Thank you! I enjoyed writing them, and I am touched whenever people tell me they have enjoyed the results. Dahn (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ian, thank you very much for improving "my" article on the Semper Gallery. I really appreciate that a native speaker "polishes" my English! May I ask you if you could do the same with the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, the painting collection that is inside the Semper Gallery? I did some major editing there and I would feel great if a native speaker improves the text. Thank you.--Linear77 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a few copy edits to the Old Masters too. I'm impressed by how you've been developing both the English and German versions almost in parallel. You may be interested to know I added Semper Gallery to the list of new articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture. I've also made a few changes to Pillnitz Castle. All interesting articles. Well done. - Ipigott (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That helps me a lot. Just one sentence needs some adjustment: "In 1963, it was discovered that 206 paintings had been destroyed and 507 were missing." This change does not sound correct to me because it was not "discovered" at this time (it has been known before). Actually, the gallery published a catalogue of missing and destroyed paintings of the old and new masters in 1963 from which these numbers are. That's why I wrote "206 destroyed und 507 missing paintings were accounted for in 1963." Could we correct this somehow? Thanks again! I really appreciate your help. --Linear77 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In German you say "zählte man" which I think could be translated as "Data (or records) from 1963 state that 206 paintings had been destroyed and 507 were still missing." Please make the change if you think this reflects what you mean. "Accounted for" makes it look as if those missing had been found. Let me know if I can be of any further help. - Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your good suggestion, thank you. I also put in that it "... displays 750 paintings" because "houses a collection of 750 paintings" seems to me incorrect because the collection is bigger than 750 pictures (they are just 40 percent of the entire collection). Please correct me if I am wrong here. Just one questions: Isn't it "are exhibited in the gallery" (instead of "are exhibied in")? -- I just finished a restructuring and extension of the article on the modern version of this gallery, the Galerie Neue Meister (it was in really bad shape). I still think it is not good, but my English stops here... Would you be so nice and do your "magic work" again here? I know I am asking a lot -- but my goal is to have both gallery articles in good shape. Thank you so much! ----Linear77 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article on the New Masters Gallery!!! --Linear77 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for language improvements! Just one question: I had written "exhibition", a copy-editor who knows art had changed to "exhibits", now what is what? Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An exhibit is something you display, possibly at an exhibition. If, for example, a large sculpture or statue is exhibited in a town hall, it can be called an exhibit even if there is no larger exhibition. In Grasshoff's case, if a selection of his paintings were exhibited together, they could be referred to as his exhibit. So I think that in the lead "exhibitions" is what you mean as it was not his work that was important but the status of the exhibitions. In the Life section, it could be argued that it was indeed "his first important exhibit" but from the German, it looks as if it was in fact an "exhibition", although I understand why Marrante changed this one to "exhibit" and I left it. Another thing that struck me was the phrase "hit lyrics". It sounds a bit strange as it was not really the lyrics that were hits. In any case, I think it would be more natural to talk about his "pop song lyrics" or simply something like "...felt that his success was primarily due to his lyrics" as the term "lyrics" is closely related to the pop scene anyway. I did not change it because I am not very much into pop and it may well be that nowadays people talk about "hit lyrics" all the time! Hope this helps. - Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it, exhibit, I mean. I am not at all into pop, also am afraid that the Schlager of the 1950s was something else, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see that you are improving the article on Danish cuisine. In this connection I must say I think that the recent succes of Danish top chefs and restaurants deserve a somewhat more prominent coverage. It has attracted a lot of international attention for several years now and I especially think the concept of New Nordic Cuisine deserves to be mentioned - preferrably with its own section which can be linked to as long as it has not got its own article (which I find very relevant but but unfortunately quite hard to put together). I think that is what a lot of potential readers will expect to find in the article and I find it a lot more relevant than McDonald's and Burger King. Many Danish food critics and foodies seem to consider his restauran at least as good as Noma and possibly better. The trend towards a New Nordic cuisine is not only seen in top restaurants but has also spread to the more popular cuisine (as was the case with Nouvelle Cuisine in France in the past). When it comes to inns in the dining out section, the article now states that they serve "traditional food". I thin it should be pointed out that some of them are now "gastro inns# which serve gourmet food (Falsled Kro was one of the first gourmet restaurants in Denmark, Henne Kirkeby Kro, Molskroen). Many of them are among the best restaurants in the provinces /and the country). I have compiled a few (somewhat random) links here some of which are no doubt more relevant than others but may be useful as sources. They are unfortunately not so encyclopedic but U guess they can at least serve to document international acclaim(notability. I will leave it to you to decide if any of these suggestions are relevant to the article and should be incorporated.

As for your recent work on traditional Danish culture, I am wondering if it could and should somehow be linked to traditional Danish architecture as found at the Frilandsmuseet, Den Gamle By in Aarhus and the Funen Village. But since it can hardly be called folklore, I guess no more than a few 'See also links are relevant. Bonus info: Henning Frederik Feilberg whom you recently wrote an article about is by the way my great grandfather.Ramblersen (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small world! Maybe there any other notables in your family who deserve WP coverage? As for Danish cuisine, there is in fact already a subsection on New Danish cuisine but as I said on the talk page it really needs to be further developed. I think perhaps you are right that it deserves a separate article or at least a fully-fledged section. I'll see what I can do next week. You didn't make it clear which other restaurant was considered to be as good as Noma. I am of course aware of Falsled Kro and what you call the other gastro kroer. As you say, these also deserve to be included. In my defence, though, I was first trying to justify as much of the original article as possible by referencing as many passages as I could. I was hoping that now I have more or less completed that job, you and other Danes in Denmark (rather than the Solvang gang) would start contributing more directly with appropriate additions and references, altering the text wherever necessary. I am really no expert on Danish cooking. It's just that the old article was such a mess.

