illustrate the language. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the articles have an academic flavour, and seem to me to be of interest mainly to historians, ethnographers, etc, even if only as a starting point. Not really a tourist guide. But feel free to put it back if you want. --NSH001 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was very impressed by the exemplary neatness of your reformulatings in sfn side of the untouched sources in those articles. Unfortunately I thought it best to undo some of it, worrying I might give offence. You're dead right that the work of prior editors should be earnestly respected and removed only reluctantly. My own tampering looks a tad ideological or condescending (they ain't academics, etc.) The real reason was that I was (a) pretty sure quite a lot of these shire histories were being cited for irrelevant or dubious information or for (b) information from proper RS which I could access. Indeed for stuff I put in a provisory cn notice, I knew of the source, but hadn't yet had the time to fix the issues by drawing on my downloads, which are now quite comprehensive. Just to let you know that the work done was superb, and the templating in the biblio one I'm delighted to steal for a few things that are perhaps borderline but worthy of retention. Fanks, pal.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, old chap, but thanks for the kind words. My obedient, but mythical, young lady is learning how to switch all cites (well, just the templated ones, not the manual ones) into short-form, combined with nice ETVP full citations in the biblio section. For now, I don't really care about the work of previous editors, I merely sit back and let her get on with it. I intend to make similar changes for all the existing articles in this series (i.e., in addition to the ones you've started from scratch), so that everything is in the same, consistent, citation/referencing style. Mind you, like all good women, the said young lady can sometimes become very stroppy and disobedient if I don't pay her enough attention (in other words, if I missed a bug ). --NSH001 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, she's a beauty, and kindly send her the algorithm that indicates complete satisfaction for her services!Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

List of peace activists

why take Rust out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC))

He's known for that stunt he staged in Red Square. That's just making a point, not trying to make peace or resolving conflicts. Please read the criteria for inclusion at the top of the list page. --NSH001 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dja Dja Wurrung

Are you sure this is how it should be done? The official government web sites and the Dja Dja Wurrung's own organisation's pages all use Dja Dja Wurrung as does the National Native Title Tribunal . Ian D Clark's Aboriginal languages and clans : an historical atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800–1900, Published: Melbourne, Vic. : Dept. of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, c1990. ISBN 0-909685-41-X, identifies numerous spellings of the word but settles on the AIATSIS use of Dja Dja Wurrung.Garyvines (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is no, I'm not sure, I was just responding to Nishidani's request on the talk page. Since no-one has objected in more than 3 weeks, and it seemed a reasonable request, I went ahead and moved it. At least, I thought, it'll provoke some discussion if someone really does disagree. I seem to have been successful in that aim! Any further discussion should be on the article talk page, of course, not here. --NSH001 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gary. As NSH001 advises, I'll respond on the talk page in a mo'.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way young chief. I can't get the fucking url right for Clark Monash Paper 1998 at Bungandidj people. It defeats my powers and therefore I throw myself at the mercy of a superior to beg divine intervention and help me out of this existential impasse.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for all that Sad Sack mopping up my carelessness or failure to learn is causing you to take on. It's deeply appreciated, in any case. I'll never mend my oldtimer's ways, it seems.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A pleasure, as always. No need to apologise. Plus it's good practice for the youngster. --NSH001 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

How do

no! not how do you do: we know each other. Um, how do you use the sfn template when you have an article co-authored by many (I am reading one in Nature with upwards of 20 signatories) I'm sure one can whittle this down to Joe Blow &Co in a template. I can accept an upper limit of 8, but beyond that seems ridiculous. I strain the bean at times to muck up a technical problem you can't answer and entertain the prospect of salivating with a dickhead's sense of triumph at thinking one's stumped a boffin - but I don't think this will do that? Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, simple, just enter the first 4 authors only! Well, just their -last names, of course. --NSH001 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Goodoh! But what about the bibliography? Can it keep to 4 or may it add a few other names, which won't upset the in-article template functionality? I.e. biblio having 8 names and the sfn in line cites using just the first 4? (Hope I'm not causing post-prandial dyspeptic symptoms with this niggling?Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, normally | ref = harv is all you need (as usual). Or you can have anything you like with | ref = {{harvid|...}}, as long as the "..." corresponds with the {{sfn|...}}. But much easier to stick to the default. As for the authors in the bibliography, just enter them like you would normally - the only problem is it could get a bit tedious entering them all. An alternative is to use Vancouver style, which reduces the clutter in the edit window, but that is not so much of a problem when they're all neatly arranged by my nice wee girl in their own biblio listing. --NSH001 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A more compelling reason for using Vancouver style is the display to our readers. If you've entered them all in the usual last/first format, adding | name-list-format = vanc will show them in the shorter Vancouver form. --NSH001 (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm learning an Aboriginal language, an chat to myself of a morning as age presses on and, like them, I face extinction. They're said to be difficult, but I don't find this one hard (except for the lack of words for 'refrigerator', 'tomatoes' etc.etc. I do find the above obscure, because I'm stupid, despite the evident lucidity. I think my best strategy is to ignore your brakes, and push on, praying that the guardian angel and his busy little muyup mayang(clever) parayt-parayt (girl) warta (follow) the thinang spoor, obedient to my mental command parayt-parayt! yanaka kuknyi-ngin. (Get to work, little girl). Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your tomatoes. I find they taste better if you don't keep them in the 'fridge. --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I see I'm increasing my error rate, sorry. It's summer and you should enjoy a break from running this marathon too close to my erratic heels. Feel free to take a break, and take things up at your autumnal leisure. Here in Italy it's so torrid one can't step out into the garden without wilting like the plants, so I have ratcheted up my work plan, to try and get 5 stubs done a day for August. That way, we'll have 350 done in bare draft form, by the end of August, if I can keep it up (I mean the writing pace, not the other bald-headed chap). That would be more than half, and give me the sense I can now work leave the runner's stitch, and trundle through the remaining 250. I don't expect you should feel obliged to hew close to that rate of knots, to cut the Gordian entanglements my speed naturally causes in article construction. In the meantime, thanks, thanks indeed. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The amount of work it takes me isn't in the least little bit correlated with your "error rate". The script itself only takes a couple of seconds to run, and it doesn't care how many "errors" it has to fix. Things that take the time are obvious discrepancies that need to be investigated, like the date of that dictionary: google has 1993, while academia.edu has 2011; I still feel uneasy, as the ISBN is almost certainly for the 1993 version, while the version at academia.edu doesn't give any ISBN. That's the sort of thing that eats up my time, not your errors. The other thing that takes up time is finding and fixing bugs. I don't make many bugs, so I actually like finding bugs, since then (once I've fixed them), I can be sure it's robust. So don't worry about me, I'll do whatever I want anyway. And, of course, it's a pleasure reading your articles, which I suppose is another thing taking up time. And big congrats on your amazing rate of progress on these articles. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation matters

