User talk:Shakescene

Welcome

Hello, Shakescene! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BoL (Talk) 03:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks!

I've been watching all of the great work you've been doing on the article on The Bronx-- I'm so glad people are taking an interest in this topic. You're updates to Planned shrinkage, have been great too. Just wanted to say thanks! futurebird (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx

re: User Talk:Colfer2#Thanks for editing tips
Thanks, I probably didn't realize I was editing a footnote quote! -Colfer2 (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrooklynBen notes that I'm sure this has been raised before, but the actual legal name of the borough is "The Bronx" and I don't think it should be called "Bronx" in a serious reference such as Wikipedia. "The Bronx" should have two capitals. —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC). --BrooklynBen (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a star

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work on The Bronx. futurebird (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bronx

Shakes, I moved your note to me re Bronx lit onto the Talk:Bronx page and briefly replied to it. It seemed more appropriate to do a 2-way there. And congrats on the well-deserved Barnstar. Can I add an extra ribbon to it? Bellagio99 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx entries

Thanks for your comments. Would appreciate some clarification re film section. (Am concerned that the Bronx is all too often presented as a disease.) + I'm new to this realm. NYCfellow 00.20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, NYCfellow. I'll try to answer most of this on Talk:The Bronx, but basically I was wondering if you could weave your examples into the first half-dozen ones (from Marty to Fort Apache or Fuga del Bronx ), so they tell what the films show about the Bronx or about how the Bronx is viewed. This is certainly not personal, because it applies far more strongly to my own addition of Songs about the Bronx, which right now is a list of titles that by themselves say almost nothing about the Borough or how it's been seen over time. [And I've been on Wikipedia only since Spring 2008, starting with and concentrating on New York City mayoralty elections, so I'm no veteran who knows much of the internal processes and customs. Plus I may never have set foot in the Bronx.] Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Industry Museum & SUNY Maritime College

Oops. Still wrong. I was using the college relocation date to Ft Schuyler, not the museum's launch year. Thank you for catching this. NYCfellow 8/21/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCfellow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, fellow. If you did want to add anything about the college's founding, I added SUNY Maritime to The Bronx#Education with a reference to its museum and the mirror U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with its own museum in Kings Point, Long Island. (Like your item about Wave Hill, I didn't simply delete your earlier Maritime Museum entry; I just moved it where I thought it might fit better.)

By the way, Maritime Industry Museum is just a stub right now. Since you're interested and probably far closer to Fort Schuyler, maybe you'd be interested in fleshing out the entry a bit (or whatever it is one does with a stub). Shakescene (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness Doctrine edits

Good jobs on the Fairness Doctrine edits. If you oppose this like I do, there is a userbox I created that you might be interested. Just go to the userbox section of my user page and it will give you the link to it. Chris (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the compliment. I actually have reached no firm conclusions on this subject either way (and as with many other users and many other subjects) got drawn into this article because I visited out of curiosity or in search of clarification and needed to work out where it wasn't telling me enough clearly enough or with enough foundation. So my editing is more even-handed and detached here than it might be (despite some journalistic experience) with a subject where I had strong feelings. A particular edit might seem to be directed against one point of view on the underlying substance, but I've directed my edits both ways when I haven't been satisfied that the language properly explains what's supported by the documentation. Because of its tangled and contentious history of overlapping edits, Fairness Doctrine had, and still has, some redundancies, contradictions and illogical sequences that I made some attempt to sort out for my own benefit as much as anyone else's. Shakescene (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx (disambiguation)

This discussion moved to Talk:Bronx (disambiguation)

Regarding your contribution to the page, please keep in mind that the disambiguation page is for subjects that are associated with the same title (ie "Bronx" or "The Bronx"), not subjects that happen to have "Bronx" in the title. The page is not meant to be a glossary. Both "Bronx cheer" and "Bronx Bombers" redirect to other article titles as well. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. Just64helpin (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29#Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Utley

Regarding your edit summary, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet template

I have moved the debate to the Internet Portal discuss page--SasiSasi (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Your commentary was very helpful. I was so confused as to why they kept deleting it, and figured it was because they just didn't read the blog and assumed it was spam. I wasn't trying in any way to spam -- I was just trying to help people decide on their move to NYC. :-/ But I understand your rationale and really do appreciate your specificity in your comments to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.178.111 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikistats misread (just for your information)

In an edit summary for MoS:date autoformatting you wrote:

(As of two years ago, of the millions of people that read Wikipedia, there were 151,934 user accounts total, 7,940 accounts with >5 edits, and 4,330 accounts with >100 edits, see http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm)

I actually went to your link, and it says that 7,940 is the number of New Accounts (column B), while over a quarter of the accounts (43,001) had over 5 edits (column C). This seems prima facie more plausible. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - I misread the columns, thanks for pointing out my error. Still, my point stands: comparatively few of our readers have and use accounts. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree with your point, and just made a very similar one at Wikipedia Talk:Portal —— Shakescene (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network neutrality template

Hi, I had a quick go at one, it should be able to replace those which are in existing articles (which looks pretty bad!). [1] I have not yet put it in any article... maybe you have suggestions for improvement.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting racial and ethnic breakdown properly

The problem here seems to be that people don't understand that Hispanic people are of any race. If you present racial and ethnic data in a hispanic vs. non-hispanic way, then you are not acknowledging to the racial diversity of the Hispanic group and you are basically telling hispanic whites they are not white, hispanic blacks, they are not black but something other which is not the case. That is why if you present the data by racial breakdown first, white american (includes white hispanic), african american ( includes black hispanic), asian american (includes asian hispanic), other race and then in addition show what percentage of the population is Hispanic in separation, then and only then have you presented the correct racial and ethnic breakdown of the population. 99% of articles on wikipedia present the racial and ethnic breakdown in the same way (the way I just described) and the other present the racial and ethnic breakdown the way it is done in the main article of The Bronx. I think the most proper way to show the racial and ethnic distribution of an area is to do the following: Miami Beach's racial breakdown: The racial makeup of the city was 86.74% White(40.9% were Non-Hispanic Whites,)[10] 4.03% African American, 0.23% Native American, 1.37% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 4.05% from other races, and 3.53% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 53.45% of the population.--Emigrant85 (talk) 2:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:New York City

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

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New York City flags

Sorry about the revert. The editor who made that latest edit is a suspected sock puppet of Nimbley6 and was vandalizing a large number of pages, so I was just going through and reverting all of his/her edits. I might have reverted some things that weren't so clear-cut. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this type of thing happens allot, very frustrating. No need to reply, I'm just saying... 2legit2quit2 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extending RfC

Shakescene: We’re addressing how much longer to run the MOSNUM RfC at the top, here. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London as a Sister City to New York

Thanks for your comment. Ive have replied to your comment on my talk page here. Please reply if need be on my talk page or the article talk page. Also, please have a Happy New Year too ;) Regards Ijanderson (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPA v. SP of A v. SP

Not sure if this is the proper place to respond to your message or not, apologies if it isn't...

I'm not religious about which abbreviation is used, I guess, just as long as the periods are lost per the Wikipedia convention and modern use.

The party actually published a number of pamphlets as "Socialist Party of the United States" in the 1920s and afterwards without a formal name change. So I reckon that use of "SP" instead of "SPA" is a pretty easy sale to make... Although I'm using "SPA" on the various pages I create as a matter of consistency.

best,

-- Tim Davenport -- Corvallis, OR -- Carrite (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling: gram versus gramme

Hi,

The issue of spelling 'gram' versus 'gramme' comes up from time to time. You may be interested in what was said at: Template_talk:Convert/Archive_October_2008#Request_.28moved_from_User_talk:TomTheHand.29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moving Fowler/Levin to History;?

Hey buddy, next time you put something in the edit summary, try to actually do what you say instead of cutting stuff out and throwing it.
Either way, it did not belong in the History section as it is a recent quote from Fowler. Also, there were are no quotes from Levin in that section, so if that is the reason why you decided to throw it, bad on ya.
Mdandrea (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bolt on you like that, understandable mistake. I know there was too many things that I should have included but I figured anyone interested could listen to the mp3 of Fowler and decide for themselves. Fowler's input is valuable. Just started listening to Levin. I notice how he calls our President a dummy, and says other things that aren't very nice. I heard a buddy of mine say "we need the fairness doctrine to make the news have some accountability, give both sides, and equal time," so I started looking up information about the Fairness Doctrine. I am sort of for it in a way, but when I see how it is aimed at conservative talk radio, it doesn't sound fair at all. Maybe if they changed the rules of it, just maybe, it could be better. Like, if someone has an opposing view, the Fairness Doctrine could allow them to call the radio station and uninterruptedly say what they want to say. Or if a political candidate or knowledgeable person wants to go on the station, the station should not have to pay for anything. I think it would be unconstitutional for someone to have to pay for something that is their constitutional right. Our rights do not come with a price, the price has been paid on too many battlefields. Still sort of new on Wikipedia so my editing isn't very good. I will try to do better. Thanks for your contributions. Mdandrea (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, does everything on this article that I put up have to be uniform to your type of writing? Please explain this to me. Also, is it necessary to mention "conservative talk radio program" ? I think saying Levin is enough. No other quote mentions the name of the radio program or news channel, it is unnecessary, that is what cited sources is for... also, I don't believe it is a neutral point of view because many will reject the paragraph once they see "conservative talk".. and like I said before, it doesn't matter what show it is, the notable person said something and is worth quoting. Mdandrea (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looked fine to me; it seems to carry the point. Anything significant that could be improved (as with anyone's contributions, certainly including my own), I'm sure will come out in the normal course of editing.

I didn't know (or had forgotten) who Mark Levin was, so I needed to identify him, especially for foreigners who can't hear ABCRadio Networks. And I'm identifying Bill Press as a liberal talk show host. I'll certainly keep your concern (about readers' preconceptions) in mind, but I don't see much harm in showing tendencies so long as it's balanced (identifying the progressive FAIR, etc.) I often try to identify my sources in the text of this particular article (although not strictly necessary) because context seems important, and often the interviewer's significant; Levin and Fowler shared roots in the Reagan administration.

By the way, another editor excised a quotation I put in from Rush Limbaugh's response (in Friday's Wall St. Journal) to Obama's position of "No, but..." I'm thinking of starting a sub-sub-section or sections on different categories of opposition to accommodate both Obama's and Limbaugh's positions. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I understand your points. Good job on your work so far, that Suggested alternatives section is brilliant. I have been thinking that most of our liberal friends don't want the "fairness doctrine" but something more directed to talk radio. Matter of fact, I think BJ Clinton's quote said something like that. Thanks, Mdandrea (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User fork

Thank you for your concern. Now, if only WP:USER FORK weren't a redlink, I might know what action to take to prevent its dire consequences. :( Maybe you'll need to spoon-feed me that information, in order to prevent being put to the knife. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York state elections

The NYelections template is too bulky to be put on the top right side of my state election articles, it conflicts in space with the election wikitable. I'm not sure if it is better to re-format it, or to add it somewhere below. We should find some practical solution.

Maybe you could look at a discussion I'm having with User:Muboshgu about a template (navbox) I am using for the creation of my articles (it is necessary to go forward and backward to check info, and copy/paste parts, and that guy keeps vandalizing it, giving some absurd reasons. Maybe you could tell me your opinion on this. Kraxler (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can understand the reasons on both sides, I'm not getting anywhere near that angry discussion until everyone cools down. And everyone basically wants the same ends; it's just a matter of figuring the best (or least-impractical) way of doing so.

As for the secondary problem (to which I was not referring in my first message), my solution (well before I had any idea of Moboshgu's involvement) for New York state election, 1848 was just to add the tag at the first section, rather than at the top where it would indeed conflict with the election results table. It doesn't exactly fit the typical NY elections style of starting right at the top, but then neither does that happen at the individual year pages for New York City mayoral elections (New York City mayoral election, 1917, 1977, 1997, 2001 & 2005) where we have a much bigger conflict with a huge new NYC election template that someone wants to add at the top. And it doesn't crowd or interfere with your paragraph of text. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also (I forgot) your template at the bottom should be narrowed a little bit so that it matches the average width of other New York state and New York City templates (it was for this reason that I deleted the flag from the template for Mayors of New York cities over 100,000 in population [Großstädter?]) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually never formatted a template, I just write them, and the width comes sort of automatic. Feel free to "narrow" it, if you think it best, provided the content is kept. Besides, I took another look at your ElectionsNY template, and it has now "Elections by year" somewhere and the Gubernatorial template farther down. Actually I am redoing this whole thing, and I intend to deactivate the "Gubernatorial" template later, leaving only the state election one. In the first place, I did not create the separate gubernatorial election articles, some funny guy just separated them from the main article (which I vastly expanded with all gubernatorial elections, it had about 10 elections out of 89 when I first saw it) without adding anything, just uselessly duplicating the info. Later I thought about what to do with this, and I thought I had a good idea, until that other funny guy came along and messed about in my navbox, without adding any info to the articles, "standardizing". Well, you have seen my opinion on that. The problem now is: How can I get rid of that guy, and return to WORK in peace? Any suggestions? And, I'm cool as a cucumber :D Kraxler (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the text of the articles, it is really not easy to explain the Barnburner and Hunker thing in a few words. That is what the blue links are for, ok, so far so good. To explain things again and again in every article (for people who would not or could not access the links), I'm confident that the articles grow later, maybe somebody who knows enough of the subject can do it, or I can do it, after completing the basic chore of creating the articles of the actual elections, and of the actually elected officers (look at my user page and you see what I'm talking about). That's the way to know something about it, and to know what to write about it. It is a question of time... Kraxler (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ElectionsNY

Regarding this template, I think its best to keep the order similar to Template:ElectionsCA, which has federal elections, state elections, then elections by year, and city elections. I think federal elections should be above state elections based on importance. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs

Hey, I noticed you a lot on his talk page, what the heck happened? Soxwon (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want jokes, I wanna know if you know why he left. Soxwon (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just before he left, a third party noted to him that, after deciding to quit AN/I discussions, he was still the most prolific poster there. My pure guess is that that prompted him to go cold turkey on wiki for a while. I hope he comes back too, especially if God does his job and we finally get a Cubs/Red Sox World Series. PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose after winning 2 we could be magnanimous and let the Cubbies win one. :P Soxwon (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater New York

You did a good job on the Greater New York disambiguation, but I wanted to point out a guideline about disambiguation pages from MoS:DP:

To avoid confusing the reader, each bulleted entry should have only one navigable (blue) link. Do not wikilink any other words in the line

Another advantage of this is that if an editor is using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, there are only the choices that the disambiguator (my made up word) would likely select. Thanks --rogerd (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

The poll is reopen for one more day so please take time to vote. just out of interest, how did you hear about the poll? Did someone contact you by email? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. I can't even recall making this edit. Kinda weird haha, regards Ijanderson (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History tab poll

Hey, I moved your comment up to the authors section to make it a bit clearer. If you don't want this please undo or let me know and I'll undo. –M^T

My bad

For reverting your edits to BB's talk page. I initially saw it as removing messages, I hadn't realized he had left. I restored what you did/rv myself, etc, as the two added comments are that of a possible impersonator, and that of a possible sockpuppet, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Caden for more on that.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was his, that's what I'm saying. I didn't see that that edit added by the harasser was what it was, I didn't see that it removed one of his edits. When I saw what I had done, after looking through the history, I reverted myself.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Stadium 3RR

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I turned the IP in for 3RR violation. I recommend doing nothing further until they make a ruling. He might have a point, but arguing it in the edit summaries is not the right approach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While sock puppets and personal abuse often call for sharp action, I've so far (so far as I can recall) succeeded in avoiding the disciplinary process for 3RR, because an edit war of this kind usually incriminates both sides. In this case, both I and the IP were doing slightly different things each time. (1) He blanked just the Opposition subsection without balancing it with the equally-uncited Support section (resulting in tangible damage to NPOV), which I reverted, (2) then he blanked both of them, but also took the adequately-cited Opening & Home Run Launchpad subsections with them, so I reverted again. (3) Then the penny finally dropped, and he blanked just the Opposition & Support subsections alone, which you reverted. Since the first reversion was mine, not his, he could in theory claim that that we're tag-teaming him (although we had no common conscious purpose or communication before our edits), with the third revert being in fact yours.

