User talk:Mirokado/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Que voulez-vous dire, j'ai edite a des moments differents, mais toutes les informations etaient correctes. --86.129.250.236 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Non, Sebastian Coe était Member of Parliament pour les Conservatives. Vous avez écrit Labour. Mirokado (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, je ne savais pas ça.

Desole!

J'ai pense que l'information etait erronee.

--86.129.250.236 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ich weiß es nicht, dass.

Entschuldigung!

Ich dachte, die Information falsch war.

-- 86.129.250.236 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Danke für die Meldung in deutscher Sprache! Aber französisch ist OK - eine gute Übung. J'espère que vous pouvez encore editer. Verifiez s'il vous plaît les choses différentes en avant—prière d'utilizer les reférences avec ref tags ou cite template pour les informations nouvelles, et de contribuer en Anglais aux articles Wikipedia anglais! Bonne chance! Mirokado (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The crap I removed from the summary does not belong in the summary. It should be in the Criticism section if it can be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.149.2 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Refers to these diffs. No edit war. Your edit summary said "poorly sourced" but I see nothing wrong with the source. You said nothing about summary/criticism. However the reason I reverted straight away was that your edit broke other references in the article and I revert technical errors on sight. If as I said in my summary the article contradicts the source, remove or correct the contradiction and make it clear what you are doing. I'm happy to let others watching the article deal with subtle issues of was your change right, as long as the change description matches what you have done and the article remains intact. Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your help with Hoover Dam was vital to seeing it pass as a FA. I hope you'll stay with the article and help get it on the main page in the fall!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. It was good fun, I learnt a lot and appreciated your encouragement and relaxed collaborative style. Yes I'll stay with the article. Mirokado (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thanks for all the aid and advice in getting Hoover Dam to FA! Today FAC, tomorrow the world! Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for my first barnstar! Mirokado (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I also made you a reviewer and rollbacker, please acquaint yourself with the relevant policies. Surprised it had to wait for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I will read up on those before using the new powahs. I've been fairly happy with Twinkle, but I do notice that people using Huggle, which needs rollback, often beat me to some changes. Not always though! Mirokado (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Refers to this edit.

Every link promotes a different site.

This link informs about the first major change in the catalytic industry in over 100 years. It is new, it is informative, it is needed information.

How else would you suggest adding this info? It is pertinent and on topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.165.93 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. Wikipedia is not the right place to announce new discoveries. As an encyclopedia it reports established knowledge. Information added must be verifiable. Verifiable includes independently-published, so information provided by the only firm marketing a new method does not qualify. See also Wikipedia:No original research which from what you say may also apply in this case.

I suggest you find (or if necessary wait for) scientific papers or articles published by reliable, independent sources which describe this new method. You can then decide which Wikipedia article is the best home for such information (perhaps this one, perhaps one on catalysis) and improve Wikipedia by writing new text for that article which references the sources you have found. You should also fill in the edit summary when saving the page so others can tell what you have changed and why. Mirokado (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for your edits to the Ninette de Valois article. I assume with you being a member of the dance project, that you understand the importance of the article and why I am wanting to develop it to (at least) Good Article status. I've now sat reading the article through a few times and apart from adding more in-line citations, I'm a bit stuck on what direction to go with it next. I was hoping you might have a few suggestions or ideas? Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yes I understand. The article is at present "a reasonable bio plus a few lists" and I can imagine it getting a ruthless reception in a review. Is there enough to say about her involvement with each of the companies she founded to make that an extra section (or one each) rather than having everything poured into the biography? Clearly link to the main articles for each as well. Similarly, there is an article for Checkmate but her choreographies are only listed here. This list should be filled out with descriptions of at least the most important (probably equivalent to anything for which good sources are available, perhaps first performance dates, refs for critical receptions, notable lead performers and their role, whatever else of interest you find from the references). Did she have a distinctive style in her dancing, choreography? Perhaps include selected quotes from the honour citations, but being careful not to be too sycophantic. Remember that the article should not only rely on a link to provide the reader with essential relevant information, but be self-contained. Ask yourself "Why will my reader be glad he read this article?" and try to be able to answer with a few high points.

Just for clarity, I've not yet been involved with any GA stuff, just minor assistance with one FA preparation and two or three FA reviews so far, so I'm not yet really clear where to draw a line for GA. Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, which lead me to think that the main priority should be less about the 'biography and more about her most notable work. Will have a little think today and give you a nudge when I've done a bit more work if that's okay? Thank again Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, I have started revising the Choreography section of the article. I have written an opening paragraph and a brief description of the ballet Job. Do you think this might be the right kind of thing? Crazy-dancing (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what I had in mind and the additions look good. Mirokado (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted your recent change to Christian IX of Denmark. There were several problems with it, most mentioned briefly in the change summary. I don't think you can add possibly-controversial new material based on a book that has not yet been published. The book needs to be published before it is referred to in Wikipedia otherwise the new content is original research.

Given the circumstances here, where a researcher with privileged access to the royal family's archive, I assume that 1) the reviewer is very trustworthy 2) the royal family would have objected by now if the information was not true. The information in book which I cite in the article has been summarized by several trustworthy national newspapers, who I assume have read the book (The linked newspaper Information for example say that they will publish a review). That is enough for a reference, IMO.

Will the book be self-published? - I could not see a publisher in the review.

With the amount of publicity this book has gotten, the number of reviews in national newspapers, and the privileged access to the monarchy's private archive, it will without a doubt not be self-published. The publisher is Gyldendal, btw [1].

Is the author a notable expert? The fact that he is quoted at the beginning of the review as having said "Holy shit!" makes one suspect not.

That is a silly argument. Expects are allowed to say "Holy shit!" too when they make a big discovery. They don't have to be an archetypal English aristocrat ("Dr Livingstone, I presume") to be an expert. The fact that he was the first person ever to be allowed access to the royal family's private archive from the Second War of Schleswig means that he can be assumed to be abundantly expertly and trustworthy. As the article also says, the author is a Lector at the South-Danish University. He has also previously published another book about the Second War of Schleswig.

You of course need a chance to read it before referring to it anyway.

There are 2 possible cases

1) The journalists have read the book, and are using the info from the book for their articles. In that case, I can cite their summaries as a reference.

2) The journalists are getting their info directly from Tom Buk-Swienty. Again I can cite the newspapers as a source.

Note that the primary source material, Christian IX's private archive, has only ever been read by Tom Buk-Swienty. So you are unlikely to get a second source to review Tom Buk-Swienty's accusations (except the royal family).

Also, the royal family would have objected loudly already if the information wasn't true.

Both book and review are in Danish, we should normally avoid relying on foreign-language references for basic confirmation of material that people may doubt - if there is no suitable secondary English reference the material is probably not suitable for the English Wikipedia.

Non-English sources are is OK with Wikipedia: Verifiability#Non-English_sources. I could not find a good English-language source.

If you think I am somehow misrepresenting the facts, but feel unable to check them in Danish, then post a request for review at

Wikipedia:Danish Wikipedians' notice board

.

The citation was completely broken "cite url=" instead of "cite web |url=" and there was no reflist definition - this may well have been just a typo and oversight, but we should always look at the article after editing to make sure everything is OK. I often catch myself out like that! It was also missing author and date details which were available in the review and an access date. Mirokado (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Identical material copy-pasted to Second Schleswig War including the broken template. Really rather careless not to check either article. I have undone that change too. Mirokado (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the broken reference.

