User talk:BirgitteSB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

About archives • Edit this box

[edit] Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

I left a comment to your concerns on the talk page on the ridiculous amount of NPOV tags for various Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc captives. Retropunk (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this. I am sorry to see it still is quite a mess, but it doesn't make my priority list right now.--BirgitteSB 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed both your comment and retropunk's comment.

I had half a dozen small files that I had transcluded. This image and its caption was the largest. I didn't know that this was a use of transclusion that was contrary to policy. It seems a lot of people, include BSF, didn't know that. Geo Swan (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The catagory seems to be all cleaned-up now. Thanks for taking care of this.--BirgitteSB 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Unsolicited Advice

Just so you know, I put a reference HERE to the "Unsolicited Advice" on your User page. Thanks for the thoughtful advice. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you liked it.--BirgitteSB 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For common sense.[1] DurovaCharge! 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grave goods

Man, it's been a while since I've monkeyed with that one. At any rate, I remembered some of the things I had looked at back when I was writing on the article - things were a lot looser back in the Good Old Days - and I've added them in and updated the tag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirlston:Islamist

Thanks for asking for my input. I thought about it and have put a merge tag to Islamism - I believe is the intended meaning of Islamist is someone who ascribes to Islamism. What do you think? Glad to "meet" you.--Kiyarrllston 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghosting (identity theft)

(repeating your message for clarity:) I see you have a history of working on the article Ghosting (identity theft). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I merely did copyediting on that article. It was tagged for cleanup and was one of the oldest in that category. I have no references available. RJFJR (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperative Center for Study Abroad

Thanks for your message and info.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references

I am a collector of newspaper comic strips, and my reference for articles on comic strips is the primary source, the strips themselves, which is obviously preferable to any secondary source. Secondary sources are always subject to mistakes, copying and otherwise. Going to the primary source eliminates one step and one possbile source of errors. (Also, in the field of comic strips, there are number of secondary sources, Horne's Encyclopedia for example, that are notorious for the number of mistakes they contain.)

So, my reference for Walt Disney's Treasury of Classic Tales is Walt Disney's Treasury of Classic Tales, just as one might list as a reference for the article on Treasure Island the book Treasure Island, by Robert Lewis Stevenson. I hope you can help me with the correct way to indicate this in the bibliography.

Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice needed - Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

Hi, I've managed to track down and add a couple of references for Empire of Japan (foreign commerce and shipping). However, they do not cover the statistics which make up most of the article. Should I just replace {{unreferenced}} with {{refimprove}} and move on, or should I take out all the stats? I don't want the article to languish in [[Category:Articles needing additional references]] for as long as it has been in unreferenced articles as it seems to defeat the object of the project? For now I've left the {{unreferenced}} template in place, as I'd like some advice? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will try to that do that from now on! ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physalin

Done. Glad to help. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Trust

I would like to nominate you to be an admin. You have my trust, and I think the you have trust of the community.

English Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community

I will understand if you decline, but would very much like you to accept. May I nominate you? Jeepday (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response at my talk Jeepday (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, about time. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• There was never a doubt in my mind of the outcome. Thank you for accepting. Jeepday (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no need

I probably should've asked him at his user talk. Sorry for that, and please rest assured it's not my intention to enter a full-fledged discussion in your RfA. At any rate, the logic of that argument is profoundly flawed, as we both know. Moreover, people should be ready to be confronted by others picking their comments apart invalid conclusion by invalid conclusion. Dorftrottel (harass) 17:45, March 27, 2008

Shoot. I just realised that I actually bothered two different people in your RfA. So, sorry twice. Dorftrottel (harass) 17:49, March 27, 2008

Congrats. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:25, April 1, 2008

Sorry, was a bit premature. Got confused by the temporary delisting of the RfA... Dorftrottel (ask) 19:27, April 1, 2008

[edit] minor correction from Signpost

Hi, I don't wish to minimize all the great work you've done but, at the risk of sounding petty, I believe you've misremembered details of your example of work on Fuzzy Wuzzy. Not a big deal, but it jumped out at me for obvious reasons. BanyanTree 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

This has not closed yet, but I feel safe in offering my congratulations. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a well-deserved promotion, Birgitte. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! :) SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much--BirgitteSB 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, now congrats. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 05:48, April 3, 2008
• Congrats. miranda 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Great news. Saw your thank you on the RfA talk page. Pedro :  Chat  08:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Congrats also. PhilKnight (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well done! Rudget (review) 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Congrats. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin t-shirt OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations! And enjoy this free t-shirt! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Congrats on becoming a sysop!!Mifter (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Congratulations on a successful trip through RfAland. Is it still customary from new admins to block all those who opposed their RfA for a month and block those voted neutral for a week? I'm sure the administrators' reading list will answer a lot of your questions like that. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Congrats, by the way. May all of your dramas be swiftly archived. Best wishes, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Othman III

