User talk:Mirokado/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reference lists

Leave the reference lists alone you are making things worse dolfrog (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously anything different is something to get used to, but I see only improvements in what I have done so far. Please post on Talk:Dyslexia, explaining carefully what any problem might be, so that others can contribute too. I am starting relevant sections as I go, you are welcome to start others if you prefer. And for heaven's sake learn how to talk nicely to people. Not everyone is as patient as I am and most Wikipedians are strongly allergic to being told what to do, particularly with no explanation: think of that as a patience-deficit disability and perhaps you will understand. --Mirokado (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Medical arricles may have to change references in light of a new discovery, and the system you are advocating is not flexiable enough for most editors, and is not used on most of the best rated of medical articles. This is not a good change, not needed. dolfrog (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's make sure we know what we are talking about. Do you mean using {{cite pmid}} instead of {{cite journal}}? --Mirokado (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

whole system of typying the references that the bottom of the page as opposed to having the reference inline in the article, using (cite journal, cite book, or what ever. Cite PMID only works for research articles which are listed in PubMed, which is does not include a vast amount of research papers used as references, especially from non USA sources. And it is less practical than system currently used on the dyslexia article using the reflist template is the best option for medical articles where research can require multiple changes at any time in the future. dolfrog (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

have look at Alzheimer's disease to top rated wikipedia medical article dolfrog (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've continued this by replying to you at Talk:Dyslexia. --Mirokado (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Deserved

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Intended for some time, but only just awarded - I present you with this barnstar, for all your work on or around wikipedia, from helping me out by reviewing Speech generating device, to tireless behind-the-scenes work at the Disability project, to displaying excellent levels of Regep-fu and a level head at all times. Fayedizard (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will endeavour to live up these compliments at least most of the time! --Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Freedom flotilla redirect

Hi, Im a beginner, and i just did a wikipedia search for "freedom flotilla" and it went to the "raid" page, not the "Gaza freedom flotilla page". The "Raid" page is rather unbalanced and shows the israeli justifications for internation piracy rather than a a neutral balance. If someone searches for "freedom flotilla" it should go to the correct page, not to the israeli propaganda page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.211.153.194 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. That redirect Freedom flotilla was created 2010-06-01T04:39:39 as a search helper for Gaza flotilla clash (since renamed to Gaza flotilla raid) before Gaza Freedom Flotilla was split off as a separate article 2011-07-17T16:15:55. That split was discussed in this section. You can see that we decided to recycle another redirect to create the article, so it does indeed seem consistent to update Freedom flotilla too.

Please don't tangle up a reasonable suggestion with political rhetoric. That just makes it more difficult for others to respond appropriately to it. The answer to any problems in Gaza flotilla raid is to find good, neutral sources which can correct any issues of balance.

Please sign each talk page post with ~~~~ so we can tell who said what. (When we reply we add an extra level of indentation, one colon per level, as I have done here). --Mirokado (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Now updated, along with a couple of other similar redirects. --Mirokado (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

LTR marks

Пожалуйста, смотрите эту разницу. Существует проблема с невидимыми маркеры LTR. --Mirokado 05:20, 23 июля 2012 (UTC)

Эта строка, указанная вами, моим ботом не добавлялась, он работал со строкой. Что вы хотели сообщить мне об этом? Бот получает обновления централизованно 1 - 3 раза в сутки и как только в его скрипты внесут соответствующие изменения, если на то будет консенсус, он станет своими правками убирать непечатаемые символы. — Jack 06:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Спасибо за ваш ответ. Возможно, проблема была уже присутствует и FrescoBot только исправить его после вашего редактирования. Есть много межъязыковых ботов и трудно знать, как начались проблемы. --Mirokado (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

cite isbn

Would you mind taking a look at the changes I've made to Template:Cite isbn/sandbox, Template:Cite isbn/core/sandbox and Template:Cite isbn/testcases to check that I've implemented the noedit parameter correctly? Thanks Illia Connell (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That looks fine, tidily and carefully done including thorough test cases. It will be quite reasonable to install those changes as the current version (remembering to adjust all references to core/sandbox). Please also add a description of noedit to the documentation when you do that. Any further changes should then preserve the noedit functionality. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks --Illia Connell (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

CitePMID or CiteJournal etc?

Hi Mirokado,

I noticed that you're using the CitePMID template for consistency on the Bipolar disorder page. Until quite recently I used to do the same, but then I saw this Birth control consideration. As a Bipolar GA page might be a candidate for translation into other languages, I wondered whether it would be better to use CiteJournal, CiteBook etc? Not being a techie, I'm not sure if I've quite grasped all this, so I've just posted a request for clarification.

Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I had noticed that too, but not followed recent contributions. The source becomes unmaintainable if there is a high density of journal refs with full definitions inline, for example:

• very difficult to find the next fragment of article content between the citation definitions.
• seemingly random choices of style for authors within a single article, as various editors use inconsistent tools or their own preference: "Jones AB", "Jones A.B.", "Jones A. B.", "Jones A. B", "|last=,|last2=", "|last1=,|last2=", "|last=,|coauthors=", "|author1=,|author2=", "|author=Jones A. B.; Smith C. D.", definitely contrary to WP:MOS, terribly time-consuming to fix manually and of course all needing to be dealt with before any translation starts anyway.