Thue | talk 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it seems that the offer was previously known, according to Inge Adriansen, cheif of Museum Sønderjylland [2]. So the information has already been verified by an independent expert. Thue | talk 08:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Stubs Notes in Motion David Quayle Restless Dance Company Erik Tuxen Sir William Cunliffe Brooks, 1st Baronet Dance in Canada Australian Dance Theatre Bangarra Dance Theatre Dance troupe Logan Henderson Launy Grøndahl Hugh Williams (judge) Rosalind Newman Tom Fleming (actor) Military of Swaziland Dancin Unlimited Emil Telmányi Leigh Warren & Dancers Slip jig

Cleanup Dirk dance Tea dance Danza Contemporanea de Cuba Merge Linguistic discrimination Dance film Regimental colours Add Sources United Kingdom general election, 2010 Wayne Eagling Thomas Jensen Wikify Royal Danish Orchestra Cincinnati Ballet Melbourne String Ensemble Expand Early Symphonies Mike O'Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge Minuscule 364

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Well done on your excellent contribution to Disabled sports. You are a credit to Wikipedia Andrewricereturns (talk ) 10:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the

) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

São Paulo

I'm not removing valid content of the article

talk

) 17:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment, Heitor. This is now being discussed on the São Paulo talk page. You really need to join that discussion... I have quoted your comment and responded to it there. — Mirokado (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I will soon upload a new version of the file, thanks for warning. Regards.
  talk
  ) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Mirokado,

I would appreciate anything you can do to bring the wheelchair trainer page up to the Wikipedia disability standards. I have requested other researchers to participate, but none have volunteered. The page still lacks some pictures although the tags, patents and reference links provide some examples. I have worked on various research apparatus like these over the past 5 years and believed that the subject warranted a Wikipedia page, but I lack the specific knowledge of formatting the text. Thank you for your assistance, Christopher Stanford, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.179.230 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Christopher, I will be happy to help. I suggest we discuss wiki editing skills on your talk page—I'll leave a message there now (please always remember to sign in!) and anything to do with the WT article on the WT talk page so other editors can also take account of the information. Section title changed to something more specific. Mirokado (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mirokado. I was interested to see you have been contributing to articles related to Denmark. In particular, I have looked in some detail at the work you have been doing to improve the article on Carl Nielsen. I have also seen the assessment made by Magicpiano. While I agree that the article is weak on inline citations and does not contain very much about how Nielsen's music was received during his lifetime, I certainly do not agree that it should be nothing more than a start class article. If you wish, we could try to work together on this. Carl Nielsen is one of Denmark's most important contributors to culture and is certainly the country's most important composer. For this reason alone, the article deserves to be improved. I would suggest the following:

• Citations: If you wish to make use of references from books, it is best not just to cite the details of the book itself but the page number for each citation. See, for example, Johann Strauss II. I see you have done quite a lot of detailed research in this direction and you may therefore be in a position to fill in some of the gaps yourself. However, as the bulk of the article had been written before you became interested, in many cases this might be difficult. I would therefore propose to give inline references to internet resources such as the extensive biography from the Carl Nielsen Society or shorter internet biographies like the one from Classical Net. The advantage here is that these are comparatively easy to search. Finally, I would suggest that if suitable inline citations cannot be found, then the passage should be removed or replaced by something that can be documented.
• The lead: at the moment this is very poor. It does not really give an overview of the composer and his life. I would suggest something along the lines of the leads to the articles on Jean Sibelius and Edward Elgar. If you wish, I could have a go at this.
• Reception: I agree with Magicpiano that the article needs a section on how Nielsen's music was received. The Sibelius article deals with this quite well. Reactions after individual performances could also be included. I could try to make a start on this.
• General presentation: I think much more could be done to make the article more appealing, for example by introducing more and better illustrations and by using better formatting and more subsections. It is rather "dry" at the moment.
• Wider coverage: The article deals essentially with Nielsen's symphonic music. His many other compositions should be covered too. We are, after all, writing an encyclopedic article.

If you agree with this approach, we could work together. But if you feel too upset by Magicpiano's assessment, just let me know and I'll see what I can do myself. - Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes let's work together by all means. Starting off as you have suggested sounds fine. So far I have been clearing some of the undergrowth and getting distracted by matters arising! I've suggested a push for his 150th anniversary, here and here, but no response to date.

• Citations
  • I can provide references from some of the books (see User:Mirokado/QA_for_Carl_Nielsen) including the Lawson biography. I will add any more as I get them. I would like to move the citation definitions to the Reflist before we get too many more. This makes it easier to edit the article text and much easier to maintain the references themselves, particularly for consistency across articles. Online references are as you say very helpful. I think we should have both where possible for complete coverage (which is in any case needed for FA). The inline references act as jumping-off points for the interested reader as well as being the formal justifcation for the presence of the content.
  • Please rewrite or tag content with Citation needed etc rather than removing it straight away (unless of course it is obvious drivel). We never know who may be inspired to fix the problem and it is then easy to tidy up as necessary.
• Wider coverage
  • The Centenary Essays provide one basis for subsections introducing Nielsen's musical output. I will start reading. — Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got back to me so quickly on this. As you noticed, I've already started to add some bits and pieces are the article. One thing that bothers me is that there are so many actual quotes (between quote marks) in the text rather than more neutral comments with references. In some sections, the article looks as if it is more a less a summary of one author's views. My own feeling is that all these quotes (especially Fanning's) should be checked against other sources and reduced to reported style if they are really valid. What do you think? I realise this could take some time and effort and may not be a priority. Then we really need to expand on the actual compositions. But one thing at a time.

And I don't want to fill the article with "citation needed" or "fact" tags. I'll try to add what I can and leave the rest to you. BTW, great article on Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen. She also sculpted a statue of Nielsen. See here. Will also look at what you have in mind for Nielsen's 150th anniversary later. - Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tided up the references so far. I think it will be much easier to maintain them now, particularly any shared with other articles. If you are happier adding the refs in the text and without Cite*, by all means continue to to that. If you don't mind I will "tidy up" every now and again...

I'm not all that happy about copying so much content from other encyclopedias anyway. I'm certainly not going to buy any of the Grove editions to verify things! I haven't so far seen some of the information in any of the books I have.

It is easier to avoid direct quotations when more references are used. It is a pleasure though to quote a particularly good choice of words now and again and, since we are basically only allowed to repeat information already written by others, an essential courtesy. Sometimes it can make clear that something really does originate from the source and is not an addition from the editor. Without a special reason, we can rephrase.