But there are already at least two sections dealing with this very question (poor sourcing and the need for such sections) on the Talk page so far, where he could make a credible case, instead of in the edit summaries. Some of the language about Opposition is poorly phrased, but there should be reasonably good sources about much of the substance (e.g. ESPN's long feature story and the NY Times story about the Bronx at New YS's opening), so the task is to produce something balanced with at least minimum sources for both sides. (As a New England Democrat, neither the Yankees organization nor Rudolph Giuliani are my personal favorites, and I happen to think that what happened to 30 acres of park in the part of the Bronx that doesn't have enough public open space is scandalous, but Wikipedia should be providing enough objective information on both sides so that readers can reach their own conclusions.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might get only a warning and an admonition, by an admin, to take it to talk. That would be the point. It reads like an editorial essay. But just reverting it with snide comments is not the way for that guy to handle it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned I might have also pulled you into the same edit-warring vortex, I apologize. I doubt the admins will take severe action against anyone, but we'll see. However, his deletion is every bit the editorial comment that is the section he's trying to delete. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would rather just try to work this out on the talk page, then I could withdraw the 3RR complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the 3RR complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-cola formula

Thanks for that info I may well have been wrong there, then, I was trying to put into units taht were used in original recipes and had to back translate. As you say if it was `968 could well have been in mnetric and so not sure which way to jump there now. You can see I deliberately put this up as an aunt sally to show the difficulties so please don't hurt me too much!

I woyuld have to get the original source, the problem is of course that the original editor pays no interest in the article (I got there via caramel color and thence from caramel and I dunno how I got there) but you raise a good point; whether it was in metric or in imperial (the measures were so odd IO assumed they had been clumsily converted) if as you imply by omission the other two are imperial do we then put this in metric? If the source says so, I say so. If not, not.

I an glad thgis relatiuvely short article may be useful gto argue over as what should be done. I hav e eduted much longer articles and added convert template etc but if there's a nice short article that illusgtrates the point that is good.

Transfer this to the main discusssion if you wish. My best wishes AAAAAH can't find trilde on this keyboard SimonTrew 01.15am 0`jun-2009

please excuse my spelling Istill havenot got used to this keyboard yet and sgtill can't find the tilde simontrew 09`.125am 01-jun-2009

There's a tilde-inserting button (looks like a signature or handwriting script) above the edit box, next to the Bold, Italic, Wiklink, etc. buttons. Tilde is often an upper-shift character to the left of the number 1 above the letters on a standard Microsoft-family keyboard.

I'm glad it was helpful, since help, and certainly not criticism, was all that I intended. I have nothing to go on myself except the edit-history of the article (I didn't even know there were three versions of Merchandise 7X), but it appears as if the first two were largely in customary (remember that U.S. pints, etc are 4/5 of Imperial ones) and the last one largely in metric. But I think you'd actually have to see the 1968 text to be 100% certain (unless the publisher, as some publishers are wont, mindlessly converted everything to metric willy-nilly). I just wanted to save you all that work and uncertainty of reverse-engineering the metrics in the first two formulae to customary. Best wishes. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakes thanks for that very useful. I think it has been carelessly translated but of course I canbnot tell whether 8it is the Wikipedia editor or the original source, having access tpo neither (and no references). i hadn'r forgotten te US/UK pint distinction I have it on every measuring jug I own! I may have forgotten to say so. I am guessing yes that the publisher converted it but would that happen in 68 in the us? APOLLO was all metric. Was there much of an effort and kmetric was the new cool thing? This 8is not meant ironically, it is genuine difficulties like this that show yup why these things are not so done and dusted as others amy think, and as I said ifd a short article like that illustrates the problem then that's quite gopod I think.

tildes

Found the tilde. Hash and tilde are to the left of the z on the bottom row. Bastards. SimonTrew (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia. Can you explain how you get your name to show up after you make a comment on 'discussion' page? I'd appreciate it.

Thank you for the advice Shakescene :) DanielGlazer (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

back to Coke

shakes can you gi tve me a hand with this i really didn't know which way to go. the measures were so ridiculous i had assumed they were done clumsily from imperial (or us customary) into metric i added all the convert templates etc and back translated into imperial. As i said on mosnum i was not entirely happy with it though i think nicer now in tabes and stuff. On a larger subject i think recipes really suffer from the numbering system here but i am not sure what to do about that and am still not sure what to do about that, what to suggest. if you have any ideas pleas contact me either on MOSNUM or on my personal talk SimonTrew (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shakes everything you said i agree with and makes sense. i made my best effort to make the measures sensible. i will go through history and ask your advice again if i may. SimonTrew (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw perhaps i should say for want of doubt this is a very minor article for me. I deliberately picked one that i have subbed and has lots of converts etc but it's not the end of the earth. SimonTrew (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i read your talk on my page i think you are better off doing it than i would be. btw i have madwe a decision that capitals on i are awaste of time i know i wont win this one but will fight my own battle. best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Elections

Hello, I've read your comments and I want to thank you. Regards, --Auslli (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 World Series

Any material that is likely to be challenged needs a source. In particular, the source should be correctly formatted. Reference tags are not for footnotes. I'll do my best to re-format this information into proper references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The information is not likely to be challenged. On the other hand, the curious are entitled to the supporting details, which would, we both agree, clutter up the lead with extraneous trivia. Footnotes seem like the best place for them. (2) There are so many reasonable ways of formatting references that I use what seems most useful to the purpose and to the reader, while making sure that the most important details are there. I'm a strong disbeliever in citation templates, which often don't fit the purpose and can sometimes confuse readers with jargon and ISO dating. (3) On the other hand, I was going to go back myself to review which of those facts about wild cards and Florida were most important to see if they could be consolidated together with footnotes that are essentially identical (the 2009 World Almanac, MLB.com's history pages and Wikipedia's own LDS, LCS and World Series pages).—— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the information was removed, it's likely to be challenged. I challenged it, which is why I provided a reference that people can verify without going to a library or buying a book. Your reference isn't available online; I checked Google Books while trying to verify these facts. I couldn't do it without using an online source. I would venture so far as to say that your "World Almanac", an agglomeration of facts about everything, is less reliable relating to baseball than Baseball-Reference, which focuses exclusively on sports. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What I and Wikipedia both prefer is that information be available in both Internet and printed form. Which is why I gave both MLB.com and the World Almanac. (Similarly, in giving newspaper references, it's useful where possible to give the edition and page number, so people can look up the printed newspaper if the link expires or if they don't have Internet access.) Apart from the problem of expiring or unstable links, some people don't have easy access to the Internet (e.g. if they're reading a printout) and others don't have easy access to a library or bookstore. Now we have both, so everything should work out. (2) Why is it better, especially if (for some reason, I presume, other than WP:POINT) you're the one doing the challenging, to remove the supporting details and give all that work to the reader? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Wikipedia "prefers" print sources. What it "prefers" (requires) is reliable sources, regardless of their medium. The details, which I considered excess, were removed because reference tags are not supposed to be used for footnotes. It seemed much simpler to point the reader to a single reference which verifies the stated fact than introduce a footnote with information that wasn't easily verifiable by the majority of readers, who are not, in fact, using printouts. Wikipedia isn't paper; not to imply that it cannot be made so, but simply to clarify that this is first and foremost an electronic medium. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Manhattan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Catastrophe Code question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! re Bronx: J.L. Mott

Shakescene, thank you for your references on Jordan L. Mott, who owned an iron works in the Bronx in the nineteenth century. I was surprised when my little footnote regarding Mr. Mott was deleted: I thought that Mr. Mott was so well known that he didn't need references to document who he was, but apparently some Wiki editors are obsessed with documentation. (Besides, it took me less than 10 minutes to find 2 references on Mott, so I guess some Wiki editors are lazy as well.) Again, thanks for your help. Cwkmail (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. User:Bellagio99 is one of the three editors (none of them currently living in the Bronx) who's actually done the most recently to maintain and expand the Bronx article (see the article's edit history or some of the earlier discussions on the Talk page), so he's not just some random know-it-all floating by. I'm familiar with the Motts, a famous Quaker family, but I didn't remember Jordan L. Mott specifically, so he's not someone like Peter Stuyvesant or Fiorello La Guardia who can be mentioned without supporting references. If you look at earlier versions of The Bronx from 2007 and before, you can see that unsupported assertions and next-to-nonexistent references were a huge problem that's now been somewhat abated, so there's a reason that Bellagio would be cautious of new ones creeping in. (The general disorganization of the article, and the fact that it wasn't telling me what I wanted to know, is what inspired me, who may never have set foot in the Bronx and has never lived in New York state, to start working on this article in the spring of 2008.) ¶ By the way, is it right to consider Jordan L. Mott, Sr. (born in New York to a prominent politician) an immigrant to the Bronx in the same way that Willa Cather (born in Nebraska) and Pierre Lorillard (born in Westchester, NY) were? Or should we rephrase that sentence? Regards —— Shakescene (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jordan Mott wasn't born and raised in the Bronx, I think that he'd have to be considered an "immigrant". (And thanks for explaining the Wiki editors' problems. Between vandals and the well-intentioned, you must have your hands full.)Cwkmail (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESB Height

Hey, sorry, I've been really unactive on Wiki this summer, just saw your message today! Glad there are people out there still battling these fools. I have no idea why they're so insistent. It's not like it isn't acknowledged elsewhere in on the page for its spire. Drumz0rz (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Nazism vs. Fascism question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk (I & II)

[2] Best ref desk answer I've read in ages. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise here: broad in scope yet pithy, and rich in relevant internal links. I couldn't have done nearly as well myself, and appreciate having good models for answers like yours that make the RefDesks so valuable. On behalf of us all, keep up the good work! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta

Shakescene, sorry to have questioned your assertion on the Reference Desk, but I was concerned since I had personal experience in that case. Not only was I one of the editorial leads for Encarta Africana (and for the larger Africana project of which it was part), but I went on to do quite a bit of freelance writing for the main body of Encarta. Needless to say, I am sorry to see it disappear. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to query me about Encarta (due to WP:NOR). I think that there is a Salon article out there about Africana that could serve as a 3rd-party source. Also, I was never actually on the Encarta staff. Africana was produced by a separate company named "Afropedia" that had a contractual relationship with Microsoft. When I worked for the main Encarta, it was on a freelance, contract basis. I knew a few of the main people there and even spent a few days at the office in Redmond, Washington, but I can't testify to the inner workings. After taking this into consideration, let me know if I can be of any help. Best wishes, Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD format

You may be interested to know that the question of expanding the use of the YYYY-MM-DD format has arisen once again, at [3]--VMAsNYC (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Much has been said there, about your original intention. Your clarification might be helpful, and I'm eagerly waiting for it. Thanks. HOOTmag (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

Feel free to correct me here if you think I mispoke.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA means "Games Ahead"

Hi, just saw your comment in the Revision history of 2008 World Series. GA is the abbreviation of "Games Ahead" and is opposite to "GB". So the champions have the "GA:X" over the second place teams--NullSpace (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

baseball rivalries

Thank you for your message and your kind words. I noticed that you are a New Yorker. I don't know if you are a Mets or Yankees fan. If the latter, please accept my congratulations -- as a Phillies fan -- for your team's resounding victory. The Yankees clearly were the better team, as well as the best team in baseball! Eagle4000 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the incorrect assumption .... Glad to hear you were rooting for the Phillies in this year's Series! Pedro did help us win the division, with his several good starts in the latter part of the season. I think Charlie Manuel deserves Mgr of the Year, for the way he managed his shaky bullpen (and rotation) to get back to the World Series the year after winning it (not an easy feat). Eagle4000 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson Cup

Sorry for any confusion. That means that Montreal leads the series. If you want to edit it to make it clearer then feel free. --FPAtl AEC♥ T C 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Not sure what happened here, but I assume one of my fat fingers hit the wrong bit of my phone screen. It certainly wasn't intentional, so thank you for fixing my mess. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answer

Nice, in-depth, answer to the question about how to contribute. --SPhilbrick T 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least some of the answer seems to have helped the enquirer, but we'll see what happens. Happy Holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP editor deleting references to Sabbatai Zevi

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

Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shakescene, with regard to History of the Jews in Greece, yeah we generally don't make threats in edit summaries, especially empty threats like blocking or banning an entire /16 IP range. My recommendation is that on the second or third go-round of reverting unexplained removal you drop a note on the article talk page with a brief explanation of why the text should remain (and adding a source is always ideal of course, although this editor clearly has an agenda). Then you can just use "rv - per talk page [link]" or "rv - pls discuss on talk [link]" in your edit summary and the onus is on the other editor to explain. This particular article is a candidate for short-term page protection (low-traffic, persistent edit-warring), if I see more activity there I'll consider protection. Not that it will do much good if they're really determined. The other article does indeed have enough IP editing that for now we'll have to tough it out. Dropping a source onto the relevant paragraphs would really help of course, "unexplained removal of sourced text" is a pretty easy revert rationale. Franamax (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, and came upon these pages more or less by accident. The sources for the paragraph are in the paragraph itself, but the whole Thessaloniki article is a long translation from the French (see Talk:History of the Jews of Thessaloniki). I'm just not competent to argue the merits, which is why I kept asking the IP to give some reasons. I could transfer the discussion to that article's talk page, which is what I was suggesting as I started composing the message on the assumption that BJB was a knowledgeable contributor the the page. (As I finished composing it, I realized his interest was closer to mine, in reducing vandalism.) I have no interest in becoming a general page-patroller, and try to stay away from most ANI-type discussions. This is the first time I've ever used (or felt the need to use) warning templates, since I usually compose my own advisories on the rare occasions it's become necessary. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used a warning template in my wiki-career, I have always felt that a personal message carries far more impact. Put yourself in the place of a kid on study break or in a library doing vandalism and they get a message "I know what you're up to, don't you think it's time to stop now" - you gotta figure the hair will stand up on the back of their neck and they'll look around to see if someone is looking at them. Unfortunately, the patrolling set often ignore those informal messages and place a milder warning after - I could go on about that... :)

The three of us all seem to have the same objective, maintaining quality in articles we really don't know much about. I have a few extra tabs at the top of the page to help with that now, is all. Roving-IP address editors with an agenda are tough to deal with, probably the toughest, so patience really helps. I can read a bit of French, maybe there's some way to pin down a specific source. Any ideas? Franamax (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For seeing both sides

For your seeing both sides here, I would have given you a smiley, but since you love theatre, I think you'll appreciate these masks, which express that everything has two sides. — Sebastian 11:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB and Words to avoid

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Princess Alice information box

Hello, Shakescene. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of World Series winners

I don't see any discussion at the talk page, but regardless. I'm fine with the color to differentiate leagues. Our table is basically the inverse of List of NBA champions. That list has the Eastern and Western champs in set columns and highlights the winners, we have the winner and loser in set columns and highlight the leagues. I'm fine with that (though I don't think expansion/WC/etc variants are needed), but the color needs to be visible as (I hope) it is now. As for the images, did my fix work? I just added a width restriction onto the table as I did in Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award to let the images fit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was looking at Talk:List of World Series winners which you originally linked me to, not Talk:List of World Series champions. As far as your solution goes, I don't mind the idea of AL/NL columns highlighting a winner rather than Winner/Loser highlighting the league, but I don't like the overly complex winner and AL/NL win columns you've got in that suggestion. I think the table could look effectively identical to how it does now, just altering what the headers and order are. However, that solution will 1. Take a lot of time/effort and more importantly 2. Take away from the fundamental question of the list which is who won. I told KV5 I liked the NBA format, but the more I think about it the more this style makes more sense. The question is who won, that is the topic which should be controlling in terms of columns. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as noted there, this list is per the style of List of Stanley Cup champions, so each style has precedent. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Showing tags literally

I see you used "" and so on to illustrate the tag in your recent contribution to the Reference Desk (then had to explain that the spaces were there to make the tag show up literally, not to be interpreted). Just FYI, anything enclosed in <nowiki>…</nowiki> tags is shown literally - this applies both to wikimarkup (so '''not''' bold, A signature looks like this: ~~~~ and {{footballbox }} work without the content being interpreted) and to HTML tags (Nope, not underlined or <big><big><big>Not too big</big></big></big>). Hope that comes in useful! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 13:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried nowiki/nowiki, code/code and nocode/nocode and for some reason none of them seemed to work (perhaps I was missing something through sleepiness). " and " looks like this now, but didn't before (if it weren't me/I, maybe it was a transient glitch during maintenance in the system or my browser's transmission.) Have a good new year. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems due to sleepiness - yes, it's easily done. I managed (I'm still not quite sure how!) to delete about 50% of one of the RD pages once. Still not sure what happened... Good new year to you too. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time...