I also don't see it as either practicable or desirable to avoid using templates just because they are not implemented on all wikis... Probably better if I join that conversation, thanks for pointing it out to me. --Mirokado (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll follow that conversation to see what you guys can decide. In the meantime, would you prefer me to bipolar with CitePMID or with CiteJournal? —MistyMorn (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer CitePMID because that is what the rest of the article is using and the reader sees uniform journal citations. Such quality assurance should not be a burden to anyone though, it is easy to adjust a few every now and again if someone does something different. Adding good content is most important. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'll use CitePMID for now (when not offline...). Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

GLBT people in the US cats

Hi Mirokado -- I just restored the GLBT people category that you removed from the Carolyn Bertozzi article. I added a supporting cite. It would probably be helpful if, when deleting categories for substantive reasons, you flagged it on talk first; oftentimes editors just don't really understand that categories need to be supported by the text, and they could be with very little effort. e.g., "Carolyn Bertozzi gay" produces quite a number of results. --Lquilter (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, you found a good reference, and thanks for the notification. There are several reasons for removing the cat rather than creating a talk page entry:

• I often, as in this case, make other quality assurance changes with an initial edit to an article so that edit can be useful even if the category is restored.
• I would prefer to remove inappropriate information rather than creating a permanent record of its addition on a talk page.
• Creating the talk entry is extra work and I would then have to monitor lots of talk pages for a week or so for no response, I think it is easy enough to restore the cat when updating the article content. (Incidentally I am not being lazy in saying this, I have worked hard to be able to select problematical articles for individual inspection).
• We should generally be far more strict about removing such unsourced information immediately: that way people would learn to do things properly and the problem would not arise.

--Mirokado (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie & Neutrality discussion board

Hi Mirokado. Just letting you know that I have initiated a discussion mentioning you at the Neutrality discussion board — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 10:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)‎

Thanks for the notification, I am watching that now and will "probably" respond. --Mirokado (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox book, etc

Hi, Only this hour I looked at your month-old as well as today edits to some DoP book articles.

Is there a functional consequence of the previous infobox invocation with a piped comment in the first line? I have paid no attention to that line (although my original invocations match your version).

Do any of these alone warrant revisiting an article?

• {efn} and {notelist} in place of reflist |group=lower-alpha |refs= (which I have used hundreds of times since learning at Dragonflight)
• {plainlist} in place of plain text with explicit line breaks inside an infobox (dozens if not hundreds)
• ISBN-13 (not very important I know) --do you research these directly or derive from ISBN-10?

--P64 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The piped comment becomes the value of the first unnamed parameter which is not used, so not everybody will regard it as "serious", but it is certainly worth correcting along with anything else (it was only recently that I noticed the pipe before the comment which is why I had not been zapping them earlier).

The others are all relatively minor changes, I agree. My short answer to your question is that any one of those on its own probably doesn't justify changing the article unless it is part of a set of coordinated edits for which there is consensus, but I think more than one or anything-else-as-well would.

There has mostly been more than one change when I have done those sorts of edit and it is surprising what other issues I find when checking them. The last three changes of the latest round, if I remember correctly, were really minor but justified to wrap that session up.

• {efn} and {notelist} changes are probably not justified as the only change to an article unless part of a wider editing session, which might include splitting edits so that the differences are easy to check...
• {plainlist} is important for WP:ACCESSIBILITY as, for example, screenreaders can present the listener with the list structure instead of just a string of words. I mostly don't do just that, but that plus anything else at all is in my opinion justified.
• ISBN-13 is "preferred" according to the guideline, so I nearly always do that along with anything else which needs changing. I convert using one of two websites: ISBN Converter, ISBN-13 Online Converter ISBN-13 Online Converter, or my own perl script if an article needs lots of isbn changes. Since the "meaningful" digits don't change and the resulting links work correctly, I see no problem with the conversion.

There is a fine line to draw between making too many trivial changes and never tidying anything up or failing to introducing new methods uniformly. My preference is for "continuous improvement of quality". -- Mirokado (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple English proposal at the Pump

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original Village Pump RFC about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Festival of Passim

Actually, I used to think it [1] was an obscure Jewish holiday. EEng (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Just kidding.

At last I get to say LOL on Wikipedia! --Mirokado (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself for laughing at others' religion. EEng (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Arrr, I'm afraid I find sources of amusement passim. --Mirokado (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen, thanks for doing so much gruntwork on the Gage cites, notes, etc. A favor, though -- when you do this [2] can you also do this [3]? I think you see why. EEng (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That is exactly the sort of response I was hoping for. --Mirokado (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Article ownership

Mirokado, can you get the lead out? [4] You don't own the article, you know. You think we can all wait around while you fix references and citations and stuff like that? There's edit warring to be waged! EEng (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I really must get my priorities sorted out. --Mirokado (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

..............

Could use your thoughts at Talk:Phineas Gage#Citations. EEng (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted for a while, will comment this evening. --Mirokado (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

..............

I'm wondering if you want to work on formatting/cites/technical stuff only (and fine if that's true -- this has been really helpful) or whether you'd like to engage on content as well. I'm kind of tired of being the only editor who actively engages the sources, and then gets accused of ownership! Just in case you missed it, I want to be sure you saw [5].

But back on formatting/technical, I wonder if you can watch for new postings I'll be making in various places on the Talk, and comment if you like, so we can put some of these issues to bed. EEng (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. Here's another article where I've made extensive use of footnotes for ancillary info: John Harvard statue. Enjoy (I hope)!

I prefer to sort out technical issues sooner rather than later, but I will be happy to join in content discussions too and I check the talk page history from time to time. "Be careful what you ask for, it may happen"! Yes I have read that post, thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. --Mirokado (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ISIRTA

I won't rename any more of the pages until a decision has been made (I have only renamed five of the pages so far).

There is one problem - if it is decided to return to the previous names for the pages, there will be some difficulty doing this (because of the names having already been used). I apologize for any problems or inconvenience I may have caused by renaming the pages. Figaro (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:Figaro#ISIRTA plays and Talk:I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again#Related article names etc. --Mirokado (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me about this. I appreciate your help very much.