On the folklore side, maybe it would indeed be a good idea to have a section on museums and events closely connected with the folklore scene and related traditions. I would also have liked to expand on regional folktales and legends but, despite extensive archives, they are not very well documented on the web resources I have been able to find. Maybe it's a matter of taking them region by region from the published literature. But I'm not too sure it's worth the time and trouble, especially as the article only gets about 20 page views a day. Cuisine is far more popular with over 500 a day and therefore deserves much more attention. (In comparison, Culture of Denmark only gets about 200 a day and Architecture of Denmark about 70 a day.) Thanks as ever for offering suggestions and advice. - Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the article used to be quite a mess and you have done a great job tidying it up which certainly makes it more easy and attractive to make future contributions. I have previously been very reluctant to get involved in it since I felt rather alianated by much of the content which seemed rather outdated to me. But I have really very little experience (or taste for) "ethnic" Danish cuisine and it is quite obviously not very notable either for non-Danes. I did see the section on New Danish Cuisine but to me it seemed to have a broader scope than that of the the New Nordic Cuisine movement, also covering other more general trends. But I see you have already sharpened it up. I may try to make some contributions in the new year but find it quite hard to write about and good sources are scarce. The other restaurant I was referring to was Rasmus Kofoed's Geranium but I meant to delete the passage since I felt I was going into too much detail but see I did not get all of it removed. As for folklore, I think the article is quite nice the way it is and agree with you that it is hardly relevant to go into much more detail. With the low number of visitors it is probably more relevant trying to direct some traffic the other way by linking to it in other articles. Scandinavian folklore had 6897 visitors last month so maybe that would be a better place to make additions.Ramblersen (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at Scandinavian folklore but see that it takes a very different perspective, looking mainly at mythical creatures and legends. For me, folklore is a lot more than that. When I'm next in Denmark after the New Year, I'll try to dig up more information from the library. And to get back to New Danish cuisine, I must apologize for unintentionally including passages in the article which apparently looked like promotion from the Danish touring board. As a result, it has now been deleted (see below). Let's hope it can be restored. If not, there is at least a section on it in the Danish cuisine article. Thanks again for your suggestions. - Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on New Danish cuisine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have time to react to this before the article was deleted. I have left messages here and here. A fully revised version of the article is at User:Ipigott/Sandbox2. In due course, I hope someone will let me know how to proceed. - Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I just finished to extend and rewrite two articles. One is the Albertinum, the building which houses the New Masters Gallery that you were so friendly to help me with. I also worked on the Dresden Armory, an exhibition of historical weapons. (It was in really bad shape despite its importance.) Would you be so nice and correct any (English) mistakes you find in these two articles? That would be of great help for me. Thank you very much. --Linear77 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can with these. Re the Albertinum, I don't like "an ark for the art" but that's the way it appears in their own translations. Please note also that the link in Note No. 2 does not work. - Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you did a great job. And so fast! I fixed the link, thank you for pointing this out. Two items in Dresden Armory I would like to bring up: (1) Now it says "where it remained from 1722 until 1832. Nevertheless, the armory remained a favorite among visitors at this time." Can we remove one "remain" (I don't have a good idea)? (2) I noticed that today's exhibition part should be separated from the history section, so I put twice "Exhibition" in as a (sub-)headline. It would be nice if you could correct if there is a better headline, and, please double-check the exhibition paragraph of the armory (it was so short that I put some more information in, but it does not sound too good now). Thank you very much. --Linear77 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!--Linear77 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, may I ask one more question? I just finished the Fürstenzug and was wondering, if the headline "Statistics" is correct for giving the measurement details? Could you have a fast look? Feel free to correct the article if you find something, I would be extremely thankful for that.--Linear77 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (Isn't the Fürstenzug impressive?) It is nice that you also looked into the exhibition part again of Dresden Armory -- it reads now much better. (Why did you make it to nine pedestals (formerly six)? At the Turkish Chamber, is it "located in Dresden castle" or "... in the ..."?)) Thanks again -- have a great weekend! --Linear77 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Happy New Year 2012! May it bring only good things into your life... -- I just created two short new articles that were needed (due to links from other articles). Would you be so kind and check them for their English: Albert, Margrave of Meissen and Zacharias Longuelune? Thank you very much. --Linear77 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a Happy New Year to you too. I'm pretty busy with friends and family who are here for the festivities but I'll probably have time to help you out over the next couple of days. - Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Enjoy friends and family -- there is no rush. --Linear77 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with the first article. You should decide whether you want to call him Albrecht or Albert and keep the same name throughout. I suggest you stick to Albert as in the title and give Albrecht as the German equivalent at the very beginning of the article. The dates of birth and death differ between the lead and the summary and succession boxes. Please check all the dates carefully. - Ipigott (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing the problems out -- I fixed them, sorry, no idea how I missed them. Your help is really appreciated, thanks a lot.--Linear77 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott! Haven't bumped into you in a while and wanted to wish you a Happy New Year. Hope it's off to a great start, and I look forward to collaborating with you again, in this new year! Cheers! - SarahStierch (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful of you, Sarah. All the very best for 2012 to you too. Just let me know whenever you think I can be of any help. - Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A happy New Year from here too. I see you have started to work on an article about Danish sculpture and just want to share this article from Thorvaldsens Museum which might be useful in case you have not stumbled upon it already.Ramblersen (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy new year to you too, Ramblersen. Thanks for drawing my attention to the museum article. Another interesting on-line source I have come across is this one. My problem at the moment is in fact to try to cut down on the amount of information to be included in this top-down article but an additional source is always welcome. I am taking things rather slowly at the moment as I am tied up with a number of other things. So it may take a week or two before the article is up to basic Start standards. I very much appreciated your Prince's Mansion article. - Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you said in your vote that "the category is useful". You are aware that it is a template deletion discussion and has nothing to do with removal of the underlying categories, which will in fact not be removed at all? MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the matter. Of course I realize we are discussing a template. I used the term category in the more general sense without thinking about the specific Wikipedia use of categories. I simply meant that the template covers a useful area of interest. But I now see that my misnomer led to an interesting discussion. I'll try to be more careful next time! - Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice progress on the article! I have a few preliminary comments which I have put in this sandbox.Ramblersen (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interesting observations. I'll certainly follow up on them when I have time. Progress on the article has been pretty slow as I have been tied up with other things and in any case I am by no means an expert on sculpture. As with all fields of art, one of the problems is that you begin to run into copyright problems with the images once you start dealing with the 20th century. I was surprised to see how many have escaped deletion until now (often because there is no reference to the sculptor) but I imagine that if I put them into my article, it would not be long before they were removed from Commons. Maybe I'll put a preliminary version of the article up sometime next week so that those interested, including yourself, can edit it directly or make comments on the talk page where everyone can see them. - Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing Architecture of Turkey article. Your input was very helpful. Mimar77 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Well done! It was an interesting article. If even you need further help with copy editing, just let me know. - Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 09:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work writing Danish sculpture! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the encouragement. Maybe I'll continue coverage of sculpture in some other countries too. - Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eugenija Sutkienė requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Peridon (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person appeared important in 2009 in connection with the European Libertas party but I agree that it may now be deleted. - Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info - candidates aren't automatically notable. They only get articles if they are already notable for something else. Incumbents are notable, so long as the position itself is notable, whatever their other stuff is. Some don't think this is fair, but just consider the position if we decided to give ALL candidates an article... Peridon (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eugenija Sutkienė is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenija Sutkienė until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg	Rubber duckies for you
	Happy Valentine's Ipigott. May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Valve Pormeister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saku (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for my very slow reponse regarding your question on my talk page and though I'd better respond here since you hardly watch my talk page anymore. I had been logged out due to my recent inactivity after a vacation and a bit of wikipedia fatique and have therefore completely missed it. I assume you are no longer interested in the answer and I am affraid I would not have been of much help anyway with the sources since all I had written came from the Danish wikipedia article.Ramblersen (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. I was a little worried about you as it has been a few weeks since you last edited on Wikipedia. Glad to hear it was mainly due to a vacation. - Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Architecture Award
		Thanks for all your great work improving and adding to the List of female architects, as well as the many new articles you have created as a result. I've no idea how you find the time!! Sionk (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation and encouragement. You've been doing a great job yourself too. - Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now your articvle about the Skagen Painters has a length section about the "Swedish film" but considering that the film now has its own article and that Bille August is releasing a fil about Marie Krøyer later this year, I would suggest that the section be replaced with a section which could cover both films and possible cultural references. What do you think? I know you have your hands busy with female architects but you might want to make a small update of your article about Jan Grarup based on his recent engagement with New York Times.Ramblersen (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the news. I've updated the Grarup article abit. Maybe we should wait a while before adding details of the Marie Krøyer film as it is not going to be released until October. And then it might be more appropriate to add it to the Marie Krøyer article. - Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you think that is best. I must just admit that I find the attention given to a fictional work (wjeather or not it is historically correct) in an encyclopedic article a bit excessive here (and unpresedented on Wikipedia as far as I can see in similar cases). Perhaps it would be relevant if it was very known internationally compared to the actual movement. But I do not think that is the case here.Ramblersen (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this to my original text on the Swedish film. - Ipigott (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not add them to the list since I am not sutre of your mission is to make it as complete as possible or to eliminate red links but here are a few more Danish candidates for the list of women architects:

• Inger Exner, collaborating with her husband, an honorary member of the American Institute of Architects.
• Eva Koppel, also working with her husband, modernism at its worst but probably notable all the same.
• Helle Søholt , a co-founder of Gehl Architects together with Jan Gehl
• Mette Kynne Frandsen, CEO of Henning Larsen Architects but mainly an administrator she probably doen't really warrant an article

It is probably mainly the first two that are relevant but I will leave it to you to decide if they should be added to the list.Ramblersen (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already covered Eva Koppel quite well but I'll have a look at the others. Thanks. - Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a short article on Inger and Johannes Exner. If you want to include the other two, please go ahead. - Ipigott (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arh I had missed that Eva Koppel was already covered, sorry aboyt that. Such an incredible lot of new articles you have produced lately, impressive work (as always!).

A tag has been placed on Emily Williams (architect) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Aunty-S (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, may I ask for your help again? I worked on two articles and would like to ask if you could subsequently check the English of them? One is a very short one, Katholische Hofkirche (The Catholic Church of the Royal Court of Saxony), the other the Saxon State Library. I feel that their English needs some real polishing by a native speaker. Thank you very much for your help.--Linear77 (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Thank you very much for checking the article on the State Library. (I expected that "the fused library" was incorrect, but obviously not?) Could you please also have a look at the other article I mentioned, the Katholische Hofkirche? It is very short. (In case you did check it and did not find anything, please ignore this sentence.) Thank you very much.--Linear77 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the other article and there was nothing worth changing. As for the "fused library", it might be better to say "merged library". Well done! - Ipigott (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you very much.--Linear77 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Anna Heringer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 842U (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to review this DYK submission? Branch House DYK. There seems to be a backlog and it's languishing. 842U (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to review this and many more DYKs but I simply can't handle the mechanics. I have the same problem with GA reviews. If the procedure were easier to follow, it would be an entirely different matter. That also explains, btw, why I have only once ever submitted an article for DYK nomination myself. It took me ages and was an unnerving experience. But thanks for thinking of me. - Ipigott (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really is way more complex than it needs to be... and unnerving... and it keeps getting worse! Thanks just the same! 842U (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Branch House article seems to me to meet the criteria pretty well. Only the date sequences seem to need further attention despite some recent editing. Look forward to seeing it soon in DYK. - Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it's best to reply - my talk page or yours.

At the suggestion of someone else, I used the data from another source, which I think is more relieable, as it does not originate from a pro-wind power group, but I'm now told that souce is not relieable either. So it seems if I do make an edit, it will be reversed again.

I do wonder if the details percentages of wind power should be in the lead, or in another section. The idea of the lead is to summerise what is in the main body, but it does not seem to do that. It seems to be 99% singing the praises of the wind power, with only one reference to the fact the are not universally liked, with no discussion in the lead of why. It seems very one-sided.

Perhaps a table in the main body, comparing the data from two sources might be useful, and removing the data from the lead, but I fear if I make such changes, which would take some time, they will get reversed.

If the article is a one-sided, and you seem to think so too, I can't see why the POV tag should not be on it. Two people have put it there, and there are other discussions from others in the talk page about the neutrality, but it seems we are not even permitted to bring readers attention to the fact the neutrality is disputed. The tag is not supposed to be removed until the issues have been resolved, but that does not happen.

I'm sure there are other articles which are a bit one-sided. The Mathematica one is, since it was edited a lot by someone who works for the company that produces it. He has now stopped editing it - except for correcting obvious factual errors, like version numbers. But when the POV tag was put on there, it least it remained there until the issues have been resolved. This does not appear to be so with the Wind Power article.

