User talk:Lotje/Archives/2012/December

This page 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.

Hi - since you edited the Berlin page within the last couple months, I'm writing to ask if you'd like to weigh in on a current content dispute that has resulted in a request for comment. The issue, simply, is whether the Berlin article should include an image of the "Buddy Bears" or not. Thanks for your time, Sindinero (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please do not use Reflinks for Google Books sources, as you did at Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi; it formats the references for that site incorrectly. Use this tool instead. Thanks! Graham87 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I was talking about Reflinks, not link rot. Graham87 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In making changes to this article, by using reflinks, sometimes perfectly good citations were malformed. Do not make changes to format unless it is needed and you have a consensus for changes. In this instance, you have made errors in every one of the new edits. See the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Enjoy a brownie! Sapere aude22 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you! Lotje (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much by your unselfish cooperation in Article "Biodiversity of New Caledonia". Muchas gracias por tu colaboración desinteresada en el articulo "Biodiversidad de Nueva Caledonia". 85.251.99.49 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Lotje (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Lotje,

ik heb enkele verbeteringen die je hebt aangebracht aan de referenties gedeeltelijk teruggedraaid omdat er wat fouten ingeslopen zijn. Eentje was een begrijpelijke (een book review die je als boek had gekarakteriseerd, kan gebeuren) maar de andere fout keerde best vaak terug. Je noemde de website waar toevallig een online versie staat als publisher, wat bij boeken en oude wetenschappelijke publicaties vaak niet klopt. Het zijn dan hooguit heruitgevers, maar die dienen volgens mij dan niet als publisher te worden aangegeven? Anyway, als je erop wilt letten bij oude publicaties, heel graag. effeietsanders 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fijn, bedankt voor het corrigeren :), ik pas in het vervolg beter op. Lotje (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you added a linkrot tab to the Wilfred Owen page which shows up as 'bare urls'. The two are different things. Did you add the tag for rot or bare links? If links are broken, could you say which ones? Just adding a tag isn't that useful. Thanks Span (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi ;">Span, fixed it. Lotje ツ (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Always best. Thanks Span (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your "cleanup", Lotje, but I have undone it. What is the purpose of a selected works section without links to the works? Borshch's page is partly modeled on Hans Memling's page, where, appropriately, selected works are linked.

Three pictures do not make a gallery. If you decide to build a gallery (or anything else), please do not leave the task unfinished.

Khidekel (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khidekel, I do not quite understand what you mean. I cleaned up and made a category on Commons, which, with your edit is no visible on the Dmitry Borshch page. Have a look at commons and you might be willing to undo your edit again.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dmitry Borshch.

Lotje ツ (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you changed the version of Burgon's poem "Petra" from the second edition to the first. In my opinion, we should accept the second edition as definitive in the absence of some reason not to (such as that the first is the most often reprinted?). In particular, two of Burgon's revisions strike me as objective improvements: "But rosy-red" scans correctly and "But rose-red" doesn't, and he put quotation marks around the quotation from Rogers. The dashes may be a little twee, but what can you do? So I think we should probably go back to the second edition. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi JerryFriedman, I leave it up to you. Lotje ツ (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticed you've been going around fixing citations using Reflinks. That seems like a fairly mundane but necessary job, and I for one appreciate your efforts. Keep it up! Jesse V. (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:-) thank you!Lotje ツ (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How can I help with this? I looked at Reflinks but I wasn't sure how to set it up or something. I'm assuming that you're running through a category, and it doesn't look like you're using AWB. Please let me know how to set this up so I can help fix bare URLs as well. Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jesse V., I do it the add {{Bare urls}} template to the References section and save the text. Open it again, click on [[Reflinks tool]] in the template and save the page. (If there are still some bare urls left, I leave the template, if not, I remove it before saving the page. :-). Lotje ツ (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• But please note you are supposed to respect the citation style the article already uses, not use one style the whole time. See WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your use of reflinks causes a great deal of cleanup as you also introduce ISO dating where it doesn't apply. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