I have already merged the A, B and C plays into a page with your proposed name of

ISIRTA plays, A-C

Could you please check it out and see if any improvements can or should be made to the page - before I merge any of the other pages to their new names. Thank you. Figaro (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Please see Talk:I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again#Related article names etc. --Mirokado (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking out the first of the merged pages. I have now merged the rest of the pages. The merged pages are now titled:

ISIRTA plays, A-C

ISIRTA plays, D-I

ISIRTA plays, J-Q

ISIRTA plays, R-Z

Hope this is ok. Could you please check out the pages. Thank you. All the best. Figaro (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for checking things out for me. I appreciate your help very much. I hope that you have an enjoyable holiday - or that your studies at university go well. All the best. Figaro (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

talkback

Re [6]: Remember that, via that weird hack, I had tortured the reflist into alphabetical order, and in that context authormask worked OK -- see here. "That other editor" dismantled the alphabetization )along with much else) but -- apparently never actually looking at the article (here's a typical version saved during one of his editing orgies -- check out "References" here) -- he had no idea how many things he was screwing up, the authormask being just a tiny example of many. EEng (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Mirokado,

Thanks for your help with St James'. I learned a lot from your prompt, detailed attention and good will. And of course, the article is much better for it. I hope it will reach FA status quicker than I am likely to master the dash coding. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome and I imagine the gold star is not far off. --Mirokado (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Pern

Is it absolutely necessary to bother with such pointless AfDs? It's obvious those aren't suitable for inclusion. Merge discussions would go unanswered given that there have been less than 100 combined edits in five years. AfD is just going to end up being redirect for most of them. As for retaining content, some details like separate locations just don't belong. The summary in the main article is fine for the time being, and someone interested could bolster it without have to trudge through all the cruft in those. TTN (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see H:M for the process related to merging. Some content will need to be merged even if some is removed. You obviously spend most of your time doing this sort of thing so you should be more familiar that I with what is needed. For merging you need (as far as I remember) a section on the target talk page listing the articles to be merged and where discussion can take place and a merge tag on each article. The target page if nothing else is probably watched by several people. You can also place a notification on Talk:Anne McCaffrey and could notify the main contributors to that page. That is what I would do if I wanted to merge lots of articles like this and I have managed splits and other mass edits to subarticles in the corresponding way in the past without problems.These processes are in place to ensure that we edit collaboratively.

It is my bedtime so I don't have time to look at all the articles now, but will do so when convenient over the next week or so. Starting a process gives editors time to do precisely that and improve the encyclopedia responsibly and in collaboration. Who knows, I may even agree with you for much of the content but I am sure the one section in Dragonriders of Pern does not already provide all the necessary background information in Pern (37kbytes, 247 contributors) or information a reader will need to understand the references to, for example, between (fictional place) which appear as wikilinks in pretty well every article about a Pern book. You, or whoever actually does the work, need to sort out all those issues before removing the linked content, otherwise you are impacting the reader experience on dozens of articles.

Merging also involves correct attribution: deleting information and recreating it elsewhere does not conform to our licensing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not necessary to establish a discussion for everything, as the site is not a bureaucracy where everything must be done by the book. In this case, it would be WP:BRD given that these are abandoned articles written at a time when everything was acceptable when it came to fiction. Nobody cares about them, especially with the advent of Wikia, so nobody is going to respond to a discussion involving them. There are times where everything should just be abandoned because it is just a mess. This is such a case where the lore is just so expansive it is pointless try to encapsulate all of it. Nuking them and letting someone interested rewrite it from scratch to best meet WP:PLOT without going overboard would be the best way to do it. As for attribution, that is only if they are merged. It is perfectly fine to just redirect them without anything, maybe adding Template:merged-from to let anyone interested later merge. If you must insist, I'll just AfD them to avoid the hassle. TTN (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the articles I've looked at are low quality by current standards, but the point remains that our currently-maintained articles do link to them and are written on the assumption that the reader can follow links to them, so just removing the information will reduce the usability of the encyclopedia. That is not what I think of as a net improvement and I imagine it would take some time to repair the damage, so your action was highly contentious and you would need to follow process here, "if you must insist". --Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, I reverted Oldtimers (Pern) a few minutes ago so it is consistent with the others (I missed it previously and my finger slipped so there is no edit summary). That is without prejudice to our discussion here or any further action you take. --Mirokado (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And a last update tonight, I have also restored the cats to The Atlas of Pern, one pending the outcome of any AfDs on its other contents, the other because I presume removing it was a typo. --Mirokado (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Uploaded a new version" with w/o archive copy

Hi Mirokado. happy new year

See File:AnneMcCaffrey Dragonflight.jpg whose page history shows that four versions have been uploaded --altho yours, the third, may have been a restoration of the first. Should the file history display four versions? I have supposed so, as for File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png.

Do you know whether revised in a way that does not maintain an archive copy, whether that was intentional, and whether we should maintain an archive. Your edit summary mentions spam, which may mean an image not to be retained. History of the article caption reveals that GrahamHardy replaced a later-edition cover with a first-edition.

Alternatively, should the file history be complete for those versions with fair use rationale in order?

--P64 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

courtesy link User:GrahamHardy --P64 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello and happy new year to you too.

Previous versions of "fair use" images are hidden, because the "fair use" can only apply to one image per purpose.

OttomanEmpireIn1683.png is from commons, where the license not only allows but I think requires that all previous or alternative versions be available.

You will find somewhere in a guideline that we prefer a first edition cover if available, so Graham's update is quite different and welcome. Thank you Graham.

My edit summary about spam was probably a misunderstanding. An editor thought it would be nice to replace all the images by a new issue of the whole series. I reacted promptly to limit the amount of work needed to restore the older images and rather assumed it was being done on behalf of the publisher. All was sorted out amicably.