Sorry, I am at work now, and can't spend any time now working on the article, but I'm a bit reluctant to spend any time on it, given I suspect any edits will simply get reversed.

I could be wrong, and I know one is supposed to assume good faith, but I rather suspect some of the editors of that page have commerical intersts in wind power. There was a comment from someone that the article was like a presentation from Seimans and some other company (forget which), and someone else replied it was nothing like such a presentation, which makes me think he has attended such presentations. In cases like that, I do suspect he might have vested interests. Drkirkby (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anonymous friend. Was there any set of contributions you particularly appreciated or is the award simply based on the level of activity? - Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. can I interest you in helping expand this and translate from Danish wiki? I will credit you in the DYK of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at it but I see the DA version is poorly referenced. Rather busy at the moment so give me a day or two. - Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few bits and pieces but I see much more detail is available from the German article. I'll have a closer look at it tomorrow and will possibly make further additions. - Ipigott (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Great job, you and Rosie! I've nominated. Will likely start some more Danish buildings tomorrow, will let you know! I requested categories by region for buildings and structures and they'll probably need expanding and organizing by municipality if we have enough!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what I need help with is finding articles to populate Category:Buildings and structures in Denmark by region. Every article we have say on a church, railway station, palace. museum etc can be organized by municipality like this. Region is a start but eventually I want to have enough articles to have building and structure categories by munipality.. So getting these categories put into English and missing articles transwikied is the long term plan! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly set yourself quite an ambitious agenda here. In my opinion, there are two problems in categorizing by the communes in Denmark: first there were major reforms a few years ago and many of the old communes disappeared; and second, English-speakers are usually far more familiar with the various islands than with the communes. But it may be a good approach to picking up interesting articles from the Da wiki. Furthermore, the communal authorities often present information in English on their attractions, including buildings. (Strange, btw, that Wikipedia has chosen municipality as an equivalent of commune. Municipality to me has urban associations. Commune is much more general and more suited to the Danish situation.) Keep me posted. - Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Well yes, ambitious certainly. That's the idea, just will never find the time to do it! Yeah probably best to just take select ones and make them decent...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may impose on this discussion, I think it is better to go with sorting buildings out according to municipality rather than region right away. I think it is a great strength to go with the same system that is used on Danish wikipedia since most of these new English categories are going to be very empty for a long time. With inter wiki links it will be very easy to check out the corresponding Danish category to get a better overview. Second the Danish regions are likely to disappear in a few years and are really not 'regions' at all but merely administrative entities which are only responsible for hospitals. Last of all, I have already started to make municipality-based categories for listed buildings here and there. I will start categorizing more systematically from now on.Ramblersen (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good Ramblersen. If you are able to help out here, it may not be such a formidable task after all. I'm not keen on the regional approach either. So let's try to support the municipal approach. I think you might be the best judge of where the priorities lie, i.e. which buildings should be covered first - apart from adding appropriate categories to all the existing articles. - Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the method I have been using in my attempt to work my way through castles and manor houses is to look through the relevant categories in Commons and then concentrating on those with decent images. Articles with no or bad images are such a drag. I have also put a lot of effort into trying to find images of uncovered subjects on Flicker but unfortunately it seems hard to find good pictures from the provinces - partly because they are poorly tagged. I am not sure how many articles about buildings from around the country I will be writing though, my experience from the manor houses is that they are attracting almost no readers and my main interest is still the Copenhagen area.Ramblersen (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with your approach. Pity there is not more interest in your interesting manor house articles. Perhaps a top-down article on Danish manor houses would help? Or more links from related articles? In any case, I personally find your contributions very useful and certainly think they are relevant in an English-language encyclopaedia. Maybe if you consider the overall level of interest in Denmark and all things Danish, then your efforts are far from wasted. Keep up the good work. - Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man power though and a small army of English speaking Danes is needed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Danish
	Thank you for expanding out knowledge of Danish culture, architecture, art, cuisine, music, showing us that there so much more Danish than sweet pastry, such as Nielsen's Wind Quintet and Utzon's Bagsværd Church, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the priceless sapphire and your kind words, Gerda, but apart from some work on Sculpture of Denmark (which still needs more supporting biographies), I've recently been spending most of my time on Women in architecture (probably with far too many biographies, several of which are about Danish women and several more about Germans - see also List of female architects). While I'm here, allow me to congratulate you on your never ending stream of music articles including an unbelievable number of DYKs, not to mention your collaborative work with Dr. Blofeld. In Denmark, btw, there's no such thing as Danish pastry: it's wienerbrød as it originally came from Vienna. - Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, women in architecture sounds interesting! While I'm here, I am happy to resume my collabarative work with PumpkinSky, the photographer of the sapphire, see my user, find Easter eggs and peace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marienkirche, Neubrandenburg: I looked, reduced the dubious architectural details. Much more on de. I observe a tendency to keep the original name with English translation. - Did you see the sapphire on top of the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Marienkirche. You are probably right about some of the architectural details. But I actually brought the article to your attention as I thought you may be able to expand on its role in music -- although I must say I couldn't find much recent news. --Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Unionskirche, Idstein, you make me understand some of the terms I don't even get in German! What's Brüstungen in English. They have these decorations I took a picture of but could not describe well. "Wendeltreppe"? "Reiterchörlein" is a separate section (term?) with a separate entrance, so nobility didn't have to enter the same way as the ordinary people. How to say that major restoration is on its way? Will look for source. Did you see my question on the review, regarding the evaluation? - My attention: I should translate a bit more of that precious gem to German ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent help there, please keep it watched and feel free to keep improving it. I listed a few things on my personal "wishlist" on top of the rewievers remarks. Right now I want to concentrate on other topics, see above, and BWV 93 is not yet translated to German ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For being an outstanding wikipedian and assisting in articles and translations. You are a credit to the site! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate receiving this Special Barnstar from the most creative of all Wikipedians. My contribution is tiny compared to yours. Thanks once again for your encouragement and your unending enthusiasm. - Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De nada! Started Arresødal BTW, translation needs checking!.. Also started Aage Roussel who authored a book which had info on Arresodal but turns out he is more an expert in medeival Greenland. Will start the Poul article later from Danish wiki...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a quick look through Arresødal but must now get back to Women in architecture which needs additional work. But as Aage Roussel is very short, I'll spend a few minutes on it. Ciao for now. - Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard! Understandable, given that Danish wiki articles are generally unsourced and poor quality. Yeah its probably best to start your own research and source but in my experience I've found if another wiki has a fuller article on it its easier to translate and then scout for sources and then simply remove what you can't source or understand, especially for German, French and Spanish. I think actually a list of featured and good articles from all wikis would be very useful. Unfortunately though the bot operator who made the Danish directory of missing articles is no longer with us. You could try asking User:Plastikspork or somebody to code something, although he is very busy these days..