I'm pleased you enjoyed Anne Marie's article. I'd like to add another section on her major works once I have collected more information and perhaps taken a few photos next year. Mirokado (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of "letting the punishment fit the crime" I realised that I had better "tidy up" Anne Marie too. I discover that using the Sfn and SfnRef templates really does tidy things up: there is no more need to define extra names for each duplicated ref and the short refs can be consistently short. I will apply the lesson learnt to other articles as appropriate. Mirokado (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to provide references without using Cite... I have never found it easy to use the syntax and, in the past, I found that there were always people who wanted to change things anyway. So it's great if you come back from time to time and tidy things up. As you may have noticed, I have been providing some background on the concertos. There is in fact an enormous amount of information available on these, especially from the KB, and I have been wondering whether it would not be more logical to write separate articles on these (or one on the three concertos) with only short summaries in the Nielsen article. This may become necessary if I also expand on some of his other music. The other problem at the moment is that there are virtually no references to the short descriptions of the symphonies, and indeed other parts of the music section. I'll try to find some suitable refs but it may entail rewriting some of them unless you know where they came from. My research is also producing quite a few insights for the "reception" section which remains to be written. Here it would also be useful to comment on how his music was received abroad, especially in German, France, Britain and the United States, and the extent to which reviews coincided (or did not coincide) with those in Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries. Also CN's popularity today (as compared, for example, to Sibelius and other contemporaries) deserves attention. Any assistance you can provide would be useful.

On your interest in the 150th anniversary of CN's birth in 2015, I should congratulate you on looking so far ahead. Perhaps we should first be aiming at the 80th anniversary of his death (next year) which is already being mentioned in connection with concerts abroad. In any case, in my opinion we should be able to produce a pretty good article on CN within a few weeks (rather than months or years), especially if we can rally a bit more support. Thereafter, the bulk of the work on CN will probably consist of articles specifically about his various compositions. There are over 30 articles on Sibelius' compositions whereas there are only 13 about CN's. The quality of these is often very poor and, surprisingly, we cannot get any help from the Danish Wikipedia. So there's lots to be done. Looking forward to your comments on all this. After I get your views, I think I should put something on the CN article talk page although I am not too optimistic about getting reactions. - Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent additions, well done. As soon as the sections are detailed enough we could have articles for each major work so that the CN article provides a balanced overview. An additional article on the evolution of his musical style covering orchestral and chamber music might be a better bet than one for just the three concertos, if that also becomes too much for the main article. I imagine the unsourced paragraphs are taken from the encyclopedia citations. Probably better to provide equivalent information from sources accessible to us: let the punishment fit the crime.

The 80th anniversary is a good idea, I had not thought of that. There will be plenty left for later, I'm sure! Putting something on the talk page is sensible, at which point this conversation could continue there (probably in various sections as the topics dictate) so it is easier for others to join in. I may be a bit less active for a week or two because of a business trip. Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have finished adding the relevant sections from the "sit-to-stand" lift page to the "sling lift" or "patient lift" wiki page. I believe the sit-to-stand page can now be deleted.

Thank you for guiding this merge process.

Comment or questions are welcome. JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.41.245 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those updates and it's been a pleasure to work with you. I have added a couple more sentences and the picture from StsL and reorganised the sections a bit. Now we need to make the article look as if it was always designed as a whole, so some further changes will be needed as part of normal improvement. – Mirokado (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. All we need is a good picture of a ceiling lift, a free standing lift, and a sit-to-stand lift. JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.40.120 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

		WikiProject Disability Barnstar
		Awarded for hard work and excellence in contributing to WikiProject Disability. Awarded by: Roger (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Roger, what a nice surprise! I will add this to my user page once I decide how to modify the layout for more than one barnstar. Mirokado (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How did you get the underline below the heading spaced like that? On my page it cuts off the tails of the "j" and "y". Can you fix it in the template? Roger (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the result of the vertical-align: middle style (or valign="middle") which is applied to the cells (copied from the Teamwork Barnstar above on my user page.) I think that gives a more balanced presentation. Also, if you lose the br/ tag before the user name the dialog can expand to full width (otherwise you need some padding for the title to the right). There is also probably no need to make the sig smaller. See the other barnstar whose layout seems to be common to many. Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've just about completed my additions to the CN article for the time being. From now on, it will mainly be a matter of tidying up, perhaps adding more images and media files, finding pertinent references for some of the unreferenced passages and working on the overall presentation. Perhaps you would also like to look at my recent comments to Francesco on the article's talk page. Maybe the descriptions of the various works are too long and should be further summarised. What do you think?

I would very much appreciate further assistance on this if you can spare the time and have the inclination. I would also be interested in having your own advice on where we should go from here. - Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done for your excellent writing over the last month or so. You have created a good basis for any further work. I will be away for a few days now but will then respond in more detail and no doubt join in the editing. Mirokado (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Mirokado. Have a look at the Carl Nielsen talk page. Somehow, the bot tells us, we've got into a mess with the refs. Probably my fault. I'm not too familiar with the citation templates and may well have created refs from the same general article to address different sections. Then, by pooling resources from the separate articles on CN's compositions, they seem to be causing conflicts in the main article. You seem to be an ace with these things and can perhaps sort them out. If I do not hear from you by this time tomorrow, I'll try to sort it out myself by giving different names (chamber1, chamber2, chamber3, etc.) to different sections of the same chapter. May I take this opportunity of saying that I have more or less finished the reworking of the article's music section which was called for. I hope it meets the requirements. I would now like to go through the whole article once again for language, presentation, illustrations, etc. I still feel it could do with a few more media files. I don't know whether you can help out here. In any case, any general improvements you may be willing to make would be highly appreciated. I've now spent about five weeks on Carl Nielsen and would soon like to move on to something else. Thanks for your support. - Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

After I looked into the ref problem more closely, I discovered that all the KB PDF files became dead links when copied into refs. I have therefore directed all KB refs to the index page at http://www.kb.dk/en/kb/nb/mta/cnu/forord_kilder.html. However, I have tried to maintain the name of the author (where given) and also the specific section or chapter in question. This is why a ref tag with a name would not be appropriate for all. I don't know if there's a better way of handling this but I have not found one up to now. I'll now have to go through all the compositions doing the same thing! - Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm back now and will start looking at things again on Sunday. Mirokado (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you too, very much. Bib (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I really hate edit wars. The reason I feel these templates should be linked is because there used to be individual pages for the different forms of ethnic and religious discrimination. Yes, you are somewhat (not completely correct) that this is semi-covered by xenophobia, racism, and religious discrimination however when I went to say Xenophobia for example Anti-Americanism, Anti-Canadianism, and Anti-Zionism were not even mentioned on that page. Now you could possibly argue that they are not needed because the general form is already covered but isn't that kinda like saying we shouldn't list misogyny or antisemitism because sexism and racism already cover that. I think wikipedia is meant to cover everything however, I agree with keeping the template small. I'm asking politely please put the template links back or come up with another way to show the diversity of discriminatory forms. If you do not agree please talk to me about it. You are a really good intentioned editor and I hope that you will realize I am too. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't removed the template links this time, just piped them and put the links in alphabetical order, but I will be looking for ways to reduce the duplication. If you have noticed things missing in Xenophobia, or wherever, please improve the articles (including good supporting references) rather than complicating the navigational aids. Yes I know we both mean well! --Mirokado (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were totally going in another direction. With the discrimination sidebar there is so much attempts to make it smaller it is throwing out important forms of discrimination. The whole point of wikipedia is for people to learn. And there are several diverse forms of discrimination but they will never learn this if they don't know where to look. But obviously you had very different goals in mind so I apologize. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, my original update was careless in any case. --Mirokado (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"How should I respond to vandalism after a final warning if nobody has noticed it in the previous four hours?" In such cases ("user edited for 7 min 4 hrs ago") just check if there are some unreverted edits from that IP and don't report - blocking would not be efficient. However, if vandalism from that IP was spread for longer than (about) 24 hours, then blocking might be warranted, as there is some indication they will return. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I share this information with you as it has been passed down my family through 5 generations. OK my take on it is humorous, but I believe it to be true. The only fact that needs to be verified is Sheamus Zipser's fastenings company, however I am unable to find any information on him as the company was relatively short lived, for obvious reasons. I'd be grateful if you would leave my edit in place until you can provide any evidence to the contrary. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulotoole (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that is not how Wikipedia works. It is an encyclopedia which means that all its content must be

verifiable. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page which has links explaining the importance of reliable sources. --Mirokado (talk