I'm afraid I got distracted before I could respond to your two earlier messages (still at the top of this page). Do you still need a response to either of them? --Mirokado (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Red links

Hi Mirokado,

I think you'll want to read WP:REDDEAL. In general, it's a bad idea to remove redlinks to notable subjects. Their purpose isn't to explain the article's contents. It's only to tell people that new articles need to be created. If you want, you can add {{clarifyme}}, but please avoid removing the WP:Red links in the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

James Bevis

-How is adding something that's factually accurate "disruptive editing"...wikipedia is supposed to be for factual contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevek21\87 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The first reference in the article gives birth place and date: birth place Hereford. You added birth place somewhere else, which was not only incorrect but contrary to the source already provided and to the birth place already recorded in the Persondata later in the article. Since there were already other messages on your talk page asking you to stop adding incorrect information to Wikipedia, I conclude that your editing was disruptive. I presume that you will stop editing in that way. As you can see from my subsequent edit to James Bevis, it was entirely possible to improve the article by better integrating the correct information. You are very welcome to carry on editing constructively but you are very likely to be blocked if you carry on as you have been. --Mirokado (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake then as he does live in teignmouth in Devon and I heard (on a news article, admittedly) that he was born there. I must be mistaken. I also noticed before my edit there was no place of birth on 'James bevis'. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevek21\87 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(duplicate post removed). Thanks for your response. I am very glad to hear that that was an honest mistake. Particularly with biographies of living people (BLPs) you need to be careful when adding information that it has a reliable source, which will normally mean reading the source to check the information and adding it to the article when updating it. This of course takes a bit longer than just typing something in, but you will have the pleasure of knowing you have done a good job, and your edits will not be reverted because they are unsourced. --Mirokado (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

class="wikitable sortable" Horror Films

The horror lists also sort well by country which helps some of us avoid movies that might be filmed in a language other than English. It doesn't hurt to have the entries sorted by director either. . . . 2012 - 2014 are sorted and am not sure why 2010 - 2011 were reverted, it doesn't hurt anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.20.84 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Denmark and Disability
Thank you for quality articles in teamwork, such as Hoover Dam, articles for project Denmark, such as Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, and for Portal:Disability, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 498th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Gerda, much appreciated! I had not realised that I just squeezed into the first five hundred! --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PG

The wars over nothing have seemingly died down, and I would like to get back to actually editing the Phineas Gage article. Would you be willing to chew the fat with me re some technical/markup issues, like we did last year? I'm very overburdened right now so this would be sometime between 4 wks from now and when hell freezes over. EEng (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are paying attention! Of course we can talk things over, but on the article talk page, which I am watching, not here. --Mirokado (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what Bracketbot's up to when you're not watching

See User:EEng#Computer porn. EEng (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Very funny! You will probably enjoy this item from the BBC! --Mirokado (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good one too. EEng (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

TemplateScript

Hello Mirokado. I updated your common.js page to the latest version of TemplateScript. This is just to enable automatic updates, so you shouldn't see much difference. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 02:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

Hi Mirokado. As you know, despite you and one other editor supporting my original FAC for The Fifth Element, the review was archived as, accordingly to the closer, a minimum of 3 people need to support a nomination. Now that two weeks has elapsed since the nomination was archived, I have renominated it. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fifth Element/archive2. The only real differences between the version you supported and the current version were some copyedits from User:Dank and User:Eric Corbett. Here is the difference between the version you supported and the current version: [7]. I'd be ever so grateful if you could support the nomination again; now that all of your and everybody else's concerns have already been addressed I anticipate this nomination to go much quicker and smoother. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I will be away for a few days, but will review the article again when I return. --Mirokado (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on Artificial Intelligence

Undid revision 630191794 You appear to be edit warring against a 5 editor consensus for an RfC closed by the originating author RobertM. Please stop WP:EW and WP:3RR. Your next edit puts you over 3RR and your Talk page is posted forWP:EW against consensus of 5 editors. You have not even tried one single time to contact RobertM concerning the established consensus or anyone else. RobertM has made genuine progress for a discussion over a month long for the first time by establishing a consensus of 5 editors. You have been invited to seek consensus in the discussion below on Talk:Artificial Intelligence in that section and you have refused. Your next revert shall put you over three reverts. Please stop edit warring and please follow Wikipedia policy and procedures for establishing consensus before you edit.FelixRosch (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. You clearly don't understand WP:3RR or consensus at all. The reverts you are presumably talking about are 2014-10-19T03:30:14, 2014-10-18T00:03:43 and 2014-10-16T22:57:33, which are nowhere close to being within 24 hours. Get your facts correct before making accusations. As far as "consensus" is concerned, that evolves in various ways and on that article at present, an RFC was opened to establish it. --Mirokado (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Dance

Hello, I’m contacting you because you are a participant in WikiProject Dance. Myself and another editor, User:Mwacha are interested in developing some notability guidelines on WikiProject Dance for dancers, dance critics, performers, and other genre articles as there is no such thing at the moment comparable to what I have heard other editors use for Visual Arts, IE “if they are collected in a major museum, then they are considered notable.” There are of course exceptions to this standard but it is nice to have a rule of thumb to help with AfD, and other moderated discussions. We hope to start this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance#Notability Guidelines.OR drohowa (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I only just now got the joke here, for some reason

[8] EEng (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Together again!

I've archived this discussion, which was about source grouping for Phineas Gage, at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 7#Together again! since it so clearly relates to the development of that article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Pile on!