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of the articles listed on your project for Danish, German, French, etc. are now blue links for English. So I'll either have to investigate myself or wait until you spoon feed me. - Ipigott (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List looks good, a lot of work... You should change your user name to User:Polyglot, that's an incredible number of languages you speak.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabonese politicians, Moroccan towns, Turkish physicians, Burmese and Swedish villages etc are generally are of little interest to our readers either! Personally I've never been swayed by popularity, I think a truly comprehensive wikipedia would have such articles in abundance and be there as a resource. I've started some very obscure articles in rural Burma and such and even they get a handful of hits a day, so I'm helping somebody somewhere... If we were solely dictated by readership we'd have even more popular culture articles than we already have!! The idea of course is to try to address systematic bias and have the same level of coverage in English as in any other language. For me wikipedia is about removing the barriers of time and place and trying to treat the world as neutrally as if you yourself were German and into old TV programmes or a villagers living in the Sagaing hills etc. Unfortunately though readership tends to dictate what gets expanded quicker on here so many topics which we should have articles on are largely ignored. I would agree with you however that priority lists for each of the languages is the best thing and to get the top importance missing articles onto here before old German TV programmes and small streams.. What I want really is a list of the top 1000 German wikipedia articles...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you mean. Of course ideally we'd have the whole lot and in a good condition but yeah "world topics" are certainly higher priority and should really be transwikied before more local importance stuff. But I've started some local stuff recently which is obscure even in my county and I think it makes us more valuable as a resource!Perhaps you could ask a bot coder to generate some lists, also a list of good articles on each wikipedia?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started Albert André and I have the in the Aalholm article for proof reading and adding... .♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work - I'll get back to it. I've actually been covering some of the red links on the Pont-Aven School and have now started Ernest_de_Chamaillard, Otto_Weber_(painter), Émile_Jourdan, Henry_Moret, Charles_Filiger, Théodore_Frère and Édouard_Rosset-Granger. Still a few more to do! - Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you proof read Carl Holzmann?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well the editor of that article also made the same mistake and said Architect. Actually I caught a snippet of a German book and I think it said Carl Holzmann archaeologist and mentioned that site in Turkey and then I also saw Carl Holzmann engineer pr something, so you're likely right!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started Marcel Anselme, translation needs checking, but I think you overestimated his notability, I can't find anything solid to source ad improve it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have been looking at the wrong list. The ones I picked out as possibly interesting are at User:Ipigott/Sandbox3 and even these I have not fully checked out. I'm travelling at the moment but I'll look at Ansleme on Monday. - Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you do! Sorry about slow progress with the painters, I've had a bunch of irritating pompous twits to deal with and have a swamp of stubs threatened for deletion to sort out at the moment... Look forward to some more collaborations soon..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think its a good idea towns wanting to work together to improve coverage, it should be happeneing all over the world. Its good but think potentially how many buildings would require them around the world..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention. I agree wholeheartedly: an error in judgement on my part. I have reverted the content manually to the original. ^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means, please request an administrator to handle that bit (regarding the deletion of the misleading article title). I would be happy to get to the article creation/translation on the Church of Santa Catarina in Calheta started. I should have some level of completion by the end of the weekend, if not today. ^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I did a rough creation of the article Church of Santa Catarina (Calheta), with the appropriate information created from the Portuguese, including references inline with the technique I have been using with other buildings in the Azores/Portugal. I intend to expand details from two sources still this weekend. But, regardless, its a start. ^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott - It is so very nice to collaborate with you! When I saw your lovely expansion this morning, I was going to write you a note of thanks, but got swept up in making some this and that changes as I thought you had stopped working on it. I'll work on something else now and I'll nom it at dyk before the day is over unless you beat me to it. Again, so nice to collaborate with you. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad it's sorted out. I, too, was surprised there wasn't anything on the island. I googled Lindholmen Island yesterday and after not immediately finding what I thought I would, I moved on to something else. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nom'ed it. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stumholmen, thanks. I forgot to ask you to proof read it! I vaguely recall you saying Swedish was amongst your collection of languages!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superbly done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you count Italian as one of your languages? Can you proof read Chiesa di San Costanzo?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian is indeed one of my languages and I'll be happy to take a look at this one. You seem to have done a pretty good job on it already. Might take a day or two to do it properly. - Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So what seven languages do you speak again?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fluent in Danish, German, French and Spanish, have a good working knowledge of Italian, Norwegian and Portuguese and can translate from Dutch and Swedish. At a pinch I can cope with a few others too but don't press me. - Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helligdomsklipperne and Fru Petersens Café might also interest you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know them both from Bornholm. I'll look at them later. --Ipigott (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done quite a bit of work on Helligdomsklipperne (quite an interesting article now) and have done a quick copy edit on the less interesting Fru Petersens Café. - Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I started two of the painters red linked. Anders Christian Lunde needs proof reading though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! Have worked on Lunde. - Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Can you proof read Castello Barbarossa when you have a mo?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, long time, no hear! All your great work on Bornholm-related articles made me wonder if a single comprehensive all-in-one nav bar for the island would be a good idea. I have made this draft and your thoughts on this will be welcome. Maybe it is better with smaller ones for specific topics such as the current 'towns' one. Don't get put off by the many red links, though. It can just stay in my sandbox (must stuff that ends up there tend to do so anyway) until at some point the number of red links have gone down to a reasonably level (or they can simply removed and articles can be added gradually). Do not hesitate to suggest changes or simply make them yourselfRamblersen (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you again, Ramblersen. Your nav bar on Bornholm certainly covers many articles which could be written about the island. But I wonder whether it would not first be a good idea to put together one or two generic articles such as Windmills on Bornholm rather than writing separate articles on each one. Ditto lighthouses and perhaps nature. I did, however, welcome your List of churches on Bornholm and intend to write a few more articles on these fairly soon. When more of the red links turn blue, I certainly think it would be useful to have a nav bar for the churches. So for now I suggest we keep the Bornholm nav bar in your sandbox. In the not-too-distant future it might really be useful to apply it more widely. Let's see how things develop. And while I'm here, I was wondering whether we should not use English alphabetical sorting on your church list with Aa Aakirkeby at the top in line with the default sort? If you want an example of how to do coordinates, see List of spa towns in Poland. There is also provision for notes here which might also be useful for the Bornholm churches, especially as people seem particularly interested in round churches. Keep up the good work. --Ipigott (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it it is probably best to leave the nav bar in the sandbox for now. As for the generic articles, many lists actually have quite lengthy generic sections (see e. g. [[1]]) and that was what I had plans for at least with the windmills and lighthouses. For churches a separate article would probably be relevant.