Do you want to create Grandchildren of Christian IX and Louise? The article Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX fails to acknowlegde all Christians descendants. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't really have the knowledge or reference works to attempt that. I have put out a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Victoria's grandchildren & great-grandchildren, asking for proofreaders. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for you

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

mynameinc (t|c) 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review upcoming Signpost article

The upcoming 1 March 2010 issue of the Wikipedia Signpost contains an article that touches on the controversy over victors/vanquished in the War of 1812. Could you quickly review the Signpost article for accuracy? Thanks - Draeco (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CP / SWP Conventions

My personal taste would be to include the exact convention dates for each (or at least the month) and to make the full CP names into a footnote to clean up the table.

Now, as for the specifics, I'm no help to you since I concentrate on the 1920s and 1930s. I'm not aware of a list of SWP conventions anywhere in print. I know that the CPUSA has a party history that they put out in the 1980s that has all their conventions listed in the back (some with wrong dates) that would probably be of help, but my copy is with my books downtown and it'd be a couple days before I could look it up for you.

The current SWP doesn't seem to give a damn about the early SWP and they have always been extremely unfriendly, snippy, and rude when I have had the displeasure of corresponding with them. But one might be able to find out a few things about their later conventions from the horse's mouth...

Sorry I can't help more. —Tim Carrite (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a query to MIA, there are a few neo-Trots there that might know something. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about doing the SWP conventions in the back of my mind, but am "concentrating" right now on the CP conventions. One way to find out more is to look though the worlcat listings to find pamphlets of the resolutions and proceedings, that worked well with the socialist and communist conventions. I don't think the either convention list could should be intergrated into the larger articles, as they are all ready long enough.

--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, worldcat lists The workers and the Second World War: speech to the tenth National Convention of the Socialist Workers Party, Oct. 2-4, 1942 : with the political resolution adopted by the Convention. You should also remember that the SWP counted the CLA conventions in their numbering.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Thanks for the tips. Right now, I'm just trying to make a couple of columns to integrate into the already-existing United States presidential nominating conventions, rather than to create a new stand-alone list (or a new list for existing SWP and CP articles). So my current needs are fairly limited: just identifying the conventions which did indeed nominate presidential candidates, and the cities where they met.

At the moment, I'm toying with adding links to the major party platforms (from the American Presidency project at UC Santa Barbara) and wondering if there's some convenient, uncrowded way of squeezing in months, see User:Shakescene/conventions3. In the rather more distant future, I may look into doing the same for minor parties, although that would entail much more work (for example the UCSB site only gives platforms for parties that received votes in the Electoral College: something no Marxist or socialist party has yet achieved.)

[As for identity, I'm reticent on a retrievable public page like this because I know that the Internet never forgets, so why not send an e-mail to the link on my userpage? It's not an e-mail account I check as regularly as I once did, but I'll try to look it up soon.] —— Shakescene (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating convention list

I've retrieved the 1979 official CPUSA history, Highlights of a Fighting History, which has a list of CP conventions on pp. 491-492. I think you're pretty much complete for that organization...

May 1944 - Convention of the Communist Political Association (revised name during Browder period), but no candidate that I recall. NYC.

August 1948 -- 14th NYC

1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968 -- no conventions held in those years.

February 1972 -- 20th NYC

None held in 1976.

I don't think they ran cadidates after 1984, or in any years blanked on the table. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party members

Per:

As you can see, I cut out about half the "Prominent Members" from the SP of A article, because it was becoming far too long and obscure for the average reader. I created List of prominent members of the Socialist Party of America to take the whole list, both as a summary list that can be seen in one screen, and as a longer, annotated single-column list, ready for selective annotations and possibly dates of birth & death. I also briefly annotated the names that I'd left in the SP of A article, but I think you'd be better at annotating (briefly) the Annotated List names, since you wrote or significantly edited most of the biographical articles and know what's most important about (say) James Maurer, Rose Pastor Stokes, Job Harriman or Maynard Krueger. (In general, not the internal factional stuff.)
Of course, that also applies to the members I took away from the SP of A article: if you think that William F. Kruse is more important than James Oneal, or Adolph Gerber than Nikolai Bukharin, replace the less-important member. But we should keep the SP of A article's list manageably short. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple issues. I reckon we need to take this to the discussion page:Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx thonx

Thanks for your adds today to The Bronx and all your effort in the past on this. I will figure out how to get a Barnstar for you. Mebbe copy/adapt one of my own. I read the Jewish Community stuff with interest, as I was once there. How the mighty have fallen, such as Concourse Center of Israel! Bellagio99 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You have long deserved this, for your smart, careful and continuing approach to the editing of articles, especially those connected with The Bronx and other New York boroughs. Thonx! Bellagio99 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bellagio. All I remember doing today was tweaking and updating some of the population estimates; I haven't done much substantial to The Bronx since February (when I took a Wikibreak after some overenthusiast started undoing my formatting of tables that I was foolish enough to mention on an MoS talk page.) I think much of the more recent work has been done by User:Rjensen and User:Mynameinc. And of course, you and User:Jd2718 shared a lot of the earlier work with me. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you haven't done so already, read Seymour Perlin's web-page (listed in External Links) about the lost synagogues of the Bronx; it's fascinating. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My awarding of the Barnstar was for the cumulative body of work: just sparked by your demographic update today. Others may well deserve one too, but you have consistently hung in there. And thanks for the synagogoue headsup. I'll look at the web-page.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Census

Re the 1790-1890 NYC census figures: I don't have access to your source, but are you certain those figures cover the current boundaries of NYC? I was never able to get good figures for the Bronx and Queens. Don't forget town and county borders were not exactly the same for the entire period. Station1 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, it's a good question I've certainly asked myself and it prompted me to check again with a more recent and accessible source which you might also be able to consult: page 923 of The Encyclopedia of New York City (Yale 1995), edited by Kenneth T. Jackson (see New York City#Further reading), which has the same numbers. This table ["Population of Boroughs of New York City (as defined by Consolidation of 1898), 1790—1890"], cites

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1960 (vol.1, part A, table 28), 1970, 1980, 1990

—— Shakescene (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good enough for me. Thanks for checking. Station1 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City

Now that:File:Usgs photo New York five boroughs.jpg, is a cool map. The colors underneath, I would just tone down just a bit they're a little "loud". 7mike5000 (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I'm no whiz at Photoshop (I have an old Adobe Photoshop 5.0 Limited Edition that I haven't used in years). I can do some simple things in Microsoft Paint (for Windows Vista) and Microsoft Photo Editor (for Office 2000) with monotones like the "old" map's, but I'm not sure I could fiddle with the overlays required to change the tints in the USGS map without messing up the photographs underneath. (The designer of the map, User:Decumanus, hasn't made any mark on Wikipedia since 2006, so it's hard to ask for his help.) Want to experiment yourself to see what you can come up with? By the way, what browser do you use? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While checking for more information about the USGS map, I ran across this archived discussion from 2005 (!), giving the rationale for favoring the other map: Talk:New York City/Archive 6#Too many photos, Poorly placed photos. (If you glance over the other discussions on that page, you can see that some issues on this much-visited Featured Article change very little.) My own opinion is that most readers aren't coming for or expecting precise boundaries between the boroughs, and the fuzziness of some lines is outweighed by avoiding all those tiny numbers and color-key confusions. (As for being language-neutral, most European languages in Roman alphabets use the same names for New York boroughs -- as vs. "New York" itself -- as does English, while those that use different alphabets or names are certainly free to make good use of the other map.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Boroughs

How's it going the table you made looks great, for the New York City article, do you think putting it in a collapsible box like this

would look neater figuratively and literally for the individual articles on the boroughs? The table is still accesible, doesn't interfere with the formatting and everybody likes to click on a box, (I do, but I'm also retarded so...) it makes the webpage a bit interactive.

7mike5000 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the post on plural

As for attorneys general or attorney generals and your note “So there are certainly good strong sources for that usage, although I have not the slightest doubt that you can also find some utterly-respectable sources that use "attorney generals.", the explanation might be that the persons in question are semantically not attorneys but generals designates (attorney generals). Any further thought? Mr.Bitpart (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just speculating on the drift that changed majors general to major generals (as far back as Oliver Cromwell's time). Attorneys-general designate and Attorneys-general elect are actually clearer formulations, as are heirs presumptive and Vicars General. ¶ But you may be using the word "designate" in a technical linguistic sense that I don't know because I'm no linguist. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then a similar problem is that the plurals of ‘governor general’ in which the ‘general’ serves as a postpositive adjective; only the noun goes for inflection. In other cases, however, they are like a compound of like nouns, e.g., composer-director. So should the plural inflection is to be on the prominence or importance of a noun of a compound as such the other noun is to be an adjective noun unless, for example, the compound is a two like nouns?

Or is the term ‘general’ to be meant as ‘at large’, rather than referring of a person who is in command? The former case is then a prepositional phrase in subtle for ‘governor in general’. Mr.Bitpart (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least in their present form, General is an adjective that modifies Attorney[s], Governor[s], Secretary/ies, Vicar[s], Inspectors etc., just as Apparent and Presumptive modify Heir[s] and Martial modifies Court[s]. Some states have an Attorney General and a General Treasurer; in each case but in different relative positions, General is an adjective. However, long usage has turned General[s] into a noun modified by such words as Major, Brigadier and Lieutenant (and in other countries, Colonel and Captain). I'm not sure about the origin of Sergeant Major, almost always pluralized as Sergeant Majors rather than Sergeants Major. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it has historically not been semantically equivalence of ‘military general’ but of the term ‘public’ equivalence?

Also, the classification of those words as Post-positive adjective seems little bit blur for my understanding, but examples like ‘junior, senior, emeritus’ seem alright. Mr.Bitpart (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:An Online Gotha has moved

What were talking about? I didn't add any link to Lennart Bernadotte; I was adding his ancestry box that was all. Also are you sure you should be creating a page about the Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte? I don't think they are that notable.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your archiving

There was a current, and new (14 hours old) discussion on WT:RD that you archived, which I have un-archived. It's not fair to shuffle a discussion involving the community and evaluating the sanction of an editor to a subpage where it won't be seen, particularly since the editor in question hasn't gotten around to posting any responses. Please don't re-archive until the sanction discussion is closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC questions

Hi Shakescene,

About your reversion at Talk:Bronx:

The change may be "unnecessary" in terms of the article's talk page, but I assure you that some change is quite necessary to get your five-paragraph-long set of instructions off of the bot-maintained list of RFC questions. If the discussion has moved on to some other question, then please feel free to substitute the new question, but the RFC page needs a real question ("a brief, neutral statement" per the WP:RFC directions) with a timestamp immediately under the RFC tag, rather than five paragraphs of instructions about what to read before commenting.

I don't, of course, care what the question is, but I do care that people looking at the central RFC pages be able to find a question rather than orders to read previous discussions and to follow a particular format in their replies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression with the necessarily brief wording of an edit summary. What you did wasn't unnecessary in itself (I wrote the introduction for the Bronx talk page to suit that page and a long preceding discussion; another editor, after a brief further discussion, added the RfC/hist tag on top). However, I went ahead and edited the RfC/History and geography page directly, by replacing those five paragraphs with a one-line question very similar to your own (leaving the timestamp untouched) in order to leave a clean page at Talk:Bronx. This (I hope) rendered your own edit of Talk:Bronx unnecessary and revertible. But if my actions have caused any kind of technical or archival problem, please feel free to go back again and repeat your earlier edit to the Talk:Bronx page. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual changes to that page don't persist. The bot just reverts you on its next run. (Oddly, at the moment, it doesn't seem to be listed at all.)

The only effective choices are to convert the whole thing to a manual RFC, or to change the text immediately underneath the RFC tag on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link war of 1812

WP requires the "cite web" (or equivalent format). This format does not call for editorial comment. WP is against book-report links with editor summaries of the link. Your reversion of this link created duplicate links. I am reverting that. In the future please use proper link format. Thank you.Dave (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I probably should give you the theory so you will not think there is anything personal about it. As I understand it, the considerations are mainly of copyright. In many of our links the author's title for the link was altered to what the editor thought it should be. Maybe the editor was right, maybe the editor's title would have been a better one! However, you can't alter someone else's material in any way, or use it without permission or base something else on it. If you will note most of the sites have the copyright mark and a date. Some of them demand that they be cited in a particular way. The WP template:cite web format and its family are designed to take all these things into consideration. Also, I understand what you are trying to do by summarizing the link. I used to try to do that too. It is just that WP decided not to do that. Your or my summary after all is your or my opinion. According to WP, links shall not be book reviews. So, it isn't a matter of your opinion versus mine and the best man win. Not all. I happen to be an autoreviewer though not an admin. So, unless I am clearly wrong - and sometimes I am - I wish you would try to play along with the clean-up. Don't you think it is time it got cleaned up? The links are always a bone of contention because they are a target for advertisers. If and when WP ever decides to advertise, they wil have get money for it, like everyone else. Meanwhile, we do not plug or sponsor organizations who have something for sale, be it a tourist trip or membership in their organization. No need to answer. Good luck in your WP editing. I am sure you will learn a great deal.Dave (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Greater New York

The article Greater New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Common and modern usage should take precedence by redirecting to Greater New York instead, and replacing the disambiguation page with a disambiguation hatnote:
"Greater New York" redirects here. For the consolidation of New York City in 1897-98, see City of Greater New York.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bxj (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel da Paz

Please give your opinion on Talk:Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias#Move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo

On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of WS champions

I did "check your changes one by one", considering there was only one change, and it was pretty poor. If you don't agree, the talk page of the article is the best place to discuss. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percent or per cent

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion regarding "percent" versus "per cent" in the manual of style, since you previously edited this part of the manual. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REFPUNC Discussion

Dear Shakescene: You might want to check out this discussion regarding issues concerning WP:PAIC and MOS:REFPUNC. I would welcome your contribution to the discussion here; see also here and here. The newest proposal seems to be to update the MOS and REFPUNC to reflect the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, which would address the Kim Jong Un issue by placing the reference mark inside the parentheses. A clarifying update to the text of the MOS is also on the table. I welcome your valuable input into this discussion. Best regards. Saebvn (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion

Can you ask someone else to close the discussion on the ancestry box discussion? The administrator doesn't seem like he'll come back anytime soon and this discussion been going on for at least five months.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was misled by the "I'm back" statement on his talk page, which wasn't posted, as it first appeared to me, some time in November, but at the end of August, which is also his last recorded contribution to Wikipedia. He may well be doing some technical stuff with 'bots that isn't recorded here (but, say, at Wikimedia), but it doesn't look like he'll be active again soon, and if he is, his first priority will be archiving things that expire at the end of the year (like free, unmetered access to The New York Times archives).