) 07:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you do stalk me

I see your username on a lot of the articles I either start or heavily edit... Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Hello. I did wonder about making those changes so I will explain. Pages I have edited remain automatically on my watch list. If they are low traffic there is little reason to remove them. If they are high traffic and the changes seem boring I may remove them. Your talk page is on my watchlist because I edited it and it is fairly low traffic (and anyway nobody is going to suggest that you are boring). Also various fellow members of the Disability project are on my watchlist in case any relevant issues are mentioned first on their talk pages.

That means that if you add an "I have now created..." comment to your user page I see that and sometimes I have a look. Why else do you add that information? In this case I saw a nicely written article with lots of references and a few Manual of Style issues, which I corrected straight away as a matter of routine. You can take the fact that I bothered as a compliment. I for example am always glad once somebody else has also improved an article I have written.

I can take you off my watchlist if you wish, but bear in mind that I will then be treating you differently from other Disability project members and I don't want to do that... --Mirokado (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the missing "and"... appreciated. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mirokado! I'm glad you approved of the discussion format I put up; thank you also for your helpful modifications to the talk page section discussing the sweeping changes made to our Gaza flotilla raid article. Moving the first change out of the "collapse" was a good plan; I presume that once that discussion is complete that you'll want to do so with the second, third, fourth, & etc?

That would also seem a good plan to me, but just to avoid having the whole "17+2 section" become too visually "busy" I wonder what you'd think of adding a second "collapsed" section to where we'd move completed segments of the discussion once we've reached consensus on each? The idea would be to have one collapsed section for "to do" items, which we already have, and to create a second one for "done" items, and then to leave just the one that's under current active discussion "visible". If we do that, some modification to the "title" on each of the green-colored "bars" for each collapse might be helpful, as well.

If we do adopt such a three-part "to do/current/done" formatting partition scheme, I'd also suggest that we keep only the currently-under-discussion references visible, as well, rather than aggregating them all into a single section. I like your choice to place the references for the currently-under-discussion edit at the bottom of the whole "17+2" section, btw. But I think we ought to move those references to inside the differently-shaded green box that contains the text under discussion, though, before moving the discussion of a particular edit to the "done" collapse. Or if anyone else introduces a alternate proposed text, with its own references, we'd of course have to keep each respective proposal's local refs section with its correct "body" text, imo.

It's tedious to have to think about such things, of course, but discussions do seem to meander so, without some kind of strong formatting, particularly when there's so much to discuss.

Also, I'll just say that I appreciate your exactitude both in reviewing that first of the 17+2 edits, and in having provided the formatting and references to present your proposed text. I'm not anything like so current as you re the sources for this article, and I really appreciate that help.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Yes we can add a collapsed section for closed discussions. I think we can do that when the first one is closed. The title for the first collapse could just be "Closed discussions" or similar. The less that has to be modified all the time the better.

The references are structured so that any which are defined only once in the article are defined inline so there is no problem with them. Any which appear multiple times are list-defined. I was hoping to do that for the article itself this evening but it will take a bit longer. I think it is OK if there are more refs in the talk list than in the currently open section, so we just don't remove things from the list. The refs will be updated in the article along with the results of completed discussions: those in the talk can evolve with the discussion anyway if they change at all so I don't think we need provide duplicate lists. --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mirokada - I just wanted to say hello. :) I see you've been diligently looking after the Sibelius page for quite a while. As you'll have seen I've recently started putting some work into it too. Since I've only just begun to take on more than casual copyedits on WP I'm probably making plenty of mistakes. However, I feel that the content I've been adding is basically sound and fills some gaps in the article, although I'm not at all certain I'm getting the balance right as regards detail and inline citation. Anyway I hope the "Reception" section can be reframed as necessary as it develops. I've chosen to work on Sibelius because I love his music and I think the article still has considerable potential for improvement. Please feel free to let me know if you feel I'm making any serious blunders. I'm also trying to contribute to 'Arnold Bax', 'Vernon Handley' and a few other related pages. Hope to see you around MistyMorn (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [Rob]

Hello to you MistyMorn. Yes I had noticed that you had been editing Sibelius a bit! I've just taken a quick look at your latest changes to Life and work and I think that you should be providing more inline references. It is much, much easier to do that as you update the content with your source in front of you than for you or someone else to try to find the right page or whatever later. Also, part of improving the article would be finding suitable inline references for paragraphs etc currently without. I will have a further look and post any more detailed comments on your or the article's talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips MK - I really appreciate that. Actually, the changes I've (just) made so far to 'Life and Work' were really only copyedits to try to improve the flow a bit. I feel this step helps me gradually get familiar with the current text before embarking on content additions and appropriate (I hope!) inline refs. I'll certainly try to start to tackle it once I feel ready... Where I have been trying to add content is in the 'Reception' section, which seemed to me to be rather skewed towards what one might call "academic reception". I realise that some of the stuff I've been adding is probably a bit more detailed than much of the rest of the article, but I hope it'll all eventually come out in the wash. Btw, I apologise for all the multiple edits - right now, I feel more comfortable working in small bites. MistyMorn (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize the authorlink was in there, I think I formatted the ref for a different page and reused it here. Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thought it would be something like that! --Mirokado (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello: I noticed you edited Jesse Ehrenfeld's page. He is no longer at MGH. Thank you.

Thanks. I have removed MGH from "a current position", would need a reliable source for anything more definite. --Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI (I have corrected it): You have changed the name of an image file by inserting a nbsp-dash here] Christian75 08:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. advisor.js is quite useful but it does not skip filenames and I although I check the diffs before saving it is always possible for something to slip through. I also normally check the article display after the edit, clearly I forgot to do that this time. --Mirokado (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest can I ask what brought you to the page? Your involvement is welcome, but do you have any particularly expertise or interest in the subject? As regards this:

Please both of you stop edit warring

I have to say I object to the description of adding

) 04:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why I may look at an article.

I did review the article history before taking action and I see classic signatures of an ongoing edit war including back to back reversions. I was not specifically referring to any single edit. It should be clear that after an initial decisive and much needed intervention, I have started to work with other editors to reach consensus. --Mirokado (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your message read and noted.Swansnic (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your hard work on Rambhadracharya which helped us to make it a GA. Thanks a lot! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much! I will add it to my user page "soon". --Mirokado (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding User:OOODDD and I'm letting you know in case you'd like to participate. Elizium23 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know - if you create a page in error, then just add {{

00:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I hope I will do that so infrequently that I will forget again! --Mirokado (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, M.
At Anne McCaffrey, I daresay that I am responsible for increasing the count of numbered in-line references from 2 to 80, and for writing 90% of the lead and section Life. (I am surprised now to see the nature of my first contribution, 2011-06-27. Select the left column heading "Revision as of 23:18, 22 March 2011" to see the preceding version of the article.)