I agree that Aa should go first. I do know how to add coordinates (they are on a lot of my building articles) but just have got around to adding them and also lack sources, right alignment of years and as mentioned above introductory sections.Ramblersen (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See you have now added the coords. Good work. --Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I nom'ed Castello Barbarossa. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your own inputs too. I would have spent a bit longer brushing it up but I am actually bogged down on a number of articles about Danish churches. Anyway, it seems more or less OK to me now. --Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyker needs checking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just lost the whole thing through an edit conflict. Please don't ask me to edit articles while you are still working on them. Will return to it when you have finished. Probably tomorrow now. - Ipigott (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wasn't working on it, just added a link. Which browser do you use? Because on firefox if you simply click back a page you don't lose everything. You shouldn't lose everything in an edit conflict ..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly my fault, no doubt. The updated file was slow to return and I therefore pressed the send button a second time. I thought I had caused the conflict myself and therefore did not save the file. A minute or two later I realized my update had been lost. The browser I use is IE9 as I think it is used much more widely than Firefox and I like to see what the users out there are actually seeing. Firefox is good too but sometimes significantly changes the display, for example by reformatting the references into three columns. I have been wondering, btw, whether there is any easy way of reproducing on a PC or laptop the screen displays people are getting on their smart phones, iPads, etc. I would also be interested to know what proportion of Wikipedia page views are from these devices. It may be necessary to take account of these trends in future editing. Any ideas? Are there any stats? --Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found the very interesting browser stats here and I see IE is only slightly ahead of Chrome. The mobile devices are still quite a way behind. --Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Internet Explorer a week or two ago as I prefer the rendering but for the very reason when I'd preview work and skip forward a page or two to retrieve sources and go back I'd lose my work so I resumed using firefox..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkodalen I started but needs checking badly! not sure whether it should be Echo Valley in title too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a quick post-edit on this. If I had been writing the article myself I would have included many of the details from this. But I'm trying to do the churches at the moment and I don't want deal with too many things at once. I've done a redirect from Echo Valley (Bornholm) but I think it's best to keep Ekkodalen for the article. - Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, please do jump in. In the next day or two, I'm going to try and finish creating stubs for those that are redlinks. But a few of the stubs have lots of potential for expansion and it would be great if we could collaborate. If you're working on other things, no worries. Likewise, if you'd like me to jump in on any articles that you're working on, just let me know! Fyi, I'm a Firefox fan. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott! Zad68 created some teams for Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. He currently placed you on the "Retain new editors" team. Are you interested in being a part of it? EpochFail is the team leader, but he will be out for the rest of the month so we'll need to start with some organization. I created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retain new editors so we can centralize discussion. The page may be moved around later on. In any case, I hope you would be happy to join the team. Otherwise, you can always check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention#Project teams for some other teams that might interest you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you proof read the translation for Collecchio and Victor Denain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think they're both OK now. --Ipigott (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I nommed Collechio as a double. Can you proof Catequilla?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your great work on the Battle of Colleccho a couple of days ago. Catequilla already looks pretty good. I'll have a proper look at it later after I've finshed my next Bornholm church. --Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also the short one Niccolò da Uzzano needs checking. Hey I was thinking of having a stubbing session on Copenhagen region buildings. Would you object to shortish stubs with only a fact or two in them or would you just translate one or two fully first time?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer to develop at least some of them from scratch. In many cases even the Danish WP articles leave a lot to be desired and even in cases when the info is well presented and properly sourced, the Google translations are more bother then help. They also tend to create lots of minor alterations to the original Danish names with the result that we get red links where EN articles already exist! As you may have noticed, it is not difficult to find reliable sources for virtually all the churches in the area as well as on many of the castles, manors and other buildings of note, especially those of historical interest. But maybe our friend Ramblersen has an opinion on this too. He has recently been doing a lot of excellent work on Copenhagen and surroundings. Maybe you could put together a list of those you would like to cover and we could then try to deal with them on some sort of priority basis? The remainder could then be dealt with as stubs. Would you like to put the idea to Ramblersen or should I? --Ipigott (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask him? The idea of course for starters is to get all of the categories in User:Dr. Blofeld/Denmark started. But I wanted to get a few full ones translated by municipality first and then maybe stub the rest as you say. I was thinking though like Herstedøster Church would be constructive stubs which can be started pretty quickly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad start and much better than the Danish wiki. But of course much more could be added. Did you seen there had recently been a serious fire? Maybe stubs like this are better than nothing at all but if you would like me to work on Danish articles, I would prefer to start from scratch rather than working on stubs. At the moment, though, I still have about a dozen Bornholm churches to deal with. So I can't really promise a quick response. In addition, we have visitors for the next couple of weeks so my time is limited. --Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I quite agree its best to write your own from scratch and write start class articles to start with. But I do think it would be nice to have the sort of coverage in English as in Danish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well keep me posted on what you are doing and I'll certainly try to help as far as time permits. --Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well getting all the relevant categories in place creating articles on the most important buildings in the Copenhagen area is basically what I have been working on for the last couple of years, althogh mainly in the downtown area since that has seemed the most relevant place to start, so I can only support that idea. But my opinion on the stub approach, for whatever its worth, is that it is a very bad idea (as I have already commented on Dr. Blofeld's talk page). To me it seems that the subjects whit stubs often end up with the poorest coverage and that the stubs mainly kill the interest in working on improving the articles (as can easily be seen from chrcking most of the Danish subjects which has received systematic attention). And I don't really see what good they do, a mere mention seems to contribute with nothing that a quick look on the relevant da.wikipedia can rpovide of information. I for one prefer to read an article with a red link or no link at all than to encounter a bunch of tempting links only to find a bunch of worthless stubs and the way I see it they just end up burrying the articles that are actually informative. One of my ambitions on wikipedia has therefore been to eliminate stubs on Copenhagen. Both when it comes to Copenhagen specifically and Denmark in general, I think there is a much greater need for good quality articles about some of the most important buildings and other institutions. But that is of course just my opinion.16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Ramblersen (talk)