Do you have any thoughts about a technically-competent, fair-minded administrator who (unlike Thumperward) hasn't been previously involved with Ahnentafels or genealogy?

Happy Holidays (you can catch the Queen's Christmas Message on the BBC website). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I post something on the Help desk. And Happy Holidays to you too!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden page

My hidden page is so well hidden that even *I* lost track of it for awhile. Like 3 months. Excellent addition here:[4] And I decided to keep the Big Al mugshot, in a slightly altered context.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Shakescene! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force

Sometime in the past you expressed an interest in getting WebCiteBOT running again or replaced. WebCiteBOT was a bot that submitted links to WebCitation.org in order to combat WP:LINKROT. I have recently started a WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force to help coordinate an effort to do just that. I am cordially inviting you to express your opinion on the matter if you are interested. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 15:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYC's 2010 Population

I just restored the final 2010 U.S. Census population in the article "New York City": 8,175,133. Although this figure has been disputed by Mayor Bloomberg and others, this is the official population for New York until the dispute is resolved with the Census Bureau. Until then, the final 2010 U.S. Census figure or later Census Bureau estimate should be used. Other figures (2009 estimate, City Council "disputed" figures, Chamber of Commerce estimates, etc.) aren't considered valid in Wikipedia.Mason.Jones (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with all those other sources and estimates (other than last year's estimates for 1 July 2009). I just used what appeared to me to be the latest (March 2011) U.S. Census figures at the county level for the 1 April 2010 decennial census, which I found at the U.S. Census web-site (as cited). I deliberately refrained from using their estimate for 1 July 2010, and used the census number they gave for 1 April 2010, although I'm not sure why those borough-level numbers are presented as estimates, rather than final. Any clarification or references you could give would be most helpful, since I spent a lot of time last night updating in several articles as best I could various numbers from 2009, 2008, etc., as well as 2010 numbers given without any official U.S. census reference (perhaps numbers used by City Hall or the Chamber of Commerce). Thanks. You can see my own arithmetic and sources at Template:NYC boroughs. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official 2010 Census figures for U.S. cities were just announced March 21 of this year; these appear everywhere in Wikipedia now (ex., List of U.S. Cities by Population). Perhaps the figures you got for 2010 are from the Census Bureau's 2009 estimate, released last summer 2010? Anyway, that estimate was higher and it's one reason the mayor and City Council aren't happy with the final count. But it is official. You'll find the final 2010 counts by logging onto factfinder2.census.gov and clicking 2010 Census.Mason.Jones (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, although it still takes a lot of digging, even with American Fact Finder 2. One valid reference, which you should use to document your own figures (so other editors like me don't question, challenge or overwrite them) is http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn122.html (The more specific URL is for an Excel spreadsheet, which is inconvenient to give as a link on Wikipedia, since many browsers aren't set to display Excel spreadsheets within a window, but require downloading and opening as separate documents. That URL is http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/cb11cn122_ny_2010redistr.xls and it only gives population for the top 20 counties and the top 20 incorporated places.) I had been using the best and most recent figures I could find at the Census site, redesigned recently and very hard to navigate. Incidentally, if you look hard for official recent sources at List of United States cities by population, you'll find that its present references are either out of date (estimates made before the April 2010 Census numbers were released), unofficial, or too vague (Am. Fact Finder). So what's most useful in navigating and editing the flood of population numbers in Wikipedia's current articles about New York, is not only sound numbers but sound sources. Without the latter, you don't know what you're seeing. ¶ I have no axe to grind in this, by the way, other than trying to get the soundest data; I live in Providence, Rhode Island, and haven't been in the Big Apple since 2003. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got both your messages (including on my talk page), and thanks. I appreciate your tip about complete sourcing of U.S. Census changes; it's a good reminder to me and will help avoid misunderstandings about the new census. Sincerely,Mason.Jones (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hint

If you're using Firefox, install abcTajpu, which has a LaTeX-like way of inserting non-English Latin-based letters. E.g. ë is obtained by typing e: and the insert key. That gives you an easy to remember input method compared to Alt+code or even switching keyboard layouts (the last method is certainly faster if you have to type a lot in a foreign language, but there's a much steeper learning curve) HTH :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Party template

In your edit summary on Template:USParty, you said "Reverted food-faith edit leading to empty links, since disambig page also leads to state parties". OK. First, if these two parties aren't notable enough to have articles written about them, maybe they don't need to be in the template all. Or, if they are notable, it would be a good idea for someone to write those articles. Second, the headline at the top of the template says "National political parties in the United States". How do state parties come into the discussion, then? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[of course that was meant to be good-faith, not food-faith] Both good points; the template could otherwise easily turn bloody with useless red links to a hundred defunct minor parties about whom no one has yet written even a stub article. If that item were a page or a list of such parties (like Conservative Party#United States), the red links could serve a useful purpose, but I'm not sure how useful they are for a navigation template. My inclination would be just to leave out "Conservative" until we have at least a stub article for one of those national parties. (I think the question's different when there's a definite finite number of red links in some kind of pattern, such as those I added for separate years to Template:New York City mayoral elections). ¶ Anyway, I don't take this question personally (and I hope the sometimes-abrupt terseness of an edit summary didn't made you take it that way), and since this discussion covers only a single item, and it isn't hyper-technical or super-controversial, I think it's best to move this over to the Template's talk page where others can see and join the discussion (and understand why the Conservative items are being moved or removed). That's what I'll do now. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Series

The Yankees originated in Baltimore, but it's pretty much a footnote at this point. I think their transfer to New York was part of the settlement deal between the National and American Leagues, a deal which of course paved the way to having a World Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year or two ago, I'd put a series of earlier names into the legend box, but another editor removed all but the Dodgers, saying that in the World Series table (as opposed to the one at MLB), the nicknames used in a Series were the only ones that were really relevant. Over time, other nicknames have been restored, but I think we should probably limit them to nicknames and cities used during the time a team was eligible to play in the World Series. Otherwise, the table could get crowded by all the wonderful 19th-century arcana found in the footnotes to the Franchise table at the foot of MLB, as well such explanations as that the Baltimore Orioles are now the New York Yankees while the St. Louis Browns are now the Baltimore Orioles. But perhaps I'm suffering from presentism and imposing a Whig interpretation of history. Good luck finding those Easter carrots with severely-trimmed whiskers. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Here's da Easter Rabbit, hooray! Da happy Easter Rabbit, hooray! Phooey! I'm sure glad I don't have ta do dis for a livin'!" -- Bugsy in Easter Yeggs.

This nickname stuff is overdone and too much is read into it. The recentists don't seem to realize that nicknames were general unofficial until the 1920s or 1930s. That's why the older guides tended to say simply "New York, A.L." or whatever. If the nicknames have to be there, I would go with the most common one. They list Washington Senators, for example, when their only World Series win came when they were primarily known as the Nationals, which in fact was their official nickname until the 1950s. "Brooklyn Robins or Dodgers" is misleading, as they were only the "Robins" in 1916 and 1920, and even then they were still being called "Dodgers". And their glory year of the 40s and 50s were strictly as "Dodgers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pondering what to call the Braves (who were the Rustlers when they won in 1914, and the Bees in the late 1930's). But maybe I should take your advice and just keep it simple. Is there some extremely short explanation that you'd want add to the key at World Series#World Series record by team or franchise, 1903–2010? Of course, a hairless hare with your chawacter (or chawacter with your hair) needs no extra pwod to be BOLD. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Braves were already the Braves in 1914, hence the term "Miracle Braves" for their pennant run. They adopted "Braves" in 1912 and began wearing an Indian head patch on their left sleeves that year. Prior to that, they had no official nickname. I'm not totally sure what to do about the article. The subject has been smacked all around and everyone seems to have their own ideas and it keeps getting changed. I do know this, though: that until they stopped publication in 2008, the annual Sporting News Baseball Record Book would list each team's year-by-year results, and title them in terms of their current nickname, or their last nickname within a given city if they were a multi-city franchise like the Senators/Twins or the Browns/Orioles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did some work on that, and so did I. Now we have another issue. The reason the former names were listed second was to make the sort work properly. As it is now, if you sort by team, [1st Washington Senators] floats to the top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I prefixed all of them with "prev." meaning "previously". There might be something better, such as "formerly" or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer on the reference desk

Good answer there! Moments like that where I see someone answer better than I could on something I care about makes my involvement here worthwhile. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very flattering, but which question on which reference desk? I think that your answers about both China and the Midwest tended to complement mine instead of being better or worse. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was about rural progressivism; it is good to complement each other, but your answer on progressivism was vastly superior because you had sources to mind that were far more relevant! Are there any other reference desks than Science and Humanities? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just go to WP:Reference desk and you'll see a list; you can also see one at the top of their shared discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Off the top of my head, I remember the seven current desks to be WP:RD/Science, WP:RD/Humanities, WP:RD/Language, WP:RD/Mathematics, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing and WP:RD/Miscellaneous. There are periodic suggestions to merge or split off reference desks (e.g. one for Religion), but those seem to be the ones that work best right now. ¶ I've been interested in prairie populism, progressivism and socialism for a long time, which is one of the reasons that I recommended those 40-year-old books, but I didn't attempt what you did, which was to offer an actual answer to the specific question, so in that sense our two answers complemented each other. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NI Assembly - Share of first-preference votes

Good work done here but what do the bold numbers & colours represent? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was trying to show (1) where a party exceeded 50% of the vote or (2) where it led the vote without having a majority. The shading scheme was about the best I could think of at the end of a long night, and I hardly consider it as final or perfect. If I or anyone else can think of improvements (even small tweaks) or better alternatives, they'd be welcome. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sortname/doc

Template:Sortname/doc‎ - Feedback requested. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDUSA

The flippant annihilation of 2/3 of the article for lack of sources or I DON'T LIKE IT, as the case may be, really pisses me off. That's legalized vandalism, from my perspective. My vision is to completely restore that section, with sources this time. Which means we have to start digging... I don't care so much about the 1990s soap opera, but that shit about the 1970s and 1980s is going back. I'm pissed. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might see if User:Trust Is All You Need has an interest in sourcing this out. He was working on American radicalism for a while and has subsequently moved to Soviet history stuff. Hopefully I have that user name spelled right, if not he should be in the history of the piece. I was digging around my microfilm and found that I own New America for 1965-1985, so that's going to be useful. I've also got Newsletter of the Democratic Left on film, but they seem to have pretty consciously avoided mention of SDUSA. One thing you might do is really scrub the New York Times and Washington Post for mentions of SDUSA, Carl Gershman, Bayard Rustin, etc. If the material is paywalled, make a note of the date and I can suss it out on film. Harrington is good, too, for the split — Fragments of the Century, I think. I'm stuck working 3 days in a row, off 2, then working a few more, so my time is going to be heavily constrained for a week or so. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted material is available in the history, so restoring it should be easy, once you find sources. You just need to find reliable sources and to avoid OR. I'd hope that finding a newspaper article on Hatcher's relaunch should be easy.

I deleted the CPUSA external link because of its unreliability: External sources are supposed to be as reliable as cited sources. Also, it was about pre-SDUSA SP politics. If you are interested in that history, you can find out more about Jay Lovestone in one semi-reliable source: When he was a new leftist, Ronald Radosh wrote a book Foreign policy of American labor, which was documented carefully, as befits a historian. There was a memoire by a fellow Presidents and Peons about the AFL-CIO and Latin America, which is more of a primary source. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop by the Talk Page of the SDUSA piece and provide your input, whatever it may be. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, New America and The Democratic Left and the ward newspaper of some suburb of Kansas City are primary sources. You need to find secondary sources, at least to sustain the main narrative. (It's great if you link primary sources that people can check, that back-up the points established by the secondary sources.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Carrite suggested, please move any further dialogue about the article to its talk page, Talk:Social Democrats USA#Moved from a user talk page. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NI Assembly

The Assembly treats the UUP as the third biggest party as it has the third most number of seats. 1st pref votes are only used as a tie breaker, and there is none here.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN at Morris Hillquit

Hi, if I click that ISBN (ISBN 0313205264) that you keep deleting on the Morris Hillquit page, I can find a hundred copies of the book at (for example) the Chicago Public Library (http://www.chipublib.org/search/details/cn/504576/results/1/) and the Oregon State University library (http://oasis.oregonstate.edu/search/i?SEARCH=0313205264). ABC-CLIO must be just a single source among many; or perhaps some glitch in your software, browser, system or programming is hiding all the other results. See Wikipedia:ISBN. Or is there something illegitimate (e.g. plagiarism, copyright violation, outright political distortion) in an ABC-CLIO reprint that monopolizes all those library hits, while none of those libraries have the Greenwood Press originals? Regards. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a useless outcome in practical terms. The way that one finds a book is to search a title in a library catalog, or by using OCLC to search multiple libraries. ISBN numbers are sellers' tools, including publisher + title + format + check digit the same way that a 5 ounce Reser's frozen bean and cheese burrito is 0-71117-01150-0. Wikipedia doesn't have a "find it in a store" option for that... That might sound silly, and maybe it is a little, but bear in mind that each format and each edition has a unique bar-code, meaning that to "properly" list a book one needs to clutter bibliographies with at least two numbers, one for the hardcover, one for the paperback. Further, older titles don't have a UPC number at all, utterly defeating whatever dreams there might be of a click-to-find option for every book. ISBN links are thoroughly useless, the list of hits they generate is vast and digging through the results inefficient and STILL ends up with a visit to a library's regular search engine. The quicker they go away from Wikipedia, the better. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style

Hi Shakescene.

As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in the current RFC on subpages, at WT:MOS.

Noetica^Tea? 05:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello S. Just in case you don't have Bug's talk page on your watchlist I wanted to let you know that I added some info [6] about the B at Tiff's film that you might be interested in. I hope that it is of some help to you. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War poets

Thanks for your comments, they were quite helpful. -- 178.5.9.232 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job descriptions

I'd call Gene Debs a "journalist and orator" and Jim Maurer a "trade union official." The others looked good at a glance. Debs is known for his brief time organizing the ARU, but before that for years he was the magazine editor for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen. Afterwards, he made his money writing and speaking on the party's behalf. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposed

Proposed deletion of Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte‎

The article Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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.. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Shakescene/sandbox2

User:Shakescene/sandbox2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shakescene/sandbox2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Shakescene/sandbox2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk trivia

No, Shakescene, I think you're right. My belief — which I think I absorbed through osmosis by reading most all of the output of Zhores' twin brother Roy Medvedev during the 1980s, was that Zhores Medvedev was named after Jean Jaures, while Roy was named after Indian radical leader M.N. Roy by their Communist parents. In fact, I am so sure that I do believe I'd bet one American dollar on this factoid. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

--Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of NYC mayors

HI - I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on this article, it's really substantially better than it was. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. And thanks for disentangling the numbering of New York mayors, something I wouldn't have tried myself. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because I think the article is in good hands, I'm going to remove it from my watchlist; however, if you ever feel the need for a second opinion or assistance of any kind, I'd be very pleased top help out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have a question, have any mayors besides Wm Havemeyer and Wm Gaynor died in office? The standard sources (e.g. The Green Book & the Encyclopedia of NYC) don't give much indication for early mayors, but that may be because none of them died in harness. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shorter term of the early mayors make it less likely that one would die in office. Maybe, also, someone in ill health wouldn't have been appointed. Just guesses on my part -- I'll see what I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Robert Lurting (#35) and Edward Holland (#40) both died in office. Also John Cruger (#38) died in the same year as his last year of service, but it's not clear if that was while he was in office or not -- although I'd think that the author would have mentioned it. (Also, the Wikipedia article on Cruger is more than the sub-stub some of them are, and it says nothing about dying in office, although it has info on his will and where he was buried. I tend to think Cruger did not die while in office.)