P.S. I am not familiar with that Harvard system. I gather that it supports this.[3]

Just now I have experimented with three versions of the reference currently numbered 54.

Unfortunately I must run. --P64 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I had noticed from the list of contributors that you are by far the main contributor. You have already done well with the short references to Dragonholder. What you have done works nicely with just one book with a snappy, recognisable title. It would not be so effective once we have lots of references to different books. Thus I am suggesting that we change now to make subsequent work on the article easier.

The Harvard system is described at {{Harvard citation}}. I suggest we use that as it makes it easy for a reader to jump from various shortish references with page numbers to a single detailed citation of the relevant book. The two new references to Pringle's books illustrate that. The source (what we edit) is clearer if we allow the templates to generate the presentation they have been designed for ({{Sfn}} generates "Authors date, p. 123" for example). We can generate "Title 123" by using longer code which will be less maintainable, as you can also see in the Dragonholder examples in the current article. Sfn consolidates refs to the same book and with the same page number to a single reference automatically, which is useful once there are many such references.

Thanks for trying out some alternatives for ref 54. I suggest, and would prefer, the third, current, example where you have used the cite template with accessdate defined. That is a very common usage, it will be easy for other editors to conform to it as they will be used to using the cite templates elsewhere. We should generally use the cite templates directly for references without page numbers, and use sfn and friends for references with page numbers.

I have now ordered several of the books in the further reading list, so I hope we can find new material for the article in those.

You have also done well with the general scene-setting. You have brought out well the long wait for The White Dragon and her popularity with female readers. I remember well being very popular at one house party when I arrived with a brand-new first edition!

Now it is my bedtime. --Mirokado (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's letting you now that I have read your replies. That's all for now. I follow American baseball and contract bridge world championships closely; they culminate during the four weeks and last two weeks of October respectively, and I hope to watch most of the ballgame just begun. --P64 (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mirokado, Are you a member of any WikiProjects relevant here: Books, Novels, Science fiction, Children's literature? I am not. You have displayed mainly bibliographic expertise but revealed at least a past McCaffrey or FSF fan. --P64 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No not a member of those projects. I try not to join too many, normally just when I find myself editing several relevant articles consistently. I have most of her main science fiction books, but gave up with some of the cowritten sequels. Dragonflight is one of the first SF books I remember buying and I still remember the shivers going down my spine as I read it for the first time. I have also read The Year of the Lucy which is a fine novel. I have met her twice at book signings and the early-evening get-togethers which followed. She is very good company. --Mirokado (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just joined Wp SF, since I have started messing about with their templates! --Mirokado (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Vibhijain has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Category:Dragonriders of Pern books

Hi, User:Ryulong has reverted articles on the first 22 Pern books to the versions before my recent contributions, without comment on any of the Talk pages. The one comment at User talk:P64 is nearly limited in scope to matters of technical style and disclaims attention to content.

Perhaps the first that I revised importantly is Dragon's Kin, essentially a stub. The only one whose Major revision I have announced on the Talk page and called complete rather than limited in scope --the only one where I rewrote the Plot summary that was the main part of most of these articles-- is The Chronicles of Pern: First Fall; Talk: The Chronicles of Pern: First Fall.

Please take a look when you have a chance, and tell me what you suggest. Since there is no urgency at all, I will stay entirely away from these articles today and perhaps tomorrow. --P64 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Ryulong#Wholesale_removal_of_referenced_content. --Mirokado (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at Dragonflight in more detail (happens to be the first McCaffrey book I read), both from the point of view of general style and moving it in the direction we have already discussed for Anne McCaffrey (I see you have already started with that, as you mentioned previously). I think I will leave the other books mostly to you though, I don't want to spoil your fun! --Mirokado (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. While I admit my choice was not the best action, it was what I saw was the best way to clear up the MOS errors and glaring formatting errors that I perceived.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To P64: Let's continue with detailed discussion of editing style and the necessary changes on your talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. For some tentative thoughts on this please see my earlier reply to Card Zero, whose message I received earlier today.Swansnic (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest we keep this conversation on your talk page rather than splitting it up all over the place. --Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

... where you just wrote "I will look for that reply and happy to you about this before I do anything more". You might want to rephrase that: I can't understand it. Is "happy" acting as a verb?  Card Zero  (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have now deleted several of my external links and accused me of spamming. Those links go to the northwest digital archive site page for where I have obtained the information from to add onto the article. It is an archive site, I am not advertising for it, just trying to connect people to the where they can find real material to work with and back up the information they find on wiki with supported facts. You have also noted me as adding on a link I did not add on. I am new to Wikipedia and am just trying to get the information out there right. So please tell me how to do it right. Because I do not see how adding on a link to the page with the information is spam. especially when there is no advertising going on at all. Thank you ranseens

Well my first two messages were individual and not particularly accusatory. Instead of doing what I suggested, you added another link an hour or so later to the third page. That is when I gave you the warning. This is the third link you added which is to the same site as the other two and all three of my reversions were edits by you, so "a link I did not add on" is clearly nonsense. Those links detail a service which is provided, they are not themselves reliable sources for any information. Thus they are advertising the service. Thus they are not allowed. No I am not going to explain a better way of adding links which will have to be removed anyway. If you wish to improve Wikipedia articles, which of course would be great, start with the About Wikipedia link in the left-hand column and follow some of the links in that article. You can also look at how various articles have been written and what sort of web site, book or other document their sources link to. Please take the trouble to do that if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia so that your experience of editing will be enjoyable. --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So sorry ): Amandax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda haran (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I solicit your comments at User talk:P64/FSF/Doona, sections Citations and References. --P64 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for exceptionally fast response! — Robert Greer (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a nice surprise! I will add it to my user page "soon". --Mirokado (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The March 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I realize you're only trying to help and you're being very patient and I owe you an apology for my general crankiness. The problem is that this is the busiest time of the year for me, I haven't a lot of Wikipedia time, and this is generally where I come to relax. For some reason I had to make 200 edits to Hemingway during the Thanksgiving week, when I had company, to satisfy the perceived problems. Everyone seems to have forgotten that

) 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you recommend adding one of {{

}} to any biography that lacks them, and where there should be no dispute?

Yesterday I worked on Jean E. Karl (the editor who solicited Harper Hall, so to speak) and finished by adding the Infobox. Now I see that I was not consistent with the creator's style (lead sentence), and I was the creator a couple months ago! Inconsistency is a transgression. Beyond that, I understand from my watchlist (Alex Akita) you would recommend dmy mdy style because Karl was American.

Anyway, does the robot ignore "Retrieved yyyy-mm-dd" such as I regularly use? Does it make a difference when yyyy-mm-dd is used as parameter value in a {cite} template? --P64 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DATE

says that either dmy (International) or mdy (American) are OK in the article with the criteria for choosing being:

• consistency
• strong national ties to a particular country (mdy for American subjects, dmy for most other countries)
• what the article already uses

so with a new article we can choose what we prefer if there is no "strong national tie".