If Mike didn't hit your points on AI Mk. IV radar, now's the time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for letting me know. I will look at the article over the next couple of days. --Mirokado (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I appreciate you work on that article, it definitely improved as a result. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! That is a valuable addition to our featured articles (it's just been promoted), since it describes one of the areas where Britain was getting things right just before the war. Happy New Year. --Mirokado (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)

Hi Mirokado, would you mind revisiting this please, I think we are almost there at this stage :) Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I will get back to it Sunday evening (Europe). --Mirokado (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Irataba PR

Please consider continuing your review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be better to have a completely independent review at PR. It has always amazed me that each new reviewer brings a different set of insights to an article. In any case, I had finished apart from wrapping up. I'll watch for it going back to FAC and complete my review there. That worked nicely last time. --Mirokado (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kayla Mueller

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba FAC

Thank you for your input at the last FAC. Irataba is now back at FAC. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I will have another look over the next few days. The peer review went very well, I thought. --Mirokado (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That PR was epic! Lots of great stuff came from that, and the article is so much more polished now than it was a few weeks ago. Thanks for your comments and support! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So, Mirokado, we meet AGAIN!

[9] EEng (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep! I saw your DYK credit and thought to myself, "Oh, what an interesting article!" Reading it, I noticed the advert which says "May be used by any intelligent person": I'm not sure I want to think about what might happen if someone stupid used one. --Mirokado (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to this request [10] I'd like to pile on another: you'll see that I've tried to add little arrows to File:PhrenologyPix, upper front with inset.jpg. However, I'm all thumbs with these kinds of image editing tools -- I wanted it to match File:CavendishVermont 1869Map Beers AnnotatedPhineasGageLocations cropped.jpg but I got dizzy looking at all the little icons and menus and toolbars and eyedroppers and paintbrushes and toners and shaders and I was lucky to get any arrows at all in, much less affect what they looked like. So maybe you could do a better job. (BTW I also requested a move of that img to File:PhrenologyPix, upper front with inset GageRegions.jpg since it's really only applicable to Gage now.) EEng (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at both images, but I won't be doing much over Easter and perhaps for a while after, so please don't hold your breath! The updates are OK for a while in any case. -Mirokado (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Slow and steady wins the race. EEng (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your common.css page

Hi; I notice that in User:Mirokado/common.css you have the CSS rule

.ambox-Orphan { display: inherit !important; }

- please note that there is an error in this (almost certainly copied from an old version of Template:Orphan#Visibility) which causes incorrect display in some browsers.

To check this, visit this page and look at the second bullet (the one that precedes the text "This article is an orphan ..."). If this bullet is not in the same alignment as the other four, but displaced to the left, you can fix it by altering inherit to table in the CSS rule mentioned earlier. If that doesn't work either, alter it to block.

Template:Orphan#Visibility has been amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose. table did the trick. --Mirokado (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Referencing in Carl Nielsen

Hi. I couldn't help but notice that you insist on adding a massive list of references all bunched together at the bottom of the article instead of dispersed throughout the article. Personally I get a headache looking through such a big list and it makes it more difficult for editors when it comes to checking /replacing sources to find them. It made it far more difficult to sort out the sourcing and update it all bunched at the bottom. I and others I work with prefer the citation to be inline which can be viewed immediately within the section of the articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all I'm not going to "insist" on editors doing anything which will distract them from adding high quality content. In fact I've yet to discover how to "insist" on anything on Wikipedia, although some editors do seem to get away with it.

Considerations leading me to prefer list-defined ref definitions include:

• If a reference is used several times, you have to search for its definition anyway, and removing a definition used in other places too from where it is defined in the source is awkward. I find it easier to have one fixed place where definitions are to be found.
• With list-defined references all the callouts are quite short, have a predictable, recognisable pattern and are all specified in the same way. Quality is consistency (among other things).
• A paragraph with lots of embedded reference definitions can become close to illegible in the source. This makes editing for flow or good grammar quite awkward. (That is less of a problem now, since we can use the visual editor for much copyediting).
• Once we place multiply-used ref definitions in the list, the source becomes more consistent if we do so for all ref definitions. That makes it really easy to reuse a reference later. (Cases where this is clearly inappropriate include per-line refs in tables such as those in List of horror films of 2014 etc).
• If all refs have name= defined, it becomes easy to search for them using that name.
• It is much easier to edit ref definitions for consistency if they are together in the source. This is important when an article has been edited by people with different habits or preferences.

I wasn't in any case intending to move ref definitions about wholesale while we are in the middle of this major expansion, that would be far too distracting and it is better done, if at all, after a major bout of editing. When @Ipigott: started his earlier expansion, we agreed that he would add references exactly the way he was comfortable with and I would run around in little circles afterwards if necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely zero on referencing and that is why I have been trying to reach a compromise between the wishes of the ever enterprising Dr. Blofeld and yourself, Mirokado. I have now spent at least two or three hours every day since 20 April trying to keep everyone happy with the way this article is referenced and sourced. I have tried to convert all the references into the cite web/book/journal template formats and add more specific page refs, especially to the Carl Nielsen Edition refs, as recommended by Smerus. I have also rewritten all the standard refs in the CW format and have searched, replaced and revived all the dead links. As far as I am concerned, everything seems to function as it should but the format does not seem to coincide with the requirements for GA or higher. At a time when I think it would have been far more useful to address the "fond" rather than the "forme", I realize I have failed to make any substantial improvement and I now admit that there is little prospect of reaching GA, let alone FA, in time unless we get rid of the bunched list of references within the next day or two. I admit I am to blame for not realizing until 20 April that the article needed to be improved for Nielsen's 150th anniversary although you Mirokado had brought this to my attention a few years ago. It would have been great if we had managed to get to GA by 9 June, with the possibility of reaching FA by the end of the year. Since 2009, you Mirokado have been very supportive of moving forward with this article. Do you think you could compromise on your referencing approach if it is going to allow us to move the article forward for peer review or more? If not, I really apologize for causing you so much trouble. You have been a tremendous help in the past and have encouraged me to make progress not only on the Carl Nielsen article itself but on a series of other articles documenting his compositions and other interests. I hope that the work we have undertaken together will be sufficient for those who search the EN Wikipedia for Carl Nielsen over the next few weeks and months. As can be seen from the stats, there is increasing interest in Carl Nielsen with around 400 page views per day. But to avoid further controversy and to aim for more positive interest, I think I will move on to expand Jean Sibelius between now and his anniversary in December. Sibelius has after all far more extensive recognition than Nielsen who tends to be the Danish national composer but not much more. Maybe you Mirokado and others such as Tim riley, Magicpiano or Brianboulton will be able to assist in improving the coverage of Sibelius in time for the celebrations in December?--Ipigott (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable of course to have the bunched refs, and would take a long time to move them all up, not sure if it's worth it, but I personally find it gives me a headache to look at and find where they are! It's a preference I guess. If we're going to keep it, perhaps Mirokado you could format the inline ones so it's all consistent? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I will look through and see if I can correct any consistency problems. We can then decide if any extensive systematic changes are necessary. If so, a "little script" may be better than trying to do them by hand, which, as you say, could be a lot of work. In case it wasn't clear from my first post, I have no intention whatsoever of being an obstacle to the timely improvement of this article. --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made "a few" changes to the article...