There's also a half-dozen or so mayors for whom the date of death is not listed, but I have to think that if they died in office it would have been noted somewhere and therefore we would know their dates of death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that work; I'd thought there was a simple annotated list somewhere without having to research the first sixty mayors, one by one. Actually the first paragraph of John Cruger's Wiki-biography seems to say pretty clearly that he served as mayor until he died:

John Cruger (1678 – August 13, 1744) was an immigrant to colonial New York with an uncertain place of birth, but his family was originally Danish. In New York from at least 1696, he became a prosperous merchant and established a successful family as well. He served as an alderman for twenty-two years and as Mayor of New York from 1739 until his death in 1744.

Maybe this is getting to a point where we should move the discussion off my talk page and onto the List of Mayors' where any passing experts might see it. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may have been making an assumption about Cruger's death in writing the lede to that article. What the other source says is:

In 1744, Stephen Bayard is appointed mayor of six consecutive one-year terms. John Cruger died in New York City on Auhust 13, 1744.

I have to think that these sentences wopuld have been reversed in order if Cruger had died in office. Also, I believe at the time that mayors were appointed on July 1.

Moving this discussion to the article talk page is probably a good idea. Maybe I'll just cut and paste part of it there now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with you trying to move it. I'll move my last comment now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SDLA

I'm not seeing any indication that there ever was such a page -- if you click a red link of something that has been deleted a pink box shows at the top with the deletion information. I have a vague recollection of having written that group up, but it might have been for my website rather than WP. I watch AfD very carefully and haven't seen it up there. They did wipe out a mass of contemporary Trotskyist grouplets six or eight months ago, but not bit problems beyond that. The Social Democratic League was pretty much Emanuel Haldeman-Julius's thing, as I recall. I've been working on Fraina this week -- one of the hardest bios in that he was a huge figure and there really isn't a good bio on him (just Buhle's thing, which is mediocre at best). I'm still working through it, burning up lots of time. Also helping get the last volumes of ISR up on the net -- Google Books missed three. They've already been scanned by Marty Goodman but I'm trying to get the files into nice shape. Hope all's well with you. —Tim. /// Carrite (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Shakescene. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Talk:New York City

I removed the rant not because I disagree with it but because it set of my trolling alarms. Between the fact that the rotor has made no other edits than to add, then remove, then re-add the same passage, and that it simply regurgitates exact points already made on the same talk page (not in the archives, bu actually visible by looking at the page) makes me think the editor was trolling indeed. Good faith doenst mean check common sense at the door. I won't remove it again right away, but I really think it was pure trolling. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. When I'm a little more active again on Wikipedia, I'll go over the NYC talk page history. Those comments did seem a bit familiar, but certainly more than one reader and editor (including me) has shared those sentiments about superlatives: it's tricky to indicate New York's place, often shared, at the top of many fields without slipping into boosterism. I was going by common practice and my memory of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to my talk page

Funny stuff. Thanks! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Bugs. No one can allege they haven't been duly warned now, can they they? But what I wasn't sure of getting (and I'm sure you'd find more easily) is a proper free-copyright/fair-use three-fingered glove to put inside that red hexagone. Happy trails. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My ideal page would be so full of cautions, warnings, useful advice, and stuff like that there, there would be no room left for any actual user comments. As regards the stop-sign hand, I would think it's a free illustration, and hence could be copied and modified. If one were of a mind to. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Stadium (1923)

...Fifty Years of Drama, p.40, has various construction figures, including "twenty thousand cubic yards of concrete". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cubic yard is 36 inches wide. A cubic meter is 39.37 inches wide. 36 cubed is 46,656 cubic inches. 39.37 cubed is about 61,023 cubic inches. That's about a 1.3 to 1 ratio. So 20,000 cubic yards (which seems like a suspiciously round number, but that's another matter) should translate to something over 15,000 cubic meters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. See Talk:Yankee Stadium (1923)#Temporary point: metric conversion and Conversion of units#Volume which says that a cubic yard is 0.76455486 cubic meters. I tried what I should have tried earlier, seeing if the factors had been reversed, with 0.7645 dividing into 20,000 cubic yards instead of multiplying it, and got 26,160, so this just seems to have been the result of an unintentional flip or transposition. The reciprocal of 0.7645 (or 0.7646) is 1.308 (which by a truly-astounding coincidence is what page 360 of the 2012 World Almanac says is the number of cubic yards in 1 cubic meter.) Anyway I let the very useful, but hard to format, wiki-conversion template do my work and round the result to match the original. I'm sure that the drink-deprived men of the Hylan-Harding Era who had to move those 20,000 cubic yards of concrete took very great care to measure each one first. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I responded to your Palestine UN query at the Wikipedia reference desk. Please check it out whenever you are able to. Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

finding Serpentine font sources

Would [7] and/or [8] be a little help in finding Serpentine (font)?142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Shakescene. You have new messages at Technical 13's talk page.
Message added 00:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Technical 13 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Commonwealth and Protectorate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stuart

Provincial governments of South Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congress of the People

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Governors of Nebraska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comments

I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Although you signed your comment with the date (which can be achieved by typing five tildes ~~~~~), it did not include your name. The preferred option is to sign comments with four tildes ~~~~ which also includes your name and a link to your talk page. You probably already know this and it was just a typo, so this is just a heads-up! —sroc (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right, sroc, but I can't find that archived section to add my name to the signature without fearing that I might wipe all subsequent sections and edits of MoS Talk/D&Nos. Do you have a good permalink? —— Shakescene (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert

I fixed the problem. If you see any others, leave a message on my talk page.

Two things:

Column headers start with ! and not | (most of the time). ! will automatically bold and center. Also, it will help those using screen readers (aka the blind). See WP:DTAB. Things get complected, because this is used when {| class="wikitable"
Tables end with |} and not {{S-end}}.

Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Forgive me—and neither of us is eager to get into an edit war—but I still fail to see quite what "problem" your AWB edits to the tables at Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert solved.

There are, in my experience, many different ways to construct a table, and ! & !! are so far as I know shortcuts and conveniences (ones I've rarely used when constructing many Wikipedia tables over the years), rather than mandatory elements.

I didn't create the original tables at V&A's Grandkids but I spent a great deal of time and effort formatting and arranging them, as well as filling in many of the details. That of course doesn't give me any Ownership rights, but there are reasons for what I've done. Similarly, of course, I take absolutely no pleasure in reverting the sincere, good-faith work of other editors. Far better to find some mutually-satisfactory or at least mutually-tolerable way of addressing everyone's specific concerns.

Boldface and centering are usually desirable in column headings, but I've almost always used other ways than ! and !! to achieve just that, if they don't happen automatically (e.g. through "Class=wikitable"). I don't see, but maybe I'm wrong, how leaving (dates of birth & death) in plaintext confuses things; it's intended to make things clearer rather than more obscure. Although it's been a while since I've visited the MOS:Accessibility pages, the last I read there said that light non-clashing underlying tints (e.g. not red/green) were no longer a problem for automated readers. I didn't put in those Esses at the tail of the tables, and have absolutely no objection to removing them.

I'll put your talk page on my Watchlist to catch any replies. If necessary or desirable, we could easily move any extended discussion onto the article's talk page, which happens to have an unusually small number of entries for its age.

If you're in the U.S., have a good Thanksgiving—— Shakescene (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never have a problem with a person asking questions. There is so much to learn, all the docs to learn and the docs keep changing.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say and/or I didn't explain it well enough. This has nothing to do with colours as I didn't change colours (on purpose).

For ! & |, this is an accessibility issue. I quote from WP:DTAB.

Row & column headers ( ! )

Like the caption, these help present the information in a logical structure to visitors. The headers help screen readers render header information about data cells. For example, header information is spoken prior to the cell data, or header information is provided on request.

If you just use a plain |, the screen reader doesn't know the row contains table column headers. It just presents this as normal information. If ! is present, the screen reader tells the user that this is a column header. This is especially useful because the user of the screen reader can press a button and the screen reader repeats the column headers. We can just look up at the column header or glance at it. For the screen reader user, everything is spoken and it can take awhile to go thru the table.

For the italics on (dates of birth & death). I'm not a fan of italics in small text. It is harder to read, but I have no objections if you change it back to italics.

Bgwhite (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My big frustration with ! and !! is that they're so inflexible; there are a few small adjustments I've been able to make in other contexts (like italics — although in this case I'm happy with just non-bold upright), but in general I haven't been able to override their defaults for settings like column widths or background colours. In your research into the documentation, have you noticed any legitimate ways of making such small adjustments, while still giving the necessary signals to reading devices?

Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of GOP conventions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MLB team nicknames

This can get to be kind of a slippery subject. Your advice to see individual team pages is good. I recommend you take a look at History of baseball team nicknames to get an idea of what you're up against. Another good resource for cross-checking all manner of things, including nicknames, is Retrosheet. This, for example, the 1901 final standings.

The thing is, nicknames were often pinned on teams by sportswriters and were not necessarily "official", although they were often treated that way. Several American League teams ended up being named for their National League cross-town rivals' original names: Boston Red Stockings, Chicago White Stockings, St. Louis Brown Stockings.

Brooklyn's case shows how fluid this all was. They started as the Atlantics, which was a name left over from the "amateur" days of the 1860s. Then they got labeled the Bridegrooms for a while, then Trolley Dodgers. During Wilbert Robinson's tenure as manager they were still the Dodgers but more often the Robins, until he retired.

Nearly every team in Washington has been called either the Nationals or the Senators (or both). Nearly every team in Baltimore has been called the Orioles. Milwaukee's teams were once called the Cream Citys (note the spelling), and then Brewers became favored (even during Prohibition, presumably).

Then there's Pittsburgh, which was originally designated Allegheny when it was a separate city. Some sources will claim they were called the "Alleghenies", but that spelling is incorrect. Teams were often called by pluralized proper names: the Bostons, the Chicagos, the Philadelphias... and the Alleghenys. Once they were re-designated Pittsburg(h) they would have been called the Pittsburghs, until they acquired the "Pirates" tag in about 1891.

There are also cases where teams had very short-lived nicknames. One example is Cleveland, which was called the Blues for a few years, but that's pretty forgettable in the bigger picture. As is the attempt to rename the Phillies the "Blue Jays" or the Braves the "Bees". In a more recent example, the Houston Colt .45s were quickly shortened to just Colts, and the name was changed when they moved to the Astrodome. The Colts name turned out to be as temporary as the rickety ballpark they were playing in.

So it's a question perhaps of the scope of the table you're producing. I could make some changes to it if you want me to. I would flag my changes in some way so you could decide on them. I was thinking "(none)" rather than a blank space might be better for teams whose names have never changed, such as the Detroit Tigers, whose name was already official even in their Western League days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in process of copying all the discussion to a separate page called User talk:Baseball Bugs/MLB team variants. As for the next four years, maybe we'll have an impeachment at some point. Or maybe several of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see how you're aligning the nicknames / former cities column. One thing to be aware of is that the old Washington AL (1901-1960) was called the Nationals and the Senators at the same time - both were effectively "official" nicknames for around 50 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook)

1–5pm - come by any time!

Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner!

We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Obama confirmations, 2010

Template:Obama confirmations, 2010 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier's Oath listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Soldier's Oath. Since you had some involvement with the Soldier's Oath redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers' Oath listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Soldiers' Oath. Since you had some involvement with the Soldiers' Oath redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 15:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1876 Championship of the West

I don't have info on it. I'll see what I can find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what I found, on Newspapers.com (pay site) for the Chicago Tribune in October, 1876. While being called the Championship of the West, it was also acknowledged as merely an exhibition series, or "extra series", of five games, for the straightforward purpose of getting more revenue. Here are the game results:

Oct 5, at St. Louis - Chicago 2, St. Louis 0 - Chicago Tribune, Oct 6, p. 5

Oct 7, at St. Louis - St. Louis 4, Chicago 0 - Chicago Tribune, Oct 8, p. 3

Oct 9, at Chicago - St. Louis 3, Chicago 2 - Chicago Tribune, Oct 10, p. 3

Oct 10, at Chicago - St. Louis 21, Chicago 18 - Chicago Tribune, Oct 11, p. 7

Oct 11, at Milwaukee - St. Louis 16, Chicago 15 - Chicago Tribune, Oct 12, p. 8; Daily Milwaukee News, p. 4

Clearly, the pitchers were losing interest by the time Game 4 rolled around. The pitchers for the first four games were Albert Spalding and George Bradley. The Trib only showed a line score for Game 5, with nothing about the pitchers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bugs. Detailed response on your own talk page — often criticized but rarely ignored. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could do with a little more ignoring. :) Above, I have appended citations for the results. I don't think Milwaukee papers are in Newspapers.com, but I'll check and see. One interesting bit of trivia is that while the teams were conventionally the Brown Stockings and the White Stockings, the terms "Browns" and "Whites" were sometimes used in the Trib's writeups. (Given Adrian Anson's shameful role in drawing the color line some eight years later, this seems sadly ironic.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Milwaukee paper which didn't have a box score either, but which stated clearly that Bradley was pitching for St. Louis and implied that "Spaulding" (sic) was pitching for the Chicagos. The writer accounted for the sloppy play by stating that it was cold there and players' hands were numb, hence lots of errors, though they didn't give an exact count. Another bit of trivia is that ball game reporters in those days often used the term "innings" as a singular word, a la cricket. Example: "The White Stockings, first at the bat, principally through means of outrageously wild work by the Browns, succeeded in scoring seven runs in the first innings. (sic)" To show how things were done in those days, the very next day the Browns were due to play an exhibition game against the West Ends ball club. It was all about extra revenue. The sites of the games were Grand Avenue Grounds (presumably - I'll see if I can verify) in St. Louis; Twenty-third Street Grounds in Chicago; and West End Grounds in Milwaukee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I saw some mention of is that Chicago (and probably also St. Louis) lost some scheduled games when Athletic and Mutual bailed, late in the season. Playing this series would have been a way to make up some lost revenue. One funny thing is that the Trib erased Athletic and Mutual from the late-season standings; for example they listed Chicago with 38 wins, when the real total was 52, as they had rubbed out 7 wins apiece against Athletic and Mutual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812 redux

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theory/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team nicknames etc.

Thanks for the tip. I'm sure the editor means well, but these names can be found in various sources, even if they're mostly unofficial. As to American Independence Day, I'm reminded of this:

Child: Does Canada have a Fourth of July?

Parent: Yes, but it comes on the First!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: @Solicitr: By chance, Bugs, I happened to have a tab open for History of baseball team nicknames and checking the Edit History saw that while you're responsible for creating and starting this page, User:Solicitr has been editing it very actively since the end of April 2020 (although I see that he or she first began editing the article in 2017). The vast majority of edits seem to come from the two of you together, but neither of you leaves many edit summaries, so it's hard to see what's been happening — deletions, alterations, restorations, changes in footnotes?