References dates should be consistent with the article. Accessdates or archivedates should be consistent with the article or iso format. Dates in quotes are as in the original.

I'm not sure how the bots deal with non-iso article dates and iso accessdates, but they don't change existing formats as far as I know. I now use User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js to help with date maintenance and that has links to convert all dates or only body dates among others. The only difference with a template is that it may be easier for a bot to parse the template parameter because of the higher structure of the source.

For Karl, mdy would be correct (watch typos, I have tweaked above) so I suggest you change the infobox. --Mirokado (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am the "maverick" ip who kept an eye on that page, helping you sometimes to fight unsourced content. As an italian native speaker (i apologize for eventual mistakes) I was committed to wipe regional profanities and to keep only the widespread ones. As I said in the article's talk page, i agree with your idea of a sandbox as is a non invasive way to do mass edits. I just validated an account in order to avoid being filtered, check better changes, and have a personal talk page. If you want, you can create the sandbox, i will be pleased to contribute.Vault3939 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have left a note about sandboxes on your talk page: you can create your own now you have an account. Your English is excellent, Don't worry about the odd typo, someone with tweak them as necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have just noticed you making == References == out of ==References==, when the convention for the past several years has been to do the exact opposite, namely, get rid of the 2 irrelevant spaces. When did this silly new convention appear?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a convention, but the new section tab in the user interface creates a heading with the extra spaces, as in this talk section, so that would appear to be the current convention, if there is any. However, as far as I know authors can choose which layout they prefer for a new article. Actually, I do what advisor.js suggests, which is to change an article with inconsistent header source spacing to the spacing already used by the majority of headers in that article, thus sometimes I change one way, sometimes the other, to make the article more consistent and thus increase its quality. If that has not happened correctly, please provide a link to the offending article and I will check further. --Mirokado (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mirokado BTW do you watch all of the McCaffrey articles you have edited?

Hard to believe it's a month ago but the latest revisions at

and Gift are yours with identical summary: (tidy up au Dragonflight, part 1; formatting for collection; date formats per WP:MOSNUM by script). I infer that 'au' means essentially "as at (the article)".
continued at Talk:The Chronicles of Pern: First Fall. --P64 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes I normally watch what I have edited and in this case have added various other pages to my watchlist too. Yes that is what I meant by "au": changes similar to those for Dragonflight. --Mirokado (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

-- ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And a very Happy Christmas to you too. --Mirokado (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mirokado: Thanks for your welcome. I might eventually ask for your help referencing the article "Northeast Ecological Corridor" as I am new to writing articles in Wikipedia, but I'll first check if I can figure it out myself. Merry X-Mas. Lvilla2962 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)lvilla2962

And thanks for the Christmas wishes. I hope you also have a Happy Christmas. I will happy to help with referencing if you ask, but please bear in mind that there are lots of different ways of adding them, so I can comment and make suggestions, but there is no one "right" way. --Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Hope you don't mind the request - I'm looking for someone who wouldn't mind reviewing

) 16:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Yes I will be happy to do that. This would be my first GA review, but everybody has to start somewhere... --Mirokado (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Awe. Some. Thank you so much :)

talk

) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reproofread down to section four but now have to run away for a couple of hours - back soon to finnish up :)

talk

) 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have gone through fully now and there were an embarrassing number of typos... apologies... Would you say it was in a little bit more of an acceptable state to begin the review? :) (thank you so much for your comments so far, in any case)

talk

) 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My bed time now, I will have another look on Wednesday evening. I will add a couple more things I have noticed in the meantime to your talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

One or two other issues have come up, but I hope to look at this again on Sunday. --Mirokado (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know - the article got it's GA a few days ago - thank you so much for all your help :)

talk

) 15:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done, that was a nice Christmas present for you! --Mirokado (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see

) 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Kevin Jackson (dancer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't think this person meets the notability requirements.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you for ignoring my messages and posting in the wrong place. Second, I'm sorry but I don't think this person is notable. I absolutely paid attention to the discussion page when I tagged it. Just because someone is referenced in the Sydney Times does not make them notable. This person sounds like a second level dancer who has yet to meet notability but may at some point in the future. Calling me out like that is unprofessional. If you have such a strong passion for this article than find a few better references and all is well. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disability disorders, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for cleaning up the refs on some the Hemingway pages. I'm not always great with detail and, as I've said before, the little stuff slips past the poor vision. I'm trying the make the Advisor script work but have been unsuccessful - I run Safari. Would you by chance know whether it's unsupported by Safari? Thanks,

) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and thanks for this message. Don't worry about the odd typo etc, we all miss something or other!

I don't have Safari to check (tried to install it in wine but there was an error). Cameltrader has not posted here since 2008, so I think that Advisor.js is effectively unmaintained, although some others have made the odd change since. It has problems like trying to "correct" hyphens in image file names! I like it because it was one of the first extras I installed and I am used to it, but I wouldn't recommend wasting a great deal of time over it if it does not work for you straight away.

The extra script which helps with the Harvard ref links is User:Ucucha/HarvErrors which just reports problems so does not appear in edit summaries.

It looks as if we will run into each other in some fairy tale and Anne McCaffrey articles too... --Mirokado (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I do need to install Ucucha's script but I've been moving away from Harvard templates so I haven't worried about it yet. I will try to get to it. I'll be working on

talk

) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

buddy! check it out your self!! 61st golden globe is not in 1989!!! its the 47th!!! google it!! dont tell me its nonsense when i am right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.miguel7 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what is happening. The

Golden Globe Awards! I'll post on your talk page too... --Mirokado (talk

) 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion query

You have reverted to an earlier version that fails to include my amendment: 22:48, 30 January 2012‎ AnkhMorpork (talk | contribs)‎ (13,475 bytes) (Added Information with Source). As this version does not have a content fork, please explain why you selected an even earlier version and rectify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs)

Yes, I went one step too far back, sorry about that. I see you have already restored that change which is fine. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the Houston Ballet dancers section! — Robert Greer (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking the link.— James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to put it on the master list; this page is for humans only. tedder (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah- I see you haven't built the rules yet. User:AlexNewArtBot/Disability. tedder (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just doing that now. The search help says -"disabilities" should exclude things from the search, but that does not seem to be working, which is making choosing suitable keywords rather difficult. I will start off with some simple definitions and refine them as convenient. Thanks for being helpful! --Mirokado (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Saw your rules. Looks like you have some regex skills :-) tedder (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Mirokado (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thought I'd check to see if you have an opinion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disability#New_disability_categories - as you've done some work on disability categories in the past... Fayedizard (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I am trying to revive

15:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank for you fixing the template

Thank you very much for this fix! That's been bugging me for weeks and I had no idea how to fix it! I even left a comment on the templates talk page about it. --Sabre ball ^{t c} 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Mirokado (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I submitted the

20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look over Easter. --Mirokado (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Now commented. --Mirokado (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 12:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering how to phrase that An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha is CLRG because it is also in the article as An Coimisiún. Thanks! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 12:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mirokado Thanks for updating the referances on this page, I really need to learn how to do this like you. Sorry but I screwed up a little when i updated the refering sites (sorry)

Can you please fix them or tell me what I need to do.