Thanks for the ping, I appreciate getting feedback. And always pleased if I may have been of service. Or can be; let me know if there are any discussions where I might help clarify matters.

I would caution that "citations as a subset of notes" is a little tricky. As a kind of content, yes, but they intermingle; I would not break them out separately. My preference is for separate (but equal) "Notes" and "Sources" sections.

Some interesting comments you have. I must take some time to study them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I'd forgotten about that, and just thought that you weren't too bothered. Thanks for the response. I quite like the setup I'm using now on Nishidani's new articles, and I don't anticipate changing it any time soon. The previous version was just something knocked up quickly to get my script working. Nothing's set in stone (except my extreme dislike of LHT clutter), but it would need a good reason to change.

If by "Some interesting comments" you are referring to the long LHT clutter thread at the top of this page, bear in mind that I have a massive update in preparation for it, which might take 3 days, 3 weeks, or 3 months to appear, depending what else I have on. I've had some difficulty restraining myself from getting into discussions elsewhere (where you often, but not always, seem to be involved), but I've had to, because they can become so time-consuming. For now, I just want to concentrate on development, and not to get bogged down in long discussions. That's not to say an occasional helpful comment isn't appreciated. It's been a massive amount of work to develop my script (including learning a language entirely from scratch, not to mention regexps and a few other things), but you can see the payoff on Nishidani's Aboriginal Australian articles. I've been highly motivated to do it, because I can't stand LHT clutter, and rather than complain about it in endless dicussion, I'd rather roll up my sleeves and fix it. --NSH001 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What is this script going to do? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It's doing it already (in part). See the thread above, and all the Nishidani articles I referred to. The update will give more info. --NSH001 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

For example here it is removing LHT clutter from an article. --NSH001 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, quite interesting. And I am taking some time to study your previous comments. Though usually when I haven't felt bright enough for other work, so I probably should self-tag my comments as "not of the first water". But perhaps an adequate start.

One point that struck me right off: terminology. Which bears on concept. This could use more work, as all of us interested in this topic do not yet have a common, well-defined terminology.

Another point is that at a couple of places you have multiple issues or items co-mingled. E.g.: judicious use of spaces to make the citation parameters more readable is independent of "vertical" or "horizontal" formatting. Likewise for whether the full citations are left in the text or moved to a separate section, and also whether the short-cites (or "short-form cites") are {sfn} or {harv}. Dealing with these separately might avoid some CITEVAR objections.

As to long discussions: well, the explanation as to why some discussions are so long is a long discussion itself! As a terse answer I would say: lack of skill by the discussants. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind slightly, in that "Sources" is indeed better than "References", even though the latter is honoured by long-standing wiki practice. Since I want to see the total extermination of LHTs, even though it's common practice on Wiki to use them, it would be a bit silly to use the same argument for keeping "References". So I've changed my script accordingly.

Again, because I want to see the annihilation of LHTs, it's irrelevant to me what format they're in; they need to be eliminated, not prettified. But if you really want to know what I think is the best way of improving them pending their eventual demise, I would say put spaces around both equals signs and pipes (especially pipes); at least that will slightly reduce the annoyance, nausea and disgust they create. Please wait for the forthcoming substantial update to the main thread above before making any further replies here. Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and one further point I forgot, since you mention terminology. I make a very strong distinction between ETVP and "vertical" formatting, as I hope you can see already from the thread above. --NSH001 (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That something so ambiguous, so trouble-making, is "honoured by long-standing wiki practice" is in itself a problem. Which is another instance of "The paradox" you comment on above. We inch along. That might warrant an essay.