As a complete ignoramus on this subject, relying almost entirely on the expertise of other Wikipedia editors, I think (perhaps naïvely) that it might be helpful for the two of you to talk over the specific nicknames, and see where you can swap sources and attempt to find consensus, rather than risk a long series of edit wars on several baseball-historical articles, with all their unpleasant, frustrating and usually unproductive results. But my talk page is not the best place for the two of you to have such a discussion. Hopefully, —— Shakescene (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... It's been a while since I looked at that page. I'll have to check what sourcing he's using. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, it's not too bad. It's not clear where he's getting some of his information, nor why he's taking shots at Turkin & Thompson, since I don't recall those books using nicknames. But I would have to look into that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I walked through it and made a few tweaks. I'm not so sure about "official" adoption dates, but he's going by sourcing as to the earliest apparently official occurrence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should archive the page

You are completely right about the lengthElinruby (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812 Talkpage

I agree that the talk page was becoming excessively long, but in this edit [9] you archived multiple discussions that were last active less than a week ago, including an active RFC. This kind of indiscriminate archiving is far more disruptive than an overly-long talk page. Please undo your edit. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rock Canyon: Hi, RRC, all of those interminable discussions are not lost but can be found in Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23. I wouldn't be the best person to retrieve the discussions that might in fact still be live to someone (the RFC dates back to the end of June and already has the equivalent of 12 typewritten pages or 14-15 successive screens on my desktop).

However, if you want to retrieve the topics that you think should still stay open, you could easily cut (or just copy them) from Archive 23 after opening its Edit tab and paste them back either at the bottom of the Talk Page, or into a newly-created page like those for Who won? and Mobile.

In theory this is what User:Miszabot should be doing, but it's currently set to leave open any discussions which have attracted a comment within the last month, so I could easily see (given editors' and intervenors' past behaviour) some ever-longer threads, if left alone, filling up the current Talk Page for years and years to come.

I have copied this thread of my own talk page to [[Talk:War of 1812/Should any threads be retrieved from /Archive 23 ?]], so no need to respond here. With all best wishes for the week. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812 info box

On the British side, above militias, there is a line (?) Is this a placeholder or something? Don't want to mess with it without knowing why it is there.

On a more controversial note, do we really want "freed slaves" to be considered an economic consequence? I guess it was since it took the British a long time to pay this off, but that isn't it's only importance surely. I truly hesitate to suggest adding it to outcome though, any ideas? Elinruby (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Hi, ER, those two lines (actually two em-dashes) are indeed placeholders trying to keep like line with like line further down the box (to ease comparison of e.g. ships), since there apparently was (at that time in this conflict) no Imperial equivalent to the U.S. Rangers. Any other placeholder that looks like a placeholder will do just as well if not better, e.g. tildes —— Shakescene (talk)[13 July 2020]

"slaves freed" is not listed as a result, but under Casualties & Losses. Given the brutal socio-economics of the time, 4,000 slaves lost would count as a loss. On the one hand, if one counts (as some protagonists did) slaves as chattels, assets like farms burned or buildings destroyed aren't counted under this column, so why would you count slaves? On the other hand, prisoners taken are listed, and if you count slaves as human beings lost to one side, then maybe slaves freed (and thus lost to their owners and country) should be included. Grave moral questions are of course, inextricable from such questions, but in giving factual data, one also needs to avoid historical presentism. This contradicts the maxim of some 19th-century German historian-philosopher {I think Heinrich von Treitschke) that "What is, is good" because in our eyes "What was, was bad". Philosophically yours, —— Shakescene (talk) [13 July 2020]

I can see why it’s counted that way, but.... this isn’t something I am going to war over anytime soon, but as I have said about other things, we also don’t want the voice of Wikipedia to mindlessly echo the value judgements of 200 years ago. This is just a concern I am raising for the moment. I don’t have a proposal yet that would fix this, short of god help us the outcome field. Getting back to the forces part of the Infobox, how would you feel about adding the Voltigeurs? I may also be able to throw in some html to fix the alignment problem one way or the other. Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of presidential nominating conventions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whig. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 8: NYBG Environment of The Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

Wednesday June 8, 11am-5pm: New York Botanical Garden - Environment of the Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

Hello @Shakescene! The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to come to the Mertz Library in person and edit about the environment of the Bronx! All skill levels welcome at the event! Experienced Wikipedia editors from the Wikimedia New York City chapter will be in attendance and available to help. A one hour training session will be offered at the start of this event covering introductory topics. Attendees familiar with editing Wikipedia can edit off of a worklist focused on the environment of New York City; as well as, a sub-list focused on the environment of the Bronx. The Mertz Library will pull topical media from their collection to assist the editing.

--Wikimedia New York City Team via Wil540 art (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Shakescene. Thank you for your work on Leading members of Social Democrats, USA. User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article! Though, IMO while the quote is probably necessary, Earwig does flag it at 70% copyvio. Therefore, shortening it slightly could be better, though this is definitely optional and I acknowledge it is difficult to achieve. Many thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

((Re:Vicki Kiang}}

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Your message got buried among the usual WP notices on my Talk Page.

Although it's inelegant and I hesitated beforehand, this was the best solution I could find to the inordinate length and distracted narrative of the SDUSA page. Removing those half-dozen mini-biographies literally halved the length of the SDUSA article, and the individual careers indicate the relations of SDUSA's leaders with the American labor movement and the rise of neo-conservatism.

There is a preceding parallel in List of members of the Socialist Party of America.

Best regards, —— Shakescene (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to old appearance

Any help much appreciated.

For the first few tune I opened the main page of Wikipedia, I was given the opportunity to revert to the appearance I've seen and used for the last 17 years (clunky though some of it was).

But now it no longer appears, and fiddling with the five choices under "Appearance" (inscrutable to non-techies) hasn't proven successful. What do I do? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Wikipedia looked 17 years ago, but if you want to return to the appearance of Wikipedia that was in use last year, here's what to do:

Click on the profile picture button in the top-right of any page.
In the drop-down menu that appears, click on "Preferences".
Click on the "Appearance" tab.
Select "Vector legacy (2010)" under "Skin".
Scroll to the bottom of the page and click the "Save" button.

If that doesn't work, you might need to be more specific about what your problem is. Kornatice (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kornatice Thanks. I think I've figured it out now. What I wanted was the Vector2010 skin and what I needed to remember was to click was "Save" at the bottom of the "Appearance". But that procedure is far from intuitive.

—— Shakescene (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 15: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn

Feb 15: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.

Wednesday February 15 WikiWednesday @ BPL (RSVP on-wiki).

6:30 pm - 8:00 pm

(Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn)

Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I think your edit of just now is a good one, btw, still nosing around over here. Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. I had just realised that what had been there before was greatly distorted (and misleading) by omission — leaping from Liberation to the comparatively unimportant hangover trials since 1980, without mentioning the drastic reckonings of the first decade after Liberation. (Even casual readers would have heard and wondered about Laval's and Pétain's fate.)

Certainly would benefit from a little more work (with a few more details of the postwar trials and reprisals), but I hope this was a good start.

Cheers —— Shakescene (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree about South Africa. Edging my way into trying to link into other empires under Nazis Elinruby (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking twice (and incompletely), I'm wwondering how to treat unoccupied countries or Allied territories -- on the one hand, it's subversion, treason, sabotage, espionage or propaganda; but on the other hand, I suppose, it's still collaboration with the Axis.

Should there be separate articles about (1) collaborating with an occupier (siding with and helping the bully) and (2) collaborating with a power that's hostile to your own government (or with some other country)? Or not?

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby:

Thinking a third and fourth time after seeing the enormous prospective length of work in progress, I think that there is enough difference between collaborating with an occupier and collaborating with the Axis elsewhere to split it into at least two, e.g. Collaboration with Axis Occupiers and External cooperation with the Axis.

Otherwise this will balloon beyond reasonable length, e.g. longer than the War of 1812. It's already pressing 180K, and if one article covers 60 or 80 countries (what about Argentina and Brazil? What about Ireland? What, indeed, about the U.S.?) the length will be impossible to read or navigate as a whole. (After over a decade, on & off, at War of 1812, I still haven't read through it all, top to bottom.) Shorter articles will also be easier to edit, review and correct.

P.S. Our comments have been migrating between my talk page, yours, and the articles. We should probably keep them to the article's talk page, where others can see and comment on them. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Especially since the Poland section is on the drama boards. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix its problems. I was thinking about ways to split Elinruby (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will post over there. But remember, I am doing a trim now so don't panic <g> Elinruby (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there wasn't was much to trim as I thought. Completely burned out on this for the moment. May possibly add Kenya or Palestine or Lebanon later on. Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France still a mess, still needs STO. Will do that, I promise. I do this sort of stuff best in big binges though, and I don't have one in me today, plus I have some RL fires. If you feel like helping one useful thing would be just reading through for dropped words and unclear statements. Since apparently nobody else but you and I and some bots is working on the article it would be ok to be bold in your tagging, especially if any of the references fail verification Elinruby (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above, circuits sort of fried on the subject right now. If you are feeling helpful, I am finding that a lot of references lack page numbers, which is of concern since it validates the Jan Grabowski article. Importantly, this is not just in Poland. This would just involved clicking on links and adding ^{[page needed]} where applicable. Also, Belarus is completely uncited. or if you are busy, believe me, I feel you on that. Back tomorrow probably. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Yes. Less cryptic is good. Maybe leave the German title there in parents Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: If you're referring to the Kosovo section, I saw that the beginning of that paragraph already identifies Himmler as RFSS, so it would be unnecessary to repeat it. (Either the name or the title could stand alone.)

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Good catch. Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stage whisper

I'm assuming you want to be left out of the knife fight on Poland, is why I didn't mention you there. You're doing a good job of checking stuff and I appreciate it. BTW are you sure Straits settlements comes under Malaysia? Not saying it doesn't; I am vastly unfamiliar and though I just spent a little time in there I still haven't quite figured it out. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't agree with wholesale removal of a significant topic, although it could support racist tropes like "See, they're so immoral that they do it to their own people." I haven't followed that thread closely.

I think that there are far greater causes of bloat and imbalance than that. One is that merely cutting and pasting from other Wikipedia articles runs into the problem that those articles were written for other purposes, e.g. the North African military campaign or the history of Yugoslavia. The real need is for information and explanation of who collaborated with Axis occupiers, how, when, where and most importantly, though least verifiably, why.

E.g., as an expert on Vichy France (I myself have read only 4 books, plus some other materials, about l'Occupation), you could move the French and French-colonial material away from all that military history (needed only for context) and more towards the causes and effects of German pressure on Vichy, the media, industry, etc. Less, perhaps, about Palmyra, Mers-el-Kébir and the Allied landings; and more about how Laval tried to return POW's by offering French volunteer workers, only to have Sauckel force him into a Service Obligatoire. Perhaps something about, e.g., the daily press, Vichy radio, Les Temps Modernes (can you call Simone Signoret a half-Jewish collaboratrice?), Les Enfants du Paradis and the pro-German enthusiasm of the Fascist parties. Certainly, the ways in which the French security services (existing and created) collaborated with German policy.

If you want an example, think how little military history and Allied activity is in Marcel Ophuls' Le Chagrin et la Pitié and how much, instead, is (in addition to the Occupation itself) is about collaboration (official or unofficial) and resistance.

(2) I'm pretty sure that the Straits Settlements outside Singapore (Penang, Malacca & Dinding) became part of the Federation of Malaya in 1957, and (together with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah/British North Borneo) part of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 (although Singapore was kicked out in 1964). Technically, they didn't belong to the earlier Federated Malay States (largely a collection of sultanates), but I think it's only natural to put them where people might seek them, under (undefined) Malaya. It's all a matter of taste. As I recall from my philatelic days, postage stamps from the Straits Settlements were nearly identical to those issued by Perak, Perlis, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, etc.

Enough for the end of one evening —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying about military history is true and I am working on it. Also France, and cutting and pasting. But it does provide a context to start from. I emphasize *start*. It is also true that while I did get a mention of STO in, I have been neglecting France while I try to correct some imbalances. Splitting would help with those though, and Piotrus has again not answered when I asked him about it so as far as I can tell we have a consensus of the people actually working on the article, with one abstaining, and can start. I liked your idea about splitting Europe up by region.

On Straights Settlements, ok. In my utter ignorance I asked if you were sure and it sounds like you are sure enough to be going forward with.

As for that Jewish collaboration section, it's really really really badly sourced for calling individuals collaborators and I resent having to take the time to verify this bullshit, which in my opinion is almost, as you say, a racist trope, and certainly can be used to support one. What would you do if you had a choice between informing or watching your parents die? I'm just glad I never had to make that choice, and while I think, intellectually, that ok, well, it *is* collaboration, I still agree with Zero000, who seems to be in Israel btw, and is one of the few people who have commented, that there is enough actual mayhem without worrying about three guys in South Africa. Meanwhile, the Polish crew only shows up when something displeases them, so while it's prickly, progress is being made, sorta. Someone reverted me and I am waiting to see if they are going to follow WP:BRD. If not I guess I'll have to start a bunch of RS and BLP noticeboard posts. Which is a shame, because I am sure the guy who wrote this article up will be salivating at all the material about how we still can't get it right because evil antisemitic editor cabal or whatever.(You've heard about the Jan Grabowski article, right?)

Meanwhile... I guess I'll see about setting up some sandboxes and work some more on incremental improvements to the current article tonight. I will be tied up offline all day tomorrow and probably will be wiped out when I get home, just so you know, so I'll likely be gone for about 24 hours after I get done here for the night Elinruby (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

update: I got a little bogged down in referencing and was starting to flounder, so just before knocking off I wrote some explanatory text for France. See how that looks to you and do not be afraid to edit or reference it. Meanwhile, I am still finding mistakes and problems in other countries but there is less and less low-hanging fruit. It's getting to where we need to start writing from sources. I couldn't agree more with your comment about the milhist, which is why I'd like to move all the regimental history into a separate article.

Anyway, I had a thought. While clicking around I discovered that France and Belgium were under the same military administration, so possibly we should put them together in the split. They had similar problems, like the German war effort sucking the economy dry. Let me know what you think. By the way, I said I had *some* expertise on France in World War II. But I am not a historian and I actually know more about the Resistance. You seem knowledgeable as well. The stuff I wrote from the top of my head about how Pétain came to power comes from a previous project in which I was determined to track down exactly how a model republic decided to voted to become a Nazi puppet state. If you like that intro, we can move into some economics and literature. All of your ideas above are good. I'd also like to mention Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who is definitely considered a collaborator. A final aside: I haven't been able to find a reference for Darlan getting arrested, but I am certain this happened. It you have a bright idea for a reference on that LMK. Good call on his photo btw. Elinruby (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size

Maybe I should start setting up some pages for a split Elinruby (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration talk page

I made some changes to France, including a couple citations. Needs morw. In particular I need to check on "the executive" since I am not actually sure of Reynaud's position come to think of it and some of the people who didn't want to go along with the armistice were legislators. will come back to that.

i think I fixed this. There was something else in France I still need to get to. Came in here to tell you about Collaboration w Japan (or whatever its name is? ) Getting tagged as an orphan. Strictly speaking your link makes that no longer true but we should make an effort to add some in-links Elinruby (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

going back to sleep now Elinruby (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community and visitors from the global Wikimedia Foundation for our WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central, in-person at Convene 101 Park Avenue in the vicinity of Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

This is somewhat of a sequel to last year's Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Brunch in terms of the participants, though this time it is an evening event in a different borough.

We may leaven the event with a few impromptu lightning talks, a Wiki-fashion show (yes, really!), and likely an afterparty tour.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.

Wednesday March 8 WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central (RSVP off-wiki at Eventbrite to attend in-person).

5:30 pm - 7:00 pm

(Convene 101 Park Avenue, near Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

@Shakescene: By legible I guess you mean like being able to distinguish detail? I don't like they way it looks on mobile huge and centered -- see last few edit summaries -- but ok. Do what you think and we can discuss later. I thought I was knocking out a last few things I overlooked and am currently as I mentioned quite sick of the article. PS: I am not hard to talk to; please don't revert. They check that out at the drama boards and I'm going to have to speak up in the Arbcom case that's brewing. Elinruby (talk)

PS: for purposes of that discussion could you look up the screen resolution of whatever you are reading this on? Going to give Sean Connery my full attention now, back later or tomorrow.Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

on reflection I was probably over-caffeinated; I've decided that we should probably optimize for computers not phones and bottom line I don't care where the flags go Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet governments is done

Might be a few stray format problems, and I don't know how you want the flags. But the cutting and pasting of the text is done. It looks there is stuff there that we don't have yet Elinruby (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: ¶ Thanks, that's a relief. I wasn't sure I knew the right technique for converting back to plain text (paste onto a spreadsheet?), although I can show you how to archive (unlike most of Wikipedia, an intuitively simple process without a lot of trawling through endless paragraphs of endless sections of countless WP:Help pages).