• corrected (or at least avoided) remaining harv errors
• converted more of the citations to use cite web and friends
• converted multi-line citation sources to be on one line:
  • this will make it easier to move them around if we want to
  • uniform source presentation for all the citations (there are probably a few tweaks still to be done)
  • the single-line definitions should make the list easier to read?
• moved inline definitions in the middle of paragraphs to the reflist, to improve source content legibility
• removed unused citations from the reflist

I have left inline definitions at the end of a paragraph where they are. Remaining problems include:

• publisher or work, consistent reference to BBC etc, points caught particularly at FAC
• the Carl Nielsen Edition PDFs are problematical:
  • difficult to structure the citations so there is only one download link to each pdf and titles and page numbers for each section
  • currently we are not crediting the editors, which might be a problem at FAC but made the old citation list unwieldy
• the order of definitions in the reflist has become fairly arbitrary. Grouping some by publisher and order-of-appearance within any grouping would seem reasonable

I can take another look at this later on Sunday and will be happy to take account of further comments here... --Mirokado (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts so far. I hadn't realized there were so many inconsistencies. You say the Carl Nielsen Edition references are problematical. One of the problems is that a given PDF can in fact cover several pieces of music although until now different ref names have been used, e.g. KB=abya, KB=ps and KB-fvfi. Would it be useful to sort this out? I only hope the KB doesn't decide to change all the links again. It's been a nightmare since the beginning to try to overcome the problem of dead links. I was also surprised to see that on the download page of the Carl Nielsen Edition there is a note stating that Symphony No. 3 is only available in Denmark although I found a freely accessible PDF file here which is simply titled Preface. I hope it does not disappear. Is there any way of archiving it? Maybe you have other ideas about how to improve the CNE sourcing?--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed that is what we need to sort out. I will shortly update the references for Hymnus Amoris etc, which will demonstrate a pattern for a citation involving three works. It will be easy to add callouts referencing specific pages without having duplicate citations.

Another problem with these citations is that the long list of authors makes it impracticable to use the "Authors date" pattern for the short form callouts. I will use the title of each volume instead. Let us see whether that works well enough... --Mirokado (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've converted nine of these citations and will carry on during next week. --Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

All the CNE citations are now converted. --Mirokado (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Irataba FAC3

Irataba is back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3. We look forward to your comments there. RO^(talk) 16:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have been busy! This is good timing for me, so I'll put this on my little list for the weekend. To be fair, I will try to look again at Jan's candidate too. --Mirokado (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mirokado! RO^(talk) 17:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

PR request

Hello! I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. I'll understand if you are too busy or not interested. Thanks! RO^(talk) 18:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this request. A long weekend is coming up in Germany, I will be happy to look through the article during that time. --Mirokado (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahem Didn't you promise some image cleanup at P.G., like improving my clumsy arrows at File:PhrenologyPix, upper front with inset GageRegions.jpg? EEng (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

True. I will try to get arrownd to those too. --Mirokado (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Get arrownd" -- is that like getting there straight as an arrow? EEng (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! --Mirokado (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks! RO^(talk) 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen GA

Thanks, Mirokado, for all your assistance in helping to improve the article for GA (which it has now reached). In a couple of months, I would like to add content resulting from the anniversary performances and their reception. We could then perhaps go for FA. In the meantime, we'll schedule a DYK for 9 June.--Ipigott (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm very glad our coverage of one of my favourite composers is now so improved after the recent hard work by yourself, Dr. Blofeld and Smerus. My thanks to all three. --Mirokado (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Denmark and Disability
Thank you for quality articles in teamwork, such as Hoover Dam, articles for project Denmark, such as Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, and for Portal:Disability, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 498th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - thank you for polishing a work in progress for Carl Nielsen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

9 June 2015

Carl Nielsen made

Main Page history

and you were part of

working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

ps: Thank you especially for his strong wife, - I noticed only now that you created and maintained this model article in terms of accessibility! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I wish I had met Anne Marie! --Mirokado (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Retouch requested

You're an image wiz, right? Can you see what you can do with File:CharlesRApted CambridgeTribune 1918June08.png? Thanks! EEng (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You still owe me on that Gage image too. Man, you take forever!