Do you have an example to show me so I can better understand? Lotje ツ (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are still doing what Johnbod pointed out to you seven months ago (e.g. here). The point is that you should not be introducing dates into references in the format YYYY-MM-DD when that is not the style used in the article. Could you please acknowledge now that you will take the time to correct such things after you use Reflinks? Thanks for your understanding. GFHandel ♬  00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I do not understand the meaning of this, I decided that I will NOT USE REFLINKS anymore ! Lotje (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that complicated: after you use Reflinks, you are leaving dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. "2012-12-31"). However if the dates used in the article's references are predominantly not in the YYYY-MM-DD format, you should manually fix any dates you have changed (e.g. to "31 December 2012" or "December 31, 2012"). You can see what I mean by my correction to the edit of yours that I mentioned above. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help. I will take a closer look at it tomorrow. Buy for now. Lotje (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I can't now alas locate my original photo - Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see how I can solve it. :) Lotje ツ (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, fixed with the help of Foroa :-) Lotje ツ (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article 'Wayland Student Press' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://wspn.thinkrobin.com

• You added this in April 2011.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lotje,

Thanks for updating the article on Johan Hendrik Weidner. I noticed that you made a change in the english version of Johan Hendrik Weidner about Johan awarding the Dutch Cross of Resistance. However that was not the case. (see link to source) His sister who died in labourcamp did award the award postumously, as most awards were perceived. http://www.onderscheidingen.nl/decorandi/wo2/dec_w01.html

Anyway, there are a lot of other errors in the english version of Johan Hendrik Weidner. After I did a complete checking of facts on the recently updated dutch article of Johan Hendrik Weidner, I will update the english version (and other languages) as well.

Thanks, Marc Weidner (Anyway, I am not a direct decendent of Johan Weidner, but far related) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weidnermo (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, I'm trying to create a list to perhaps nominate eventually for featured-list status. The idea is to have small close-ups of each person in the tables, then to have larger images (hopefully not duplicates) running down the right side showing a variety of women and men from as many countries I can find. It's very much a work in progress. Other examples of similar styles are at List of vegans and List of vegetarians.

By the way, I'd also like to restore the fixed image size to Joel Brand, a featured article, because removing them [1] has made some of the images tiny and some large, which looks a little incongruous.

Feel free to reply here -- I'll look out for it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, the images I deleted were all identical to the ones in the colum, the one from Brigitte Bardot in the colum, I replaced because it was an advertisment photo and long overdue. In my opinion, similiar lists should picture the people how they are today, and not what they looked like in another century :-) The fixed image size was removed because I had been told in an earlier discussion, it is better not to have it anymore so each user can decide what size he/she wants to see the image. Images are automatically placed on the right side of the page, so the |right| is not necessary anymore. The developers have done a great job there, don't you think so? Lotje ツ (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, BTW, the Peter Tatchell file, I had replaced by this file, because: Photograph supplied by Peter Tatchell for publicity use. Peter said to uploader Kaihsu Tai: “I would like to replace the terrible main photo with the one attached. Can you do this?” (2007-10-23). Hopefully that answers your questions Lotje ツ (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, the Tatchell images I'm using are the one he likes and another from three years after that email was sent, so it can't be the one he doesn't like. I can email him to check.

As for image sizes, if you remove them it means the sizes show up very differently, some large, some tiny. Most readers don't have sizes set in their preferences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What about making some advertising for the "preferences" by mentionning it as standard on the article page, so when editors start working on it, they see the message :-) Lotje ツ (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Done --Lotje ツ (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quota International.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article List of Cricket authors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"List" with one entry. So incomplete, two weeks after creation, as to make a mockery of the encyclopedia. Appears redundant to Category:Cricket historians and writers and Bibliography of cricket (in which latter the one author in this list does not appear).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. PamD 08:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lotje. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I don't mean to be difficult but I've reverted you again. The image's source is a dead link. We need evidence that it was taken by a US gov't employee in the course of his employment. I agree it is very likely that it is, and have no objection otherwise, though I would suggest putting it in the Nuremberg section. But there needs to be some evidence on the image's page. A deadlink doesn't work. This is a FA and I'm trying to keep up the standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why you added an example image to the email client article? PhilKnight (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I actually wanted to add something like this file. I undid my edit. Thanks. Lotje ツ (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The robot reflinks does not recognize the international nature of Wikipedia, taking out the language/national tags such as NL FR etc killing all the links. Van Aldenhaag (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dag Van Aldenhaag, what's up man, wat je hier en hier deed lijkt mij verdacht veel op zelfpromotie.