Per your stated intent, I have closed this debate as withdrawn by nominator, citing the diff of your withdrawal. I don't see any other issues here, except that you might consdier a page move if there's a better title for this individual - the source indicated might help with that. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found some sources but haven't had time to examine them closely enough to decide about a page move.--BirgitteSB 13:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CrimethInc. peer review update

Yo Birgitte, thank you so much for your review of the CrimethInc. article, it was most thought-provoking. If you have some more time to spare, I have followed up your comments on the peer review page. Regards, Skomorokh 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of timekeeping devices

I was wondering if you could help peer review the above article. It's part of a large collaboration right now for FA, and we'd appreciate your help. The peer review is here. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thule Society

[edit] AfD nomination of Thule Society

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thule Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thule Society. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guantanamo Image POV issue

Hi - I saw your comments on this editor's page regarding the POV tags on the photo captions. I had actually made a request for editor assistance with this. No one has yet answered and I followed it up with a request on this editor's talk page (and again no answer). It's my opinion that there is still a POV issue with this photo caption used in dozens of pages; I tried to help out with this by making it less POV, but the editor keeps reverting my edits. Any thoughts/opinions? BWH76 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, where is the dispute? What talk page are you guys trying to work this out on? Help me figure that out and I will see what I think about it.--BirgitteSB 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the million dollar question. The disagreement was on a talk page of an article that was deleted. So, I guess I'm basically no help to you there. It was originally here; I'm not sure if that is at all helpful for you. If it would help resolve the POV issue with these captions, I will make another edit to one of these articles including the text I believe to be better posting my reasons why. I've just been cautious re-reverting these articles as I'm not interested in the slightest of being involved in an edit war. BWH76 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are aware there is a dispute (which you are), you need to stop editing and start talking. Please don't get into reverting. I know the "where to talk" is an issue right now, but it not an excuse to edit war--BirgitteSB 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm right there with you on this, though I may have just made a mistake by reverting this page and explaining it here. If that was a mistake to do, then I'll undo my revert myself. I've tried to talk this over with the other editor, but it led nowhere (which is why I made the requests for outside opinions). BWH76 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you should revert yourself, but don't continue with similar edits. I am not going to be able to keep up with right this minute. But I did restore and move the page you mentioned above to User:BirgitteSB/Talk:Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. So you can all refer to the information there. Maybe try and have comprehensive disscusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. And to all of the disputants that might read this: Work out a compromise. Don't wait for me to have time to give this my full attention.--BirgitteSB 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much for your assistance with this. If I screwed up with the revert I made (as described above), please let me know. Either I will revert it myself until the dispute is resolved or I'll do whatever the next step should be. Again, the last thing I want to do with Wikipedia is to be dragged into an edit war, so any advice you or other may offer would be greatly appreciated. Sorry to take up your time with this! BWH76 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My advice is that you cannot be dragged into an edit, you can either choose to continue one or choose to avoid one. When trying to resolve a dispute focus on if X is accurate, neutral, and relevant rather than if X is what Foo wrote or whether Foo is biased.--BirgitteSB 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV's

I'm in the process of ensuring that each of the Christianity projects have a todo list template somewhere on their pages. The new template on the top of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page would probably be the best place to put anything though. Considering their size, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism might be able to address a few as well, with the to do list on the top of their talk page. I'm going to be going through some of the other, smaller, projects' articles myself, and I can add the various, probably smaller, number of articles relevant to them as I encounter them. And feel free to put in anything you see fit to in the boxes, POV, merges, verify's, copyedits, cleanup, etc. The only question is whether the weekly basis would necessarily be the best way. The Christianity Project has a newsletter for its members, and we might add some of the oldest problem articles to it in the near future. If we do that, maybe we'd want to keep those articles in the list for the entire period of that newsletter, I dunno. But at this point a lot of that is still theoretical anyway, with the coordinators not taking office officially until the end of the month. But I think we'd all welcome anything you saw fit to do. Thank you very much for the offer. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Weekly would be best for small lists (like 5 articles). So every week it would be fresh articles that might inspire someone. That would be my reccomendation. People are more likely to ignore what seems either overwhelming or stale. You could use the newletter to highlight one sort of backlog and keep several on the Wikiproject page. I will start something.--BirgitteSB 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V move