I'll see what I can do... As you may have noticed I've been a bit busy with Carl during the last few days. I've also not forgotten Phineas and his arrows. --Mirokado (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, maybe instead of arrows you could use little tamping irons. EEng (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you will have to start a "Department of be careful what you ask for, you might get it"! --Mirokado (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

		File:CharlesRApted CambridgeTribune 1918June08 adjustedEC.png
left – as originally uploaded right – adjusted, File:CharlesRApted CambridgeTribune 1918June08 adjusted.png far right – really adjusted,

How about this? There is not enough contrast in the underexposed regions to do very much about the general underexposure, I'm afraid. --Mirokado (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Way better, thanks. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. EEng (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. Here's the article: Charles R. Apted

I hope you don't mind Mirokado, but I think EEng really needs a restoration rather than an adjustment. You're welcome, EEng (but flowers or chocolates never fail).Belle (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As always, I am overwhelmed by the talent, good taste and intellectual rigour of my fellow editors. --Mirokado (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dashes in Jean Sibelius

Thanks Mirokado for all the tidying up you've been doing. I should point out, however, that you should not change dashes if they have been copied from the titles of articles quoted in references (which could cause future matching problems in searches, etc.) but only in the actual text of the article. Forgive me if I have not been too careful in the new references I have added. The priority for me at the moment is to complete the text of the Life section. I then intend to move on to the various sections on the music itself. Good to see you are also taking an interest in a Finnish composer. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I will check further about dashes in ref titles and restore the hyphens if necessary (the script already avoids things like isbn where the hyphens are correct), but search engines fold such things these days: we often have to change double into single quotes too when our style puts double quotes around a title, for example. Don't worry too much about fine-tuning the references as you go, we have agreed in the past that you are welcome to concentrate on adding high quality content. --Mirokado (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the original hyphenation, since I couldn't quickly find anything that says it is OK to change them! --Mirokado (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've had problems with dashes when searching for an exact match. The Wikipedia bots can also upset URLs with dashes/hyphens if they do not include "http" or similar. So it's better to keep them as they are. If you ever feel the inclination, you might like to put together an idiot's guide to use of dashes and hyphens in Wikipedia - and where to find them (or create them) on the keyboard (e.g. using ALT ++). I'm always mystified and however hard I try, whatever I do ultimately proves to be wrong!--Ipigott (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Disability

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disability for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. I had already seen this, am thinking about answers and will probably post over the weekend. I trust you are well... --Mirokado (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Publication has been delayed to 1 July to give more time for participation, your input would really be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO^(talk) 17:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I would certainly like to comment at FAC too. It will probably have to be next Saturday now, I'll be rather busy next week. --Mirokado (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That'd be great! Thanks. RO^(talk) 18:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep- thanks I just deleted the incorrect reference and wont try it again until I 'get' it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcasb (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sibelius lead photo

Hi Mirokado. I have just noticed that the main image of Sibelius has been replaced by a version with rather a lot of noise. The previous version was much better but has apparently been reverted. I'm not very familiar with these things. Can you handle it?--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced the lead image by its sepia twin for now. The updated original image has much better resolution, needs cropping and the contrast adjusted before it is fit for use in the article. Let's see if the uploader is going to do that, if not we can ask Adam Cuerden if he could sort it out (I could also do it, he can do it better, I suspect). --Mirokado (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

GSV My Way Was Funnier

42.67.59.94 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why you got a reasonably friendly edit summary, not rollback and a message!

GSV Let the Punishment Fit the Crime. --Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Old Man

Hi Mirokado, re this, I did check and neither page number really does the job; it would require a range. I'm fairly certain I just tried to plug in some refs there and didn't write the text (I can't imagine writing "some critics" or using the word "overtly") and because it doesn't match with what I used to plug I took it out. I'll put a cn tag there and maybe someone else will take over. I am sorta kinda trying to work my way through Hemingway but got hung up on his very first book so don't see that initiative going farther but just wanted to say that if the ref style gets changed across all the articles I'd probably give those sources away. Life is too short to do all the required reading and to be technically proficient. On another note - I meant to stop by a very long time ago and thank you for your review of Saint Francis, especially since you finished when you were injured. I thought that was quite impressive and appreciated your fortitude. Best, Victoria (tk) 23:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Victoria, great to hear from you! Thanks for checking the page number and sorting that out. I'm not going to go on a rampage through Ernest's articles, but this one needed some tender loving care (and was already using the harvard links). Thanks too for the positive feedback, always welcome. It was a pleasure to review that article. I've recovered well from my "little trip", just some metal to remove at the end of this year. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It does need tender loving care and I'm happy to see someone doing it. I put in the harv links (probably inexpertly) but really just tried to plug holes. I'm happy to see that you sorted out the novel/novella problem - it needs an online link and I wasn't able to access what was there, so had to leave that messy. Metal to remove doesn't sound like fun. I'm even more impressed you were still reviewing after having the metal put in! Victoria (tk) 00:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your PR and FAC comments and/or edits to Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy editing schedule to help me. RO^(talk) 16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! You have now had two excellent and interesting featured articles in quick succession. Well done. --Mirokado (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cantab

Hello, Mirokado - I was looking at your user page, and I saw "Cantab". I skimmed the article on Post-nominal letters, but I still don't see how you get "Cantab" from the University of Cambridge. CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) --Mirokado (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's from the Latin Cantabrigiensis. Quite possibly a fourteenth-century neologism! --Mirokado (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Maybe Cantabrigiensis meant something. CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Amendments to Wiki pages about composer Kevin Malone

Hi Mirokado.

Thank you for your message. In the interest of accuracy, I added my name to the page (which, if you created the Composers' Pupils page - great work!) with an external reference for accuracy. The link to my website is verified by the university position and the data it posts about me.