Thanks very much Ramblersen for making your position so clear. I tend to agree that it is more satisfying to create an article from scratch and bring it up to a reasonable quality level than to work on someone else's low quality stub which may even have some strange unsourced info justified simply by the fact that it appeared in one of the other language wikis. That is why I thought a reasonable way forward would be to have a clear overview of what Dr. Blofeld feels should be covered. We could then decide which articles should be created on a priority basis. Dr. Blofeld is btw very good at turning up relevant EN references, not just from the net but from published literature, which could improve the articles. --Ipigott (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well the idea of course is to cover everything, but that isn't really possible! Hope you don't mind but I've started User:Ipigott/Neoclassical architecture in Milan. Its quite a lot to translate so it we can translate it gradually under no pressure in the workspace. I thought it would interest you as it does me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neoclassicism in Milan is indeed an ambitious project. I'm afraid it is likely to move ahead very slowly over the next few weeks as I will be in Denmark with lots of family and visitors around. But I'll try to have a go at it as time permits. Talking about "everything", I was thinking of moving ahead with articles on Bornholm along the same lines as you advanced on Capri and that also will require a lot of time and efforts. Let's just see how things move forward and thanks for your encouragement. --Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Can you help proof read Ettore Petrolini? The Italian text is hidden underneath. I've asked two native Italians also to look at it so perhaps you could do a paragraph at a time or something! Very notable actor which even Britannica has an article on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for creating the aticle and for the feedback on the project which we'll consider. It's still early days but our intention is to attract many contributors worldwide very soon. Watch this space... As you've seen I've translated the article to Spanish. It would be great if you could please add some more inline citations as I'd like to nominate the article for Did you know... (deadline is 19 July) but would like to avoid editing the article much because of my WP:COI. As for being of assistance, it would be great if you'd be willing to contribute, especially since you're fluent in five languages! Hope to see your name under the Contributors section on the project's page soon... :) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 18:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the two sources I have used for the article it should already qualify for DYK. The other sources I have found are primary (the Gibraltar government's official announcement from the Ministry of Tourism and the project's own site which links to Wikipedia itself). The only other sources I have been able to find are tweets. As for advice about how to go forward, I think the Norwegian approach of linking museums and libraries together with schools could provide real impetus, especially if the schoolchildren's involvement could be based on some kind of competition (most interesting new article, best researched article, etc.). You might also try to benefit from the interests of the local Geocaching community. And why not try to arrange a short presentation inviting all the locals who have contributed to WP Gibraltar articles over the past year, both physical in Gibraltar and virtual if you can manage it (at least on the basis of a short report)? --Ipigott (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was saying to Rosie how great that project is. I started a Gibraltar article yesterday on a hospital. I love the idea of covering places with nauseating detail.But I want to see that sort of thing happen everywhere and every town have one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking into ways of getting the schools involved after the summer holidays. I feel really strongly about this as not only will it help the kids' education on all things Gibraltar but also encourage them to become regular editors in the future. We're also holding Wikipedia lessons over the next couple of days for any locals who may want to contribute. Could you provide any further details on what they did in Norway? Sounds interesting... Also, could you look at the concerns raised here please? It's been taken out of the queue (which is a shame as its appearance on the main page would have coincided with one of the lessons) but I don't really want to get involved because of WP:COI. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you didn't make the DYK but very happy to hear you are bringing the schools in. The reason I mentioned Norway is that for years they have ensured very close collaboration between libraries, museums and schools. Not too long ago, they made special efforts to involve schoolchildren in building up resources for their Norwegian Year of Cultural Heritage 2009. I have worked with these people and am impressed by the level of integration they ensure between the cultural institutions and the schools, building up the children's interest in their local heritage. Perhaps you could work along the same lines in Gibraltar? --Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you still address the concerns re the DYK please? That way it can still appear on the main page at a later date. Thanks for the info, will definitely look into it. I'm also considering using WP:SUP some way or another...

I'm sorry if I did not vary the phraseology sufficiently for your reviewer. There was unfortunately very little to go on for this article which does not seem to have received wide press coverage. I have been travelling for the past few days and was unable to catch the latest comments. As far as I can see, we've missed the deadline for the time being. May I suggest you try to attract interest by extending the coverage of articles about Gibraltar and by networking with the museum and library community - perhaps travel too. --Ipigott (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't believe we've missed the deadline - I get the impression that as long as you submit a nomination within the 5 day limit, the review process can take longer. I wanted to stay away from this one but I'll try to reword it tomorrow if you're unable to. We're working very closely with the Museum. I'm hoping to get some more editors involved following the Wikipedia lessons this week. Fingers crossed... --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 23:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you make whatever changes you think are required. I've just been comparing my text with the Vox article and don't see any problem. --Ipigott (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following which I just posted for the DYK nomination. Although I approved my more than one version of the hook, I note that the nominators should choose the final version.

I much prefer the idea in the original hook as modified by ALT1. I could accept the original hook but would change "came to heads" to "fought each other." I think the interesting aspect of this battle is that Brazilians fought Germans in Italy during WWII. In that regard, I would also add "during World War II" to ALT1 after "Battle of Collechio." ALT2 does not identify the general or the force as Brazilian. The Battle article is new, is long enough, is quite interesting, is well sources, is well written, is neutral, is free of copyright violations, plagiarism or policy concerns - in fact some of the sources are U.S. Government sources and others have text and information obviously taken from those sources. The original hook and ALT1 are interesting, supported by citations and well within the length limit. QPQ is done. No image. Side comment: I changed the name of the major in the infobox to conform with the text. The infobox name is taken from one of the sources, but it is wrong; the text is right. The source confused the similar name of the major with the famous bridge over the Rhine.