¶ I'm going some time soon to ask User:Marcelus if he can sort out the Baltic puppet states (very confusing detailed chronology for someone unfamiliar with East European history) in the same way he's doing for Collaboration with the Axis powers#Baltic states.

¶ I'm also getting strongly tempted to segregate that endless Jewish collaborator filibuster/litigation/contention/argument from Collaboration into a new Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Jewish collaboration in the same way that Talk:War of 1812#Who won? handled Deathlibrarian's endless and verbose filibuster — both so that the Jewish collabo discussion can be seen and handled more coherently, and just as importantly, so that other topics on the current Talk page can be seen and handled more effectively without ploughing through all that ancient ground. What do you think?—— Shakescene (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can sort out Baltic States, but please give me couple days, I'm pretty busy at work right now Marcelus (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion there is petering out. This was why I made the two new sections, so that discussions of what still needs to be done can be done not in the huge thread. Give it a day or so. I am looking through the article history and it's providing some insight into why the article is the way it is. The Channel islands stuff got edit warred for example. ... As for Deathlibrarian - he was right, you know. If you invade another country then retreat, that's not a win. Anyway, I've written TFD off to Americans gonna American ;) I made a stab at The volunteer units but yanno there is no way we can cover the regimental history of every unit nor should we... Going to have to figure it out before I can summarize it though. Elinruby (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Elin, I was just too Bold and already moved the BRD fail section over into the new Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Jewish collaboration. Of course if you want to cut and paste it back onto the current Talk page, please feel free to do so. (I just got tired of scrolling through all that stuff.) As for Deathlibrarian, he was even wronger using your definition, since Britain failed to conquer the U.S. and by that definition, would have actually lost, rather than as he kept insisting, won. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as whoever wants it can find the section it will be fine. The main concern is, if I understand it, that the text remain available for discussion.

pS -I just cut and paste and delete. It requires a little concentration is all. It's very similar to an HTML table. A little tedious to do by hand, but not bad if you're chilling and watching re-runs. Main thing to make sure of is that you have time to finish, because if you quit halfway through the page layout is broken. Elinruby (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I just noticed that the monster thread tripled in size ;) Just make sure they can find it. Elinruby (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts has a section on puppet governments. Maybe you should propose merging it off? Elinruby (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My god, I don't need all this extra work and confusion (¿which was a puppet govt and which just a non-governing association?). Especially as someone's proposing moving the Wehrmacht foreign volunteers into the Waffen-SS volunteer page. Do you think we could coax a foreign volunteer to sort all this out? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they decided not to do that, or at least that it would be too much work, because one article is specifically volunteers and the other is "non-Germans". I just thought, on a superficial look-see, that there seemed to be a lot of overlaps. Stand down from cognitive overload ;) As for puppet governments, I looked that up, and Vichy is a puppet government at least according to en-wiki. I will take another look at what Peacemaker's point was, bur they seem to be the local Yugoslavia expert and may have been talking about something in that space. Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They

Re whether it runs off preferences:

I think it does. A Wikifriend pointed the template out to me after someone complained that I had misgendered them. Apparently it's reliable. I personally don't care what pronoun is used for me, but some people are quite vehement about this. If it didn't give the result you wanted, maybe change your preferences and let me know what you would like me to call you, as "that editor" gets awkward. ;)

Agenda for tonight, unless you have a question about something else: volunteers and Morocco.Elinruby (talk)

Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers

Hi, I'm not sure I understand the move of the discussion to a sub-page: [10]. It would be difficult to find the discussion (Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Jewish collaboration) unless you spot the diff in the article history. The discussion also appears to be still active. Could you clarify? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thanks for a very useful comment (about the visibility and retrievability of this archive page). While I was able to do something similar a few years ago at Talk:War of 1812 [11], I couldn't format the added index item very elegantly (I think because the articles used different archive bots), but you can see that I did insert a pointer. If you have greater skill and knowledge with this kind of formatting, please go ahead.

(2) The main reasons I sent two "Jewish collaboration" topics to an archive were (a) because of the physical size of the then-existing Talk Page (pressing beyond the recommended limit of 100,000 bytes), (b) because the enormous length of this topic's extended disputes hampered my reading of other Talk Page items, and (c) to keep several current and future Talk Page discussions of Jewish collaboration together and thus more coherent (not duplicating points in ignorance of earlier discussion). See, for example, my rationales at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers#With this talk page again approaching 100k, what could be archived?.

@Elinruby and K.e.coffman: —— Shakescene (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the discussion together and have mostly left matters of layout to Shakescene. I largely caused the space crunch by copying the text to talk, as I don't want to delete work that isn't duplicated elsewhere, and the current state of the section tagging is indicative of my reason for preferring to put my time elsewhere. It is notable that the size of the thread tripled overnight.

However, while I rather like the idea of a subpage, I see the point about difficulty finding that subpage. I was envisioning something like a pinned post at the top of the page. Is something like that possible, @Mathglot:? I was looking under the impression that the thread was close to done, but maybe I just wanted to to be.

I take it that you are participating, K.e.coffman? If so I appreciate that. Incidentally, I noticed earlier today that much of the material is duplicated at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Ping me if there are any questions about this response. Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not conventional to move a discussion to a subpage (other than an Archive), although I've seen various highly specialized supporting information (like references for the Buddha, or definitions of gender-related terms) placed in a subpage, which is then referred to from the Talk pages; but the content of the subpages themselves did not contain any discussion at all, just information. Imho, the information moved from Talk to the subpage should be reinstated, and the subpage should be deleted. Just because the discussion is long is no reason to move it to a subpage. As far as pinning it, it's technically feasiable but that's usually reserved for some topic of lasting importance that should always be visible to all editors and never be archived; does this page meet that standard? Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really.

Speaking for myself, I deleted the section weeks ago, thinking well, it will still be in the history. Somebody parachuted in and reverted that and proceeded to do nothing with it. Nor did anyone else. I've essentially tag-bombed it, but I stand by those tags, and nobody did anything about them or the problems they represent, including the heavily used source that got scoffed at at RSN. Levivich has posted that he is not going to rewrite the section. Marcelus seemed somewhat interested but now seems more interested in the Baltics, where we do need him. So. The question is, is this text still needed, for rewrites or for the Arbcom case? I think the arbitrators can navigate article histories, and anyone who might want to do a rewrite is a long-standing editor. Maybe we should stick to the letter of policy with this article, hmm? Whatever that is; don't think I have ever looked up archiving policy. I don't want to ping all those people here to Shakescene's talk page. What I *could* do if it seems like a good idea is do the pinging in a post on the talk page asking if anyone is going to rewrite the section and saying that on second thought the thread is simply moving to the archives. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Although I rather dread the possible results, I'm copying this section of my Talk page to a new section of Collabo Talk. I just hope that this discussion won't convert into yet another interminable, dense contention that clogs up everything else.

And, of course, thanks to everyone for his or her comments.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may interest you

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43922004

You can log in with a Google account Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elin, this looks very interesting and relevant. Although — probably as a hardened, career, recidivist Wikipedia editor — I can read some JStor stuff (I’ve never joined the 2 billion souls who are on Facebook), 100 pages looks a little much for me, who don't read that much of a newspaper or magazine these days. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* * *

Er. I am on Facebook but Elinruby is not my name there. I am still getting used to this new mobile interface, and I've been putting in long wiki hours, so not sure what happened there. I was trying to tell you that you can sign into Jstor with a Google account, in case you didn't know. (I keep misplacing the link for the Wikipedia Library, personally. Anyway. It's an opportunity not a commitment, yanno ;) The discussion of the Grand Mufti is the reason I thought you might be interested. But again, it's a suggestion not an assignment ;) 21:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)https://www.jstor.org/stable/43922004

You can log in through Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, probably because I was sleepy, I mistook logging in with Google with logging in with Facebook. But it's long been impossible to log into my Google account (what password did I use 10-12 years ago? and how do I authenticate myself to change it?) However, I am entitled, as a diehard editor and I'm sure as you are, entitled to Wikipedia's own gateway into a hundred-odd databases (including JStor). JStor allows me 100 views this month, so I could read that article (and probably will read several pages beyond the extract). However I doubt that, interesting and pertinent as it is, I'll get around to reading the whole paper. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, it's a suggestion not a reading assignment. If you have the link for the Wikipedia library library handy though, I could use that. Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papon

encountered this while looking for a translation of Second law on the status of Jews. [12] Just wondering if we covered this; if not let's keep it in mind for when, as seems likely, we have a spinoff for collaboration in France, Greece, Norway etc.

i did not find a translation btw but that was on a straight en-Google search. I'll try a French-language browser, Gallica and Mathglot's links next. Elinruby (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ER, there are two sentences about Maurice Papon in the Aftermath subsection (see below). My assumption has been that we're trying to keep the France section of Collaboration with Axis as compact as possible while providing an uninitiated reader with an informative, accurate and balanced summary that indicates the most important Vichy facts. It might be possible to write something more direct into the Franco-Holocaust subsection (as we did with Bousquet), while devoting less space to his post-war career and fate. It's tricky, and fortunately we have so far avoided for France the psycho-drama (with extensive references on all sides) that's hung over Polish and Jewish collaboration. Extract:

“Several decades later, a few surviving ex-collaborators such as Paul Touvier were tried for crimes against humanity. René Bousquet was rehabilitated and regained some influence in French politics, finance and journalism, but was nonetheless investigated in 1991 for deporting Jews. He was assassinated in 1993 just before his trial would have begun. Maurice Papon served as prefect of the Paris police under President de Gaulle (thus bearing ultimate responsibility for the Paris massacre of 1961) and, 20 years later, as Budget Minister under President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, before his 1998 conviction for crimes against humanity in organizing the deportation of 1,560 Jews from the Bordeaux region to the French internment camp at Drancy.”

On reading the Guardian article, already having read Papon's Wiki write-up, perhaps it might be worth answering the natural question after "his 1998 conviction": what came next? But that might be (in this kind of summary) be giving Undue Weight to a single collaborationist's story. [Incidentally, the Guardian story minimizes François Mitterrand's rôle in Vichy: hw was not a "civil servant" but a junior minister responsible for prisoner-of-war issues in the first Vichy government.] Enough written: I'm rambling, now. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no that all makes sense. I agree that that would be for the Collaboration with Vichy spinoff article if that is the way the split goes. The thing I liked about the Guardian article.was that it covered people's reaction to the incredibly light sentence, but yeah, for sure it doesn't belong in this summary article. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby:

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)

April 12: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.

Wednesday April 12 WikiWednesday @ BPL (RSVP on-wiki).

5:30 pm -6:30 pm (Open Hour)

6:30 pm - 8:00 pm (Wiki Salon)

(Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn)

Also online via Zoom starting at ~6:30 pm

April 15-23: Earth Week!

Please RSVP on-wiki to any of the Earth Day/Week activities you will be joining, all are open:

Earth Day and the Digital Environment - Beacon, NY

When: Saturday, April 15, 11pm - 3pm

Where: Howland Public Library, 313 Main Street, Beacon NY

Earth Day 2023 Translat-a-thon at LaGuardia Community College

When: Wednesday, April 19, 2pm-5pm

Where: LaGuardia CC - Room MB10B, 31-10 Thomson Avenue, Queens, NY 11101

Earth Day 2023 Edit-a-thon Environment of Brooklyn with Sure We Can

When: Saturday April 22, 11am-2pm

Where: Spectrum Learning Lab - DeKalb branch Brooklyn Public Library and Sure We Can & Hybrid

Earth Day Wiki-Picnic NYC

When: Sunday, April 23, 12-5pm

Where: Concert Grove Pavilion, Prospect Park

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.) --Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a star yesterday

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		for persistence in making one good edit at a time and making a difference

Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Liberation Army

I saw you were working on this so thank you for that. The primary evidence phase of the Arbcom case is closed now and while I will probably still be commenting, as I know many of the named parties and have some opinions on What The Problem Is, there is no longer pressure to actually submit evidence. So long story short, hey. I guess I should go back to trying to sort out Volunteers vs conscripts vs PoWs vs enlistees, unless something is on fire somewhere.

I need to do some work on list of scandals in Brazil also and somebody has flagged Operation Car Wash as needing an update. Contemplating a BOLD move for collaboration. Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic

April 22: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + April 23: Wiki-Picnic

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a pair of special events this weekend as we wrap up Earth Week! No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome.

Earth Day 2023 Edit-a-thon Environment of Brooklyn with Sure We Can

What: Improve Wikipedia articles on the Environment of Brooklyn!

When: Saturday April 22, 11am-1pm (BPL), 1pm-5:30pm (SWC)

Where: Spectrum Learning Lab - DeKalb branch Brooklyn Public Library and Sure We Can & Hybrid

Earth Day Wiknic NYC

What: Enjoy a picnic celebration and Wiki-Seder!

When: Sunday, April 23, 12-5pm

Where: Concert Grove Pavilion, Prospect Park

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What were you asking about Albania?

I forget where it was. I think it might have become a puppet of Yugoslavia? Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not insofar as I know. Yugoslavia and Albania split away from Moscow, but in opposite directions: the former towards the Non-Aligned Movement; the latter towards Peking in the Sino-Soviet split. I'm not quite so sure about the late-WW2 and immediately-postwar era. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thinking about immediately post-war. I just did a big edit on Albania in World War II and I am trying to get my mind around it. Check me on this: :Landowners etc. form a resistance to Italy (Balli K.), and are joined by partisans, however the two then start fighting one another, Italy surrenders, Germany invades, Balli cuts a deal with Germany and the partisans prevail against them with help from the partisans in Yugoslavia and indirectly from Britain.

Right? And Kosovo is a point of contention. Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you ate saying about the flavors of communism, i don't really track party history but I thik you are right about that. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now looking at Cham Albanian collaboration with the Axis -- according to that article, the Cham collaborated because they were collaborators. Or something. This was in Greece though. Elinruby (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, see also German–Yugoslav_Partisan_negotiations, which were aborted by Ribbetrop, and Milovan Djilas. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am switching to something else for a while. Check out Security Battalions;if true these guys are definitely war criminals let alone collaborators, but that one reference is doing a whole lot of work in that article. Also, this is interesting: [13] -

Communist party had some experienced guerrilla fighters fresh off the Spanish Civil War, right? They were pretty deeply involved with the French Resistance also. The Communists were some of the most effective fighters because they were alreaddy organized. Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't summarize in a few words or a few paragraphs the very, very complicated, and vigorously-disputed relationship between the Communists and the various resistance movements. The Communists and their allies were certainly important parts of the Resistance, and in some countries led them, but the resistance or resistances included many factions that usually collaborated together but not always: for example, de Gaulle was generally a rival pole in the French resistance, while others resisters were social-democrats, Christian Democrats, liberals, patriotic conservatives and even monarchists. Behind the difference were conflicting aims for the post-Occupation regime in each country: a Stalinist one (as seemed quite possible even in France, Italy and Greece), a liberal-democratic one, a return to semi-feudal and clericalist landlordism (e.g. the Chetniks and the Greek royalists), or (though it never actually happened) some kind of radical, but anti-Stalinist anarcho-socialism. In the empires there was also the tension between allying with previous Western colonizers against the Axis, allying with the Axis "liberators" against previous imperial overlords, allying with Stalin and Mao, or else with other groups like Chiang Kai-shek's China.