Having my name appear in Wikipedia with a link to nowhere looks poor and doesn't help the reader believe in what is posted. I have had to correct many entries people have posted about me, with internal Wikipedia links often going to "Kevin Malone" the fictitious character in the American sit com "The Office.

By having my name link to a verifiable external website, it adds credibility to the good work you are doing (instead of it being a dead link).

I would like to ask that you reconsider how I am represented on your Composers' Pupils page. (I am not ready to have a Wiki page on myself since I am changing publishers at the moment, and there are legal aspects associated with public presentation.)

With thanks for your good work,

Kevin Malone

89.241.246.60 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! No I didn't create those pages, but it is good work by the main author, I agree. Articles get created about someone whenever an editor thinks that person is "notable", which means things like "has enough articles about them in independent, reliable sources". You would of course be very welcome to start editing Wikipedia yourself, but you really should not create an article about yourself. You would not in any way be responsible for any article created. The current redlink points to Kevin Malone (composer), which is what "your" article would be called and currently results in a "not so far" screen, not the other guy. The reference supporting the entry is your bio at ManU, which confirms your teachers. This is the normal way of adding someone to a list like this before there is a specific article about them. I will have a look when I have some free time in case there is enough for a starter article about you, but I don't think I can do anything different with the current list entries. --Mirokado (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comments, please

The PG discussion will close soon, so if you were planning to comment, it's now or never. EEng (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church and edit warring

I appreciate your well intentioned warning and I have taken it under advisement. I invite you to look at the article edit history in a little more detail. The "Bold" part of BRD was done by Chicbyaccident (talk · contribs), who first added the template. The "Revert" part was done by Zfish118 (talk · contribs) (in fact, he has reverted three times). After Farsight001 (talk · contribs) reverted Zfish118, the discussion began, which I have contributed to. If you happened to think that removal of the template by Zfish was the "Bold" part of BRD, I don't think you're quite correct. Zfish should have left the template in the article while the consensus discussion ensued. But I don't want to split hairs and I do appreciate your concerns. Best wishes! Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Depth and Length

Hi You have recently reverted my edit. Reason you gave there was rather ambiguous. Could you please explain a bit further?--UBEDJUNEJO 01:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • contribs)

Hi. Height and width are normal descriptions of the two dimensions at right angles to the direction of view, as in a painting. For a three dimensional object, depth is the conventional description of the third dimension. Length is more used for a measuremnt related to an object itself rather than a coordinate system. Thus the article was correct as originally written. --Mirokado (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tidying up Sibelius

Happy birthday!

Jean Sibelius
{{Jean Sibelius}}

Hello Mirokado. As you may have realized, we are trying to firm up Jean Sibelius for at least a GA by 8 December. I am hopeless with the "sfn" appraoch to citations but you may be able to help us out. I hope to be more or less finished with my additions to the music section by the end of the week. Thanks in advance for any help you can afford.--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes I will have a look at the article next weekend and beyond and let us hope we can celebrate his birthday in style. --Mirokado (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mirokado, for coming in time and time again and resolving problems problems with the sources. After I've recovered from the present need to get to GA for the anniversary, we might consider going for FAC in the New Year. In any case, you certainly deserve credit for the GA.--Ipigott (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome and I hope we can continue next year. I will probably add some little symbols to the top of my page now. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine for the problems problems, but what about the problems problems problems? EEng (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Mirokado, you promised to redo the arrows on that phrenology image over at Gage. Not to rush you or anything. Have you visited the Museums lately?

Ah, I continue to neglect you, EEng. Sorry. I won't have any time for the next two weeks, but will do it over Christmas and the New Year. Yes I always enjoy your museums. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Yes! Your Comments: Well, you asked nicely Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 16k Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 5 Your Comments: more-or-less contiguous including being currently active Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: D Your Comments: if not an admin, why not? why arbcom if not admin? Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: 3 Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Opabinia Regalis, Casliber, Timtrent, Gamaliel, Kelapstik, Callanecc, Kudpung, Drmies, Keilana Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: Mirokado (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC) General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: I will just say that I opposed every incumbent candidate because I am utterly dissatisfied with the performance of the current committee: although I have no problem trusting them as individuals, the committee was dysfunctional, so the more change the better. Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Dennis Brown Your Comments: cool and trustworthy Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: I wanted to influence a change of the current membership. Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Just as I am not keen on candidates with an obvious bee in their bonnet, I would not want to see too much emphasis on any of the above: we need people who have a solid track record of content work for its own sake and the time, patience and attention to detail needed to deal with our most difficult disputes. Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Not really interested which, contributions spread over several administrative areas will enable us to assess character and temperament. Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Y Your Comments: Happy for deletions (for or against) to be part of someone's activities, but if that becomes what they enjoy most, they are not a suitable candidate, for anything. Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: Mirokado (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC) General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Still a few bugs in the system

Guess what? When you changed to the curvy arrows in the phrenology diagram, the inside of the "brain" got all messed up. Here's the old version [11] and here's the new [12]. I don't know how I missed this until now -- too distracted admiring the arrows, I guess. I've reverted. Anyway, don't worry about it -- the straight arrows are OK. EEng 04:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Har, I didn't notice that either. Sorry! The picture is constructed with various layers for main picture, inset, arrows and so on (they are in the working file, you don't see separate layers in the uploaded file), there is probably some junk hiding in one of the layers. I won't be able to look at it today but will check as soon as I have some free time, should be easy to fix when I have some time to concentrate on it. --Mirokado (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, M, this has taken way too much of your time. Let's just use the old straight-arrow version. I don't think any less of you. EEng 09:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, @EEng: Failure is not an option! It was as I suspect some junk lying around in one of the layers in the image source, should be OK now. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! Now, something else: do you have anything to do with featured pictures? EEng 22:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)**

  No, I'm afraid not. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures would be a first stop... --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)