Many Thanks :) Steve Bowen 07:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. See the latest diffs for what needed to be corrected. Don't panic! There is a lot to learn when creating an article. I will leave the two bare link references to you for a while. Have a look at how the other references are defined and see how you get on... You can have a look at Help:Citation Style 1 for the templates I used and Help:List-defined references for how to put the definitions in the list with name= labels. --Mirokado (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a shared school computer. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.123.158 (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I know it can be difficult to prevent this 100%, but of course "using major web sites responsibly" is an important part of today's education. --Mirokado (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Mirokado may be we require a mediator. I have clinically diagnosed communication disability, auditory processing disorder, which amongst other things causes me to be dyslexic. I spent the best part of 2009-2010 editing the dyslexia article to represent the research position as then, and not the previous position which had been the to reflect the marketing needs of the dyslexia industry promoting various remedial programs. The stress this caused me lead to me taking a year or more break from actively editing on Wikipedia. I still have post traumatic stress related to my main disability not being recognised in the work place.

Fayedizard has been editing the dyslexia article, and more recently making a mess of it. I am prepared to work again on the wikipedia dyslexia project, if that will help make some progress, but you can not delete or move information to change meaning of an article. May be I am too emotionally involved with dyslexia, and I am not able to contribute to the article content due ot my complete lack of copy editing skills, but my research skills do enable me to understand when the content of an article is wrong, or when changes which have been made are wrong. I am not adverse to change but only if the changes are supported by research based evidence, and not because it looks better. dolfrog (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I decided to jump in quickly in the hope of preventing things getting out of hand. Thanks very much for responding here. I won't offer to "mediate" because I have worked a bit with Fayedizard in the past so would not be uninvolved. I can offer some friendly suggestions though:

• Always discuss the content, never the editor.
• Open discussions on the article talk page as soon as you see a problem looming. If you do that other page watchers can contribute to working out what is needed. They can often help before a mediator might be necessary.
• If you have to revert in a content dispute (which this is), provide a detailed, rather than rhetorical, edit summary. If you can't explain everything in the edit summary, start a user (or article) talk page section to explain what you have done and why. In this particular case, as you will see from the disability project talk page, there is probably quite a lot that needs an explanation and the restored content is not completely satisfactory. It may not have been necessary to revert everything, which would have made it easier to explain what you did do!

A few more comments in general (of course I'm not telling you what to do or anything, just speaking clearly):

• Editors will most certainly change the article so it reads better or conforms to
  WP:MOS
  or whatever. You need to work with them, not against them, to ensure that the medical content is not compromised. At a cursory glance the article needs a lot of work.
• People take an interest in all sorts of articles and there is no requirement that they have expertise or prior experience of the subject before editing: that can indeed be a hindrance and is one reason we insist on references. I for example tend to avoid subjects on which I am an expert (of which of course there are lots hahaha) because that would be too much like work.

You're welcome to continue this conversation if you think I can help at all... --Mirokado (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

what you and others need to understand is the nature of my communication disability, and how most of the verbiage which helps run Wikipedia is a no go area fo someone who has my disability, all words and very few diagrams, charts etc which helps those who are visual learners. If you read the supporting research orb find new research which changes the understanding of an issue such as dyslexia, then send me a pmid to the research paper. The dyslexia article does need changing, but there is a need for discussion before making any changes. And Fayedizar has never discussed any of his changes before he made them,. just blindly editing and not understanding the implications of the changes he has made. What both you and Fayedizar need to understand is the nature of my communication disability, so that we can work thing out, and stop referring to Wikipedia guideline pages which I have problems reading, but are mainly common sense. My reaction is due to the lack of communication prior to making the changes which are wrong, and my lack of self advocacy skills which is part of my communication disability. So this is more about understanding the communication disability of another Wikipedia editor which has yet to make it into the so called Wikipedia guidelines yet. So we need to find consensus regarding any further edits to the dyslexia article, and other related articles to avoid the wikiwars of 2008 - 2010 which surrounded the dyslexia article, and ended up with me on my own trying to make sense of it all, and lacking the copy editing 9word finding) skills to write an article based on my knowledge of the subject. On other media I can use links to research papers to do the talking for me, but that is not possible here. dolfrog (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. As it happens I responded on your talk page while you were posting the above, and what I said there is pretty well what I would say here too. Let's continue the conversation (if you wish) on your talk page as it will be confusing to have two conversations going at once. --Mirokado (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mirokado

Earlier this week, due to issues in my real life my stress levels were quite high which can become a barrier to my coping strategies that help me work around my information processing disabilities. As a result I was probably overly defensive, and not able to process fully all of the exchanges we had. Delayed processing is one of my coping mechanisms, unfortunately the delay can be minutes, hours, days, months, or even years, to enable me to process the meaning of some communications.

I have only returned to editing on Wikipedia in the last 2 months, and mainly restricting my editing to improving supporting citations and improving reference lists mainly on topics related to acquired communication disabilities, such as

(APD) can be found, but the problem has been to clarify the various named symptoms or conditions to try to make sense of it all.

There is some method in this, currently the leading research as to how we learn to read has evolved from research into alexia, about those who have lost the ability to read. This is the source of the Connectionist models (dual route models) of reading or the psycholinguistic models of reading, which has been assisted more recently by neuroimaging.

Dyslexia is about having a problem with a man made communication system the visual notation of speech, or the graphic symbols society chooses to represent the sounds of speech. There are two types of dyslexia: Developmental dyslexia, which has a genetic origin and three cognitive subtypes; and Alexia (Acquired Dyslexia) which is caused by heading injury, substance abuse, stroke, or a progressive illness. (there are various types and sub categories of Alexia based on the location of the resulting lesions or areas of atrophy).

Going back to the Dyslexia article, there is a need for a new Developmental Dylsexia article would really be most of the content of the current dyslexia article, and then have the dyslexia article describe what dyslexia the symptom is ( having problems processing text) and outlining the various types of dyslexia (Developmental dyslexia and Alexia) and their various subtypes. There may be a need for some new articles regarding the subtypes of Alexia (neglect alexia, and attentional alexia) dolfrog (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for these explanations, they will help as I familiarise myself with the subject. The changes I have just started on will help by making the source text of the articles consistent and the content source itself easier to read (more consistency, less unfamiliar jargon, for example). This in turn will make it easier to plan and implement changes such as splitting content into new articles. I'm using sections on the Dyslexia talk page for explanations and progress reports. --Mirokado (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You will see references to dyslexia in different langauges, and different countries. Most of the research of the last century was done based on the use of the English language. However this may not have been the best language to use as a basis to research dyslexia. This more to do with the structure of language, and the history of language development. The best place to start is with writing systems or the type of graphic symbols used to represent the sounds of speech. The purest form of writing system is a single graphic symbol representing a single word, a logographic writing system, such as Chinese or Japanese. The most complex writing systems are alphabets, such as the Latin alphabet (which is what we are using now) An alphabet tries to have a single graphic symbol (letter) to represent the sounds that make up a word. (and combinations of letters to represent sounds (forgotten the technical term)) The differences between these writing system structures is called differences of orthography. There are many other different types of writing systems with differing structural natures.