So ALT 3 would be: :... that in the Battle of Collecchio during World War II, Brazilians fought Germans in Italy at Collecchio?

I don't see how Collecchio qualifies as an article to be included. It already existed and was only expanded about 1.5x during a recent 10-day period during which the Battle article was written and posted for DYK. I would take the bold font off of that.

In summary, I think the original hook and ALT1 are both ok but I would slightly modify each of them as state above as to the hook or as stated in ALT3 as to ALT1; with ALT3 being my most preferred alternative. Good to go on either of the two hooks, as modified or not, but with no bold on Collecchio. Since a choice is to be made on the final wording of the hook, I would prefer that the nominators make the final choice on that rather than simply saying my amended version is the best. I will leave them a message. Donner60 (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on the DYK page after seeing Aymatth2's reply:

You are right about Collecchio, it qualifies. I looked at the history but failed to look carefully at the previous article. Most of the bytes in the previous version were taken up by the infobox and map in the box. The prose text has been expanded well over 5x. I should have been more careful and not judged the increase just on the increased bytes in the history. Sorry. So ALT3 is the choice and it is ok to go as far as I am concerned. Both articles qualify and should be included as bold for the DYK hook. Donner60 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were right and I was wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the translation?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you proof the history translation?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suffering from a very poor connection at the moment but I'll try to get back to it tomorrow. --Ipigott (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott, I updated the DYK announcements section at WikiProject Architecture, so that it matches the format of new article announcements, and it has been added now to the architecture bulletin. Hope this simplifies things, but if you have any suggestions for improvement, just let me know. --ELEKHH^T 05:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems sensible to have them in the bulletin although with only three or four page views a day, it's probably academic. As you may have noticed, I've been trying to keep the DYKs and the new articles up to date for the project page but I wonder whether it is worth the time and effort. There is little evidence that people actually look at these items -- unless of course you have statistics to the contrary. Still, it provides something of an archival inventory! --Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think only those who wish to edit the bulletin really click on it. It is generally seen as transcluded on the top of the WikiProject Architecture page (ca. 50 views/day), and many project members keep it on their user page or talk page (94 transclusions). Otherwise as with much else (i.e. new article creation) is hard to know how useful it is due to limited feedback we get from readers. Some parts of the bulletin could be transcluded onto the portal (100+ views/day), but then again there is so little feedback on its content (there has only been about one posting per year on its talk page) that I am not very sure. In any case can tell that your hard work helps a lot in keeping the project alive! --ELEKHH^T 21:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep it up then. There have certainly been many new interesting articles related to architecture this year, several from countries which have not been covered too well in the past. I would like to think that some of the subsequent edits are related to the fact that they are listed in the project but most seem to be the work of bots. Do you think it would be a good idea to provide a list of recent stubs requiring expansion, perhaps over a period of a month or so? Quite a proportion of those written by non-native speakers could easily be improved but I simply cannot find the time to work on everything. Maybe a section on "Recent stubs deserving attention" or something similar would help. An easy way to start would be to mark them as stubs in the list of new articles. We could also alert all members of the project to the need for wider participation. --Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, indeed as a quick first step you could simply add some icon to the article listing indicating stub status or importance, or other attributes. On a broader level it might be worth considering a revamp of the portal and wikiproject pages. While we're still among the top 5% most active WikiProjects there is surely space for improvement. For instance we could learn from WikiProject Film which seems much more active. I like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Announcements and open tasks section, and also that there are a number of focused task forces. Maybe it's worth starting a discussion on the WikiProject talk page about such more ample improvements. --ELEKHH^T 13:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means raise your suggestions on the talk page. Rather than icons in the list of new articles, it would probably be sufficient to add: "stub for expansion", for example:

• Mahkamah Mosque, created August 2012
• Rudbjerggaard, created August 2012
• Myre Church, stub for expansion created August 2012
• Church of St Mary the Virgin, Beighton, created August 2012
• Triumphal cross, created August 2012

Once we have collected a few of these, we could perhaps create a separate list. What do you think? --Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it makes sense and it fits within the scope of the WikiProject to keep "to-do" lists. Only hope there will be enough editors to help. The problem with the current bot generated lists (such as the cleanup listing), and general maintenance categories (such as Category:Architecture stubs is that these are endless and new editors wouldn't know where to start. A curated, manually maintained list, only including higher priority, or recently created articles might be a good alternative. I am very busy currently with other stuff, so sorry for the slow reply. --ELEKHH^T 10:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed like to apply but when it click on "apply here" I just get a list of names. BTW I've started working on your Neoclassical Milan translation. --Ipigott (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kinneksbond.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the image is being used under a claim of fair use due to the fact that there is no usable freedom of panorama provision in the country/region in which the photo was taken. However, a recent RfC has suggested that the freedom of panorama provisions of United States copyright law apply to all foreign buildings as long as the photo is being used in the US, on the basis of lex loci protectionis. In other words, a photo taken of a copyrighted building anywhere in the world is free of any copyright restrictions contained in the building. Note that this applies to the English Wikipedia only, and not to Wikimedia Commons.

Therefore, it is possible to create a free replacement for this image, causing it to fail the first non-free content criterion. If you are the photographer of this image, simply change the {{Non-free architectural work}} to a free license such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 to release it your photo under a free license. Also, if you have a higher resolution version, it would be appreciated if you could upload it over the current image. The image will be deleted after seven days if no action is taken. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating Neoclassical architecture in Milan. Spectacular work! Why didn't I think of that! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are extremely quick on the draw. It's taken quite some time with lots of interruptions. There may be some useful additions from English-language sources. At the moment it's simply a translation of the Italian. I'll get back to it again tomorrow. --Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work again! I am thinking of placing it on the architecture portal for September, but would need a more comprehensive lead. --ELEKHH^T 23:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead a bit but you could always simply continue with the introduction which provides a pretty good overview. I've looked into some of the English resources but I did not find anything really worthy of inclusion. So for the time being at least, I'll leave the article as it is. --Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, is up on Portal:Architecture now. --ELEKHH^T 22:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]