In the end horizontal layout versus vertical is about formatting. And while the inclusion of newlines is independent of the use of spaces, the latter are not irrelevant, as your script changes both. Favor or disfavor of one will affect acceptance of the other. We should discuss that. Also whether "vertical" should be absolute, with every parameter on its own line, entirely alone.

BTW, what is your distinction "between ETVP and 'vertical' formatting"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read what I write. I specifically requested that you not reply until I had posted the update. The question about the distinction between ETVP and vertical is already answered in the thread above. Please read it. Most of the points you have just made here I have already noted from other discussions in which you've particiipated. My time is limited, and I don't want it used up in premature discussion. Now, please, no further replies until the update is posted. --NSH001 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeezus, chief

Yes, I'll have to call the Lord's name in vain. I've made a comprehensive fuckup and even if I whistle or cooee that little Sheila you've fathered to bot and better the usual trash I leave in my compositional wake, this one's a job that requires the creative majesty of her pater. In sum, using a stupid Aussie site specializing in German missionaries, I created a stub entitled Ernst Alfred Worms. Now I've downloaded his articles, I see he signs himself Ernest Ailred Worms. So, without despoiling the leisure of these torrid weeks, having I trust rested over Sunday, can I prevail upon your wit and mercy to intervene with corrective digital surgery or sorcery and retitle that to Ernest Ailred Worms. (The name reminds me of the Japanese for athlete's foot, 水虫, mizumushi(water insect), but he's a wonderful analyst and deserves better than my patchy stuff.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, drat! I'd just finished typing out a reply, and my computer died! Hmm, I don't think it likes the warm weather. Or maybe it just needs dust removing from its cooling system. Anyway, I let it cool down a bit...

But, yes, it's easy enough to do your request, but can you first point me to a source so that I can check the exact spelling? You know, just so that I can be sure!

BTW, congratulations for spotting this error. I thought at first my wee girl was suffering from an obscure bug, but it turns out she's quite right. One template had initials for the first name, the other had the full name, so she treated them as different authors. Quite right, too! So I changed one of them to "Alfred", same as the other, both referring to a genuine Alfred, so now everything's fine, and they're sorting in the right order. --NSH001 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is how he's classified. I'm dead sure, because I've read several of his articles via jstor (haven't yet the time to add what I've learnt) and in all of them he signs himself 'Ernest Ailred Worms.' I too thought Ailred was a misprint for Alfred, but his articles are thus signed (see some in Baada biblio. e.g. here. catholic priests might not be good guides on things like the correct pronunciation of Ouagadougou - I'll forego the anecdote- but they were rigorous with orthography.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done as requested. --NSH001 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I owe you a batch of scones and pies, baked according to the best traditional recipes handed down through the clan. One day I promise I'll come through with the promise! Thanks, N.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

All that and in some australian sources the e a suffices... you both deserve immense thanks for help with oztrylian indigenous material - please ignore any edits from me that look like nuisance editing, I abhor some levels of wikipedantry but simply applying my own version - - cheers gents or stay well - or whatever JarrahTree 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

At Njunga, a supererogatory comma has snoodled its way into the title. I've ballsed things up again! Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Miriam Karlin 2 BBC.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Miriam Karlin 2 BBC.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) 17:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like someone found a public domain (in US) image to replace it. A pity, as the non-free image is much better. --NSH001 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. Amazing how fast time seems to fly by! Or maybe I'm just getting old. Never thought that would happen . --NSH001 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Re Tindale

I've had a hard day trying to wrench 10 consecutive minutes of reading from innumerable interruptions and chores, so I might have missed the point re Tindale cit conflicts at Ngarigo. I can't see the problem. Everything I cite from his 1974 book is on p.198? Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Simple, there are two "Tindale 1974"s under "sources", one re Ngarigo, (1974a) one re Thaua (1974b), the date disambiguation now being done automatically in such cases. As I don't have the book, and the links don't give a page number, I can't tell which you're referring to, tho' I can hazard a guess that it's the first. I can't even be sure that you might have intended 2 of them to be to the first, and one to the second, or whether the second template is really intended to be there at all. If you didn't intend the second one to be there, just remove it, and change the "1974a" on the first to be "1974", and all should be well. --NSH001 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up: went to check the sources, just to be sure, and found the URLs didn't work. So I fixed them! --NSH001 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Duh! Well, my vocation of being a time-waster targeting you is firming. I almost never check what you do, because you're always right, and since Brad Pitt's starring in a film called 7 and my wife insists I see it with her (she needs company with anything potentially violent - which only begs the question, why did she marry me?)), I'll leave it at that! Cheers, pal. Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NSH001. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion dealing with Burma/Myanmar Railways

An article that you may have been involved in editing—Myanmar Railways—has been proposed for merging with Rail transport in Myanmar. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Erawirung

There's a mislineation in the lower sections of Erawirung I created and can't fix.???Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Easy peasy, fixed. --NSH001 (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)