1. Enerzijds zijn de interwikilinks naar anderstalige wikipedia's ongewenst omdat er anders geen enkel artikel wordt vertaald. (Dus laat je die rode links best staan).
2. Die {{Cleanup-link rot}} is een goede tool.
3. En dan is er nog dat woord Wrouwemasker, Vrouwemasker, Vrouwenmasker, wat is de correcte naam van het kunstwerk nu eigenlijk???

Lotje ツ (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The two external links in Line 238 of this edit were not references. They were just that, external links. Please be careful with semi-automated tools. Debresser (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

About your addition: I took a look at the original source. The word "sketches" in the title refers to "word sketches" i.e. brief descriptions that give a little picture, rather than to what the author terms "native drawings". The drawings themselves all have very much the same style, because they have all been engraved as lithographic prints by the same printer. Because of the reproduction technique, they are no longer "sketches" even if they originally took the form of sketches rather than detailed drawings. The poor quality of the photocopy from the book also means that no details of the technique can be seen . c.f. the Rembrandt sketch on the same page.

I think that I'll add a gallery at the foot of that page so that there are more than two to look at. Many artists are renowned for their sketches. There should be a Leonardo scientific sketch, for a start.

I'll leave my "advice to new editors" on your page because it contains useful info about adding images.

I really enjoyed looking at that delightful book. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the book, and thank you for the AJM's advice to new editors. Advices are always welcome. Lotje (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oh... Al-Farabi's image is back up! More work reverting take-downs... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lotje,

Heel hartelijk bedankt. Het moedigt me aan om nieuwe afbeeldingen in te voegen in Commons.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ja, ik kijk er met spanning naar uit. Lotje (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje,

Ik zie niet de gebouwen (kassen) en de park van de Nationale Plantentuin van België in de lijst van beschermde erfgoed van Vlaanderen van Wikipedia. Kunt u mij zeggen wat het precies is.

Dank u bij voorbaat en vriendelijke groeten,

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dag Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, ik begrijp je vraag niet goed, maar ik veronderstel dat je De overdracht aan de Vlaamse Gemeenschap en verval door communautaire problemen bedoelt. Daar lees ik namelijk: Door politieke onenigheid worden noodzakelijke en dringende investeringswerken aan de tuin al enkele jaren niet gedaan. In juni 2006 investeerde de Vlaamse regering éénzijdig anderhalf miljoen euro. Een bittere realiteit dus... Lotje (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Chère Lotje,

Comme je ne l'ai peut-être pas bien exprimé en néerlandais, en te posant cette question, j'espérais trouver un numéro d'identification afin d'insérer mes photos sur ce magnifique jardin pour WLM 2012.

Merci pour ta réponse rapide.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

89959 -> {{Onroerend erfgoed|89959}}. Multichill (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oef, nu kan ik de zweetdruppels van mijn voorhoofd vegen denk ik. Bedankt (talk) Lotje (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lotje/Archives/2012/December. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- Trevj (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Hello, Lotje. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In totally unrelated news: I just saw that you found an image for Eggerik Beninga. Bedankt! Keep up the WikiFairy work :) De728631 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could be of any help. Lotje (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Calliopejen1, just to let you know your images contribution page is in kind of a mess. Lotje (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I wanted to let you know that I removed this comment from Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Caracas 2000. I presume that you left the message in error, thinking you were on Calliopejen1's talk page, since (of course) the page Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Caracas 2000 should be used to discuss the contributor copyright investigation of User:Caracas 2000. I've copied it over here in case you'd like to let her know about the display issue at User talk:Calliopejen1. (I didn't just move it there myself in case, for some reason, you didn't want it there. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Thanks, Caracas 2000 and Moonriddengirl for fixing my mistake. Lotje (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The "See also" section of the article is for articles that are specifically related to the topic and would significantly improve understanding of the topic. SoccerProject does not improve understanding of the "Association football" topic. – PeeJay 14:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but where in you opinion the article belongs? Lotje (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not my concern, tbh. But it definitely doesn't belong in the Association football article. – PeeJay 14:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw this edit. Am I to understand that Reflinks changed the internal link Template:Commons category to the redirect "commonscat"? Debresser (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Debresser, no it didn't, I just changed it to mark for myself I came along that page. Lotje (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha. Perhaps there are more useful ways than changing a perfectly correct name (full, with space, and capital) to some inferior shorthand? Debresser (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, ondertussen staat nu wel vast dat beide versies correct zijn. Lotje (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)