Next within the Latin alphabet writing system there are a range of different langauge structures, orthographies, most of European origin. The purest languages in the Latin Alphabet are Finnish and Italian, the most complex language is English, again there are many other languages with varying complexities or types of orthography.

These different writing systems, and langauges within writing systesm require subtly different cognitive skill combinations to process the type of graphic symbols being used, which is why dyslexia is language dependent. So for instance there was a case of a child bilingual in Japanese and English but only dyslexic in English.

I hope I have not confused you too much. dolfrog (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Not too sure hwo familiar you are with Pubmed you may be, as we have not discussed it. But i thought you might like to have a look at this article Evidence for the Late MMN as a Neurophysiological Endophenotype for Dyslexia published last month. (To get the PubMed ID you need to go to the article abstract on Pubmed) Going back to what is called the Pubmed Central (full free text) version you will notice links to citation articles including secondary (Review) articles, listed on the right hand side. I hope this helps dolfrog (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the trouble to tell me about that and I'll have a look at it, but not right now, I'm "having fun" with something else :). --Mirokado (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing the dyslexia article over the last year or so has become too stressful for me, as you may have observed. I can provide related information and support citations etc via the dyslexia project pages or talk pages, but my main Wikipedia interest now revolves around aphasia and agnosia and the related issues, which will eventually include the Alexias. So have fun with the dyslexia article, and if you need any info just ask. (there are a few research paper collections listed on my user page which may prove useful) dolfrog (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mirokado,

You mentioned creating userspace drafts. Now I'm wondering if it is possible for me to "draft" a page edit. Specifically, would it be okay for me to include information about recordings for numerous orchestras, American Symphony included?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asointern (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Generally speaking that information is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't just list things like all the recordings of a particular work, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a catalogue, although we may mention some particularly notable recordings (first recording of a new composition or whatever in the article about that composition or landmark recordings like Bernstein's Nielsen V for example) in which case we would want a reliable (independent) source confirming that it is notable. You need to avoid a

conflict of interest

in your edits, which I think means for you staying well clear of edits involving ASO and quite possibly recordings in general. It is also not generally allowed to have a username closely related to an organisation as yours is. It is possible to ask for a change of name and you would be most welcome to edit on other subjects particularly with a new name. I will add more information to your talk page if necessary. None of what I am saying is meant to discourage you from editing in general and I hope you enjoy your time here, it can be a lot of fun.

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)

I've just checked, the standard message on your user page already has links about conflict of interest and user name. --Mirokado (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Bipolar disorder#cite regression. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Mirokado (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll properly fix this list up this week if you'd offer me the time to go through it. Obviously there are changes needed, template setup, and verifications/references. I'll attend to that this week. Please allow me the time to do this correctly; as it is a long list. ThanksLostinlodos (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to update. I'll get back to this in a few days if you can hold out a little longer. My mother is going into surgery and they said we'd not be allowed in for a over a day (36 hours) after that. So I'll have some time to kill while we wait to find out what's going on. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That is OK as far as I am concerned and I wish your mother a successful recovery.

I will continue to maintain new or changed entries as I have over the past few days, but won't make any other extensive changes to the list for the time being. --Mirokado (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Still haven't finished. I'll be back to it today or tomorrow. JRLostinlodos (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call on moving redlinks. Because of my FireFox settings in saving my complete history for the Web History Repository project I have the colours set to html/default standards and didn't even realise they where red links. They all show up blue or purple for me. Thanks. I'll go through them one by one in the next few days over this holiday (US) weekend and figure if there is anything in there worth saving but a quick glance says probably not. I'll also move it into my own userspace sandbox to save it from vandalism deletion later on as it's shown up to happen in the past. That way anything unmerged can reside in there indefinitely for an occasional check.
I'm thinking keeping anything older than 1975 and newer than 2010; as well as FILM Magazine verified films over 1 million in profits (alone, not total). Sorting that is easiest as I can script a bot to scan and verify dates and crosscheck FMOD easily. I've been watching trailers for some of these the last few weeks and figuring out what to do with what. That said, I totally agree with removing red links, in general; with the noted three exceptions. Thoughts? Lostinlodos (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Started going through this again. Not sure what happened but it appears to have gotten out of control again. Lostinlodos (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi to you. That article will always be a problem until we have a properly sourced lead which better indicates the scope. Also, the sources will say things like "disaster films are often not categorised as such in listings" (I've already looked for sources but have not had time to finish that or formulate any content) so we really need at least one inline reference per entry stating that it is a disaster film. Lists which insist on that are much more stable and consistent. Perhaps we could start adding inlines as convenient, in preparation for making that a requirement later... --Mirokado (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Another user has started a section on the article talk page, let's continue there. --Mirokado (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mirokado. I am notifying you of an RFC at

because you contributed to the discussion that led to it:

RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles

I have notified all other editors in your situation, in accord with provisions at

23:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am already following that and will probably be responding. --Mirokado (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Mirokado. Darkfrog is now counting up the numbers of supports and opposes in that RFC. You might want to review the situation.

Noetica^Tea? 05:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've closed this discussion. Can you do whatever you think is best to move these redirects out of this category, then let me know so I can delete it?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will create a bot request for the necessary updates. --Mirokado (talk)

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#Request to support CfD close. Mirokado (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not forgotten this: various related changes now made, a bot request does not quite seem necessary so I will be making the changes by hand when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Cat now emptied, speedied. --Mirokado (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mirokado - You can go ahead and delete the other 3-4 entries I have made, as, based on your message to me, they don't comply with policies. I should have read the guidelines more closely and will not make similar entries in the future. Anzo9749 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. There are a lot of policies and guidelines, I'm afraid! Despite this, I hope you will enjoy contributing in the future... --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please join a discussion rather than edit warring to add material which is currently being discussed. As you see from the talk page there are substantial problems with adding the date. Jessica is on record as saying she does not reveal it. WP's BLP policy says we may not use public records such as birth certificates. There is no indication where AP (the NYT was just repeating a news feed) have obtained their information.--Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I edited and included an edit summary. It doesnt matter is jessica reveals her birthday or not as it has to be sourced from a written source right? I didnt cite a birth certificate. I cited

NY Timesnot AP.108.56.237.111 (talk

) 00:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well a reliable source of course helps, but in this case reliable sources have been contradicting each other and we are dealing with the biography of a living person, so there are other considerations. The fact that this is being discussed is an indication that there is no simple answer (at least not one that everybody is likely to agree with).

Also, I'm afraid that was edit warring, please read

WP:3RR. --Mirokado (talk

) 01:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

jessica howard in infobox

Hello again. About this : In the article body it says she was born Jessica Howard and then took her mother's maiden name to become Jessica Chastain. That is why I added her birthname jessica howard to the infobox. Do you feel differently ? 108.56.237.111 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The infobox has the name somebody is well known by and is normally the article title. I think it has to be Jessica Chastain here, that is the name she is known by. I don't think that any information should be added to an infobox if it needs maintenance tags. I'm also preparing a reply for your JC talk post. --Mirokado (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested at JC talk that we leave the sourced mention of JH in Early life until we have a reliable source for JNH. --Mirokado (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Replied on my talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexChao (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this jewel, Gerda. It is a tremendous encouragement to receive a careful (positive!) peer review out of the blue! Mirokado (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)