The International Brigades, and other foreign volunteers for the Spanish Republic, prompted ambivalent feelings in Westminster and Washington. Their Communist leanings were intensely distrusted, but they had invaluable very recent field combat experience: if you wanted to train the OSS, the SOE, or special forces you had to trust veterans who'd fought more recently than 1918. For some background read George Orwell's wartime essays and his Homage to Catalonia. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found these {{Yugoslav Axis collaborationism}} {{Factions in the Yugoslav Front}} it might be time to start ollaboration in Yugoslavia Elinruby (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 17: WikiWednesday Salon + Queering Wikipedia

May 17: WikiWednesday + Queering Wikipedia @ BPL + on Zoom

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

We will also sync with the Queering Wikipedia 2023 Conference and Wiki Loves Pride 2023 and have a Wikidata session on LGBT themes for figures in religion/mythology.

We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.

Wednesday May 17 WikiWednesday + Queering Wikipedia @ BPL (RSVP on-wiki).

5:30 pm -6:30 pm (Open Hour + Wikidata-thon)

6:30 pm - 8:00 pm (Wiki Salon)

(Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn)

Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration with the Axis powers

Just so you know, special rules now apply to sourcing for Poland, or rather, always did, but are now somewhat changed. Probably you should avoid making substantive changes in that section without consulting someone, either me or Piotrus for example. Not, mind you, that you have shown any signs of wanting to do so, but this is just me letting you know that there is a hole in the road there. In brief the Polish government has a position on the Holocaust, and Polish entities that may look just like the US Holocaust Museum are not necessarily considered reliable sources. The policy as written does affect us and I complained about that, but the horse was already out of the barn and galloping down the road, and Wikipedia needed to Do Something^TM and here we are. I should probably review what we have in the Poland section with this in mind, but afaik it was last touched by Piotrus, another party to the case, while it was pending, so the section has probably already been drafted with extreme caution in this regard. Also, My very best wishes was banned from editing anything to do with Poland in World War 2, which was rather silly in my opinion, since he didn't in the first place, but... he had the misfortune to be noticed by Grabowski while copyediting something his friend Volunteer Marek was arguing about, and here we are. He has asked me not to ping him to the collaboration article anymore lest he accidentally comment on something that in some way affects Poland. I regret this as he was the closest thing we had to an expert on Russia -- a Russian speaker at least -- even though he is busy in real life. Usually willing to answer a well-defined question though. I did ask for clarification on this point, and he is free to comment or edit on the Soviet Union, Stalin, Ukraine, the Cossacks or anything else in World War 2 that isn't Poland, although he is understandably feeling a bit paranoid now and may choose not to do so. However he may feel better about things if we spin off the Soviet Union in future. The same applies to Volunteer Marek and Francois Robere, but they have participated very little anyway and it probably would not occur to you to ping them. I am going to go look up the username that I can never remember of that Lithuanian editor and ping him to the reorganization discussion, as he said something about wanting to research collaboration in the abstract and if he has made any headway he may be able to help out with the matter I brought up on the article talk page. Elinruby (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thisjust came up in my search results as I was trying to do some sourcing on the article,so I am coming in here to show you since I know you weren't watching the case in the detail that I was, and I can never remember the name of the organization. It looks like the Polish equivalent of the US Holocaust Museum, but apparently there are credible concerns about whether the institution is influenced by the stances of the current right-wing government and it is not RS, per a bunch of Arbcom. There are additionally questions about whether specific individual historians and publications should be considered non-RS or merely very biased. I am fairly certain that is has been taken care of already in the article we are working on but come to think of it I should double check. Meanwhilem this is just a heads-up in case some well-meaning newbie tries to add it as a source. Elinruby (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I did talk to the Lithuanian editor, Cuk...something about the restructuring discussion, still need to ping other ppl, or you can. Diving back into sources. I did a fast copy edit on part of the article and it needed it btw. Either I was tired enough to start making mistakes when I went through it a couple three times a while back, or there have been a few incomplete edits since. Probably both.Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

might be of interest

unsure; found while doing something else: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Elinruby (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC) grrrr, Edge does weird things with urls that I am not used to yet: I meant the recent thread titled "L'Unité" Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!

June 21: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

We are proud to announce that monthly food has returned!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Prime Produce encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.

Wednesday June 21 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (RSVP on-wiki).

7:00 pm - 8:00 pm

(Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan)

Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this in your hands

too sleepy/too many tabs open etc, as you say: Fragile Cargo' chronicles the quest to save China's Forbidden City treasures from war, Vincent Ni, NPR, July 15, 2023

I know you can at least find a good talk page for it; currently boggling over Transnitria Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in either Asian or art history, so I'm probably not the person to ask. And eyeballing the first paragraph, this might come better under Resistance than under Collaboration. However, it might not hurt to post an inquiry at Talk:Collaboration with Imperial Japan. @Elinruby: —— Shakescene (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I don't think it's collaboration either. Interesting a hell though, and yeah, maybe resistance, if we have such a page about China. Anyway, I trust you to figure out what to do witn it. I just answered the Transnitria kid and managed to be polite, I think, if possibly rather blunt, and I am all wikipedia-ed out. Going to either take a nap or read about drug wars in the Amazon, unsure. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munich Agreement

I added this but hesitated over the wording. I eventually went with "may arguably have triggered the Munich Agreement", which I am fairly confident is correct, but have yet to seriously try to source. But let's start by making sure that's what you were talking about. Does the edit answer your concern, and should more be said? I am still looking for sources for his administration of all the camps in his region, which means s harder than you would think; help welcome. I'll see what I can do with Vichy meanwhile as you requested. I wrote the original and at the time I was fascinated with the constitutional crisis so there is probably TMI about that. By the way posting here rather than the talk page out of courtesy for page watchers. There's been a lot of activity on the talk page lately, some of it annoying, and this is relatively trivial and is about your feedback to me, so not really general scope Elinruby (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elin, thanks for writing.

In both cases, I think that an unschooled reader might benefit from background. For example, our section on Yugoslavia begins with an outline of how she was carved up (which I supplemented with a map). so that what follows can be understood.

So I tried not to eliminate anything about the self-immolation of the 3rd Republic, but tried (with incomplete success) to clarify the sequence. The birth of Vichy might not come strictly under the rubric of Collab. with Germany & Italy, but it's essential to understanding what follows. In fact, some indication (if that can be done simply, which may not be possible) of what was done and what could be done on either side of the Armistice Line might make things clearer (e.g. the Vel d-Hiv rafle vs that in Marseille).

As for the Sudetenland, I wasn't looking for anything detailed or specialised — just the background facts about Munich's carve-up of Czecho-Slovakia and the subsequent events (e.g. the invasion of Prague in March 1939 and the German-engineered secession of Slovakia). I could easily do this myself if you're nose-deep in other research. If you want a source, check George F. Kennan's From Prague after Munich, which is his dispatches as a junior diplomat to the Dept of State.

@Elinruby:

Have a good week. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do do whatever you can with the part about Henlein; the article on him was horrible and had to put a lot of work into it to get to legibility and bizarre failure to include more than a single sentence about the Holocaust. I took that to NPOV and basically got told that what I was doing (at the time, removing a lot of cited repetition) was moving the article in the right direction, so kerp going. i dont consider direct participation on the Holicaust a sine qua non but come on, he was in charge BOTH of sending people to their deaths and of the work campa in his district, so come on, how is this not more important than his gymnastics career and possible homosexuality?

On Vichy I did some writing. Not teally happy with the results, so feel free to work rhat some more or built on it, whichever. i agree that some of rhe history is critical to understanding what happened there. What I am struggling with is where the daylight is between Vichy Franc, which has its own article, an collaboration with the Naxis in France.

Oh and I attempted a grand theory of what is collaboration, see the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For quietly moving several articles forward

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		thanks seemed appropriate Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re recent reversion on Indian Legion

Hi, You recently reverted my edit on Indian Legion. From your edit summary it seems to me you misunderstood the reason I had mentioned in my edit summary. I removed the part as the text precisely because the film is not at all well known, and regardless of films being made on the subject, or the lack thereof, Azad Hind Fauz (AFH) is quite well known in India and widely mentioned in literature and elsewhere. It didn't seem to me that the text in question therefore didn't fit there, and possibly a seperate section could be created to list such mentions in media. I'd be glad if you could restore my edit. Thanks Soumyapatra13 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soumyapatra13: Thanks for your response.

Perhaps the very fact that this is the only indian film to mention the Legion is significant in itself. Without it, some editor might add something like "However, no film about the Legion has yet been made in India herself." And while the Bollywood film "Dear Adolf Hitler" may be very well-known on the Subcontinent, it's not generally (so far as I can tell) well-known outside. People like me who have never visited Asia (and speak no Asian language other than English), are still interested in collaborationist units like the Indian Legion. But perhaps we're talking past each other.

And I have no special powers of deletion or retraction that you and every other Registered User does not already enjoy. On the other hand, neither of us, each acting in good faith, wants to get into a Revert-Revert-Revert edit war (see Wikipedia:3RR).

Best regards —— Shakescene (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify again, I'm absolutely not saying that movie is popular. in fact I'm saying exactly the opposite of that, precisely what you are saying. but apparently you missed it. Thanks, I'm going to reinstate my edit. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood my counter-point, as I had misunderstood yours. Maybe the very fact that there has as yet been no popular treatment within India of the (understandably-touchy) subject outside an obscure and little-seen film is in itself significant.

On the other hand, maybe this film could be left outside the body of the article's text and relegated with a short description to the cinematic/dramatic version of "Further reading" or "External links".

I'm copying this discussion and moving it to he Legion's Talk Page, not to prolong or widen controversy, but in case others have other views. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>there has as yet been no popular treatment within India

This is also not true. Sorry if there's been any confusion. I'll be discussing this on the talk page, thanks. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilove

I am a cat who has brought you a mouse: Unit 731 Elinruby (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read this horrifying article a while back. Did you see anything about collaboration as such, as apart from the Unit's location in occupied Manchuria (the Manchukuo puppet state) or in contrast with complicity (or war/humanity crimes) by Japanese military, scientists and administrators? And if there is, you are at least as competent as I to mention it in Collab with Imp. Japan or WW2 Puppet states. @Elinruby: —— Shakescene (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am and am also contemplating including some stuff on Harbin White Russians. As for Unit 731 I was thinking of the staff there, but of course that depends on whether they were Japanese or not. I just got ge impression that you might have been working on that article given Azad Hind. Anyway, if you already know, sorry to remind you of it -- it is why I called it a mouse. Was any conclusion ever reached about the format of.Puppet government that you know of? Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of presidential nominating conventions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Walton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Jewish collaboration

Hello, Shakescene. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jewish collaboration".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you thanked me for was reverted

Hi, Shakescene. Thanks for thanking me for adding "Greater New York" to the article on the New York metropolitan area. Someone reverted that edit. This is the sort of thing that makes me not want to bother with Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco polo: I have an odd relationship with that, coming out of disambiguation. I was actually reading and working on what is now City of Greater New York, and ran into finding that Greater New York already referred to the metro area. After some discussion about which was the so-called primary target, we settled on creating the disambiguation page leading to unambiguous article names and links.

See the discussions at Talk:New York metropolitan area/Archive 1#"Greater_New_York" and Talk:City of Greater New_York#Redirect?

But, while I had my own perspective, I would certainly agree that "Greater New York" is a very common and perfectly suitable name for the metro area, probably used today far more often than NY Metro Area (while Greater New York's historically-important use for the City's five boroughs — as opposed what had been New York City before 1898, Manhattan + The Bronx — is rare today).

If you think it best, I'll be more than glad to revert your reverted words.

—— Shakescene (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I made the edit because I thought "Greater New York" was a common colloquial term for the region. Incidentally, it's the region where I grew up, though that was decades ago. When I was growing up "tri-state area" was a term used almost exclusively by radio and TV announcers. Ordinary people mostly said "the New York area" or "Greater New York". I get that "Greater New York City" was a thing around the year 1900, when it was novel for New York City to extend beyond Manhattan. And there are still organizations using "Greater New York" to mean New York City, like the Greater New York YMCA. But then there is the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, which clearly covers a larger area than the city. So, there is clear evidence that the term sometimes refers to the metropolitan area. I do feel it belongs near the top of the article, maybe with wording like "sometimes called Greater New York". It's undeniable that it is sometimes called that, even if your opinion is that it shouldn't be. Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco polo No, I was fully agreeing with you, and certainly think that "Greater New York" should be near the top in the lead of NY Metro Area. Even for outsiders like me, "Greater New York" comes more naturally than "New York metropolitan area" (which might be more commonly used by demographers. scholars and journalists.) That's why I thanked you for restoring that language. Above, I probably should have written less ambiguously "restore your reverted words", rather than "revert your reverted words".

The question fifteen years ago was, instead, about where the article titles "Greater New York" and "Greater New York City" should lead, i.e. should they redirect automatically to the Metro Area, or to a disambiguation page, as they do now.

As I said above, I'm perfectly ready to restore your language myself, if you have any apprehension about edit-warring and the WP:Three-revert rule. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think it would improve the article to have that wording, so that people who are expecting that name are not left wondering if they've found the right article. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the answer to your question is yes

Gardes is a completely plausible name for a unit, and yes it therefore should be françaises not française. Unless you found a different answer, in which case do tell Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Thanks. After posting that now-self-deleted Talk section, I found what I hope is the answer in the section above, in the paragraph beginning "1n 1941, Doriot..." which refers to Gardes Françaises.

Of course, without external confirmation, it's also conceivable that it might parallel la Milice by having a singular noun and adjective, like the Canadian extreme-right Western Guard. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be except I don't think I have heard of the word being used that way in French. I could always be wrong, since I can only say it just sounds wrong, but afaict you are quite right Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked (I'm dishonouring my journalistic past by verifying in reverse order) French Wikipédia, and it has fr:Gardes Françises as a disambiguation page leading, inter alia to fr:PFNC (a stub).

I guess common colloquial French must differ from common English, which can freely use Guard as both a singular and a collective noun, as in Scots Guards versus the National Guard. That's why I was uncertain about the French. Thanks. @Elinruby: @Mathglot:. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, I see where that came from but although I cannot explain why, I don't think it works that way in French. Not a collective noun? that still doesn't explain why though Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As things come to you after sleep, I now recall at least one instance of Garde being used in a singular collective sense in French, the original Garde Nationale. (Lafayette, we are here!)

Part of the confusion, I think, is that the French spelling of adjectives already ending in S [and I think X] does not vary with the number of the noun being modifiedl: un beau homme français vs des beaux hommes français but une belle femme française vs les belles femmes françaises.

Contrast with: un homme canadien vs des hommes canadiens but une femme canadienne vs des femmes canadiennes.

@Elinruby: @Mathglot: —— Shakescene (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I typed out a long answer then accidentally closed the window befor sending. But

Garde Nationale: ok then. Good thing I didn't get too dogmatic about that
feminine plural of words ending in s or x: yes that is true. And yes x also.
distracting rabbit hole: I think you would say "un bel homme" and that this is because French doesn't like it when a word ending in a vowel sound immediately precedes a word that begins with a vowel sound. But "de beaux hommes" because in this case the liaison takes care of that. And of course your example is one of the few cases where the adjective precedes the noun it modifies.

HTH Elinruby (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I realised/realized that (no. 3) shortly after posting, and half-hoped I could fix it after lunch before Anyone Important noticed.

Quel faux pas! (Quels faux pas!)

Quelle honte! (Quelles hontes!) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add to Elinruby's great summation. Btw, this page is getting pretty long; would you consider either manually archiving it, or setting up auto-archiving? Can do it for you, if you wish; just takes a second. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...

...this,[14] the reason WAS given when FPAS reverted it. This VXfC is a banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]