What is the page being moved to? I would like to help eliminate all of the red links caused by the deletion. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The page was moved from another one, I see. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that one red link from the deletion of Wikipedia:Verifiability is on every single edit page... oh I think you just fixed it. :) Seeing red THERE made me do a double take! ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think something must have been worng with the software. I had done a "Delte and Move" but only the "Delete" went through. I was moving it back because of page move vandalism, but I kept getting error messages from the software. It should be fixed now and the red links should be blue.--BirgitteSB 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I blame you (and moreso our move vandal, I just closed his AfD nom for him) for the database locks just now, that page is referenced from a gazillion places ... :) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I blame your lack of move-protecting such a page weighted towards every action you have taken as an admin which was not a move-protection of that page so that you have more blame than me :) --BirgitteSB 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:History of Islamic science

Thanks for notifying me of removing the {{POV}} tag from this category, I believe the category should be renamed to something like "science in the Islamic world" I don't pretend to know the best name. For the same reason that the Inventions in the Islamic world article was renamed from "Islamic Inventions". I have many issues with the content of that article but I think the name is correct. I can't see how science can be Islamic, but I do accept that there was a region now known as "The Islamic world" in which many discoveries were made. I recognize I should take the category to WP:CFD and suggest it to be renamed but it has many sub categories and taking them all to WP:CFD is a bit beyond my wiki-talents Oxyman42 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject needing help

Hi there Brigitte. I'm reaching you because I have a problem that I can't seem to find an answer to, and you might be able to help in some way as it seems you are involved with the community portal and wikiprojects. I am part of the Fashion WikiProject and to my regret I have to say that the coverage of fashion related topics is extremely poor, as such that it might be considered one of the most poorly covered subjects on Wikipedia. Most of the members of the wikiproject are inactive. So what I would basically need is a way to advertise the project so more people become interested in it. That's why I am asking you, do you know a way to attract people's attention to a project somewhere on wikipedia ? And if you don't know the answer to that, maybe you could direct me towards some people that might have the answer ? Thanks anyways :) Thiste (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had added it a few months ago and it did not do a lot but thanks anyways :) I have thought about advertising on some fashion forums I know about but my point was, advertising on wikipedia would be far more effective as people would already know what they're doing and how wikipedia works. Too bad nothing exists on wikipedia to make people aware that some areas of knowledge are dreadfully lacking... Thiste (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll take your advice then. Not sure about those people's motivation to work on wikipedia but I guess it's my best take. Thanks again for advice :) Thiste (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog template

Thanks for adding the {{backlog}} template back where it was needed. I'm getting ready to start some analysis on the enwiki database dumps, and thought I'd focus on tasks that have a backlog (hence why I was cleaning up the list at Category:Wikipedia backlog.) --Sapphic (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Database_analysis/enwiki-20080312

I've started getting some useful results from my reporting scripts, which you can track at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Database_analysis/enwiki-20080312. I'll continue to post summaries and links to more detailed reports there. I've updated Wikipedia:Dusty articles already, and will be updating some reports related to backlogs soon. --Sapphic (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--BirgitteSB 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Seyhan Kurt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Seyhan Kurt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyhan Kurt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8539 (novel)

Noticed you added a primary source tag at the top of the article replacing the previous unreferenced tag. But the article does not have any reference at all. Hence the tag should be unreferenced. Primary source tag is only needed when there are sources in the article, but they are not third party reliable source. But this article has no reference at all, hence unreferenced tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The novel is the (primary) source for the plot. All the details including ISBN number are given in the infobox for tracking down this source. Personally I don't like repeating information in the infobox at the bottom of the article unless it is used a footnoted citation. However I won't object if you want to reformat the information into your prefered format.--BirgitteSB 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Th

I noticed that you asserted that there is no consensus on merging some th-related articles. Is this based on the discussion at Talk:Phonological history of English dental fricatives? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a response there that Phonological history of English dental fricatives was a long enough article. And also the fact that someone felt strongly enough to split them off in the first place and no one has expressed any strong feeling about about remerging them over a year. Considering these were originally in one article rather than independently created I think the bar for merging is a little higher than otherwise and a year is long enough to make a decision.--BirgitteSB 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please create new my Account and delete my Subpage

Hello BrigitteSB,

please create my Account new (so that he is "red", no more "blue", so that there is no history to see in der user's page, the discussion-page a´nd in the subpage. Please crate even the subpage new, this would be very kind, and then please make this edit/sontributión (== Please create new my Account and Subpage ==) away on this your discussion-page, thank you in advice! Here the links to the pages to create new or better delete the subpage "User:Nup/staffalang".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nup&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nup&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nup/staffalang&action=history

Thank you in advice, Nup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.235.44 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot verify that this message is from the actual account holder. It is also confusing. You might be better off finding an admin who speaks your native language and then emailing him while signed in under your account name.--BirgitteSB 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)