This is an archive of past discussions with User:Coffeeandcrumbs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Coffeeandcrumbs, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:JaymeCloss.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not to the F7 standard. Please see WP:CSD#F7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- Amanda(aka DQ)23:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I would have concerns about it also being tagged with that. It's true that the replaceable section needs to be updated, but i'm concerned that there is no free equivalent at this time, and likely won't be created any time soon with the victim in recovery. Therefore I would view such a rationale as valid. It may be better to bring up at FFD to get experts on NFCC to comment more. -- Amanda(aka DQ)00:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
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. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
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. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
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. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 at Women in Red
February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111
Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.
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. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
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. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
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. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I see only five lines - also can't be up-to-date. I hate the image smaller than the orange bars, sorry to be so pov. Two remedies: return the larger image, which aligns it, or use infobox person which doesn't have these (forgive me, awful) orange bars. It doesn't have "label" but otherwise ... - what do you think? I am attached to this article more than normally because I expanded it in 2010 from stub to one paragraph, DYK? The trick to make an image larger even when the infobox doesn't support "upright" comes from a friend whom I miss much. Well, enough sentimentality, - I heard him three times, last with Brubeck. - Thanks for helping! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
My theme this year ;) - feel understood! (... very old promise, to improve that article, see?) The theme in 2017 was reformation (not only Reformation). First word on my user page. Today is the first 8 March without a DYK by me (one was in prep but removed because it mentioned "husband"), - but then at least they don't get drowned in many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean you offer to review? Just go to my user page and look for blue "nom" (but check if something was started, - I don't differentiate, only change to "DYK" when completed). Thank you already. If I misunderstood, never mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Not yet ;) - A woman's novel to come on Tuesday, then a few more. Look for women by others, perhapas? Thank you so much for the two you helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Tel Aviv rocket strike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Andise1 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I find engaging with certain editors at Talk:Ilhan Omar totally exhausting, so I thought I'd share some comments with you here rather than there. I basically think the idea of what you're trying to do is fine in principle, but in practice it seems like it would be better to cut down on the total amount of commentary (supportive and critical) on this one topic. That said, I think there are at least two issues with things you've written: first, the paragraph you wrote includes the phrase "the conservative magazine The Nation", and this is definitely a wrong description (The Nation could be accurately described as "progressive" or "liberal--left"). Also, I think the edit summary here is really problematic: Wikipedia:RSP#Haaretz definitely does not say that Haaretz is a biased source, and indeed it is one of the sanest voices coming out of Israeli media. It certainly would be a RS for a statement of fact. (Of course replacing the source was a good move, for the other reason you mention!)
P.S. I am not watching this page, please ping me if you'd like to discuss further.
@Joel B. Lewis: Thank you for your comments. You are right about The Nation. Perhaps I am personally just more progressive than them. As for Haaretz, I don't have to argue about the edit summaries. It is my opinion and partly supported by WP:RSP#Haaretz which says "Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which makes it a biased or opinionated source." I am simply among the some editors who consider it biased on just this issue in particular.
In adding the new paragraph, I am simply trying to make the best of a bad situation. I agree this section should be trimmed down altogether. We absolutely agree on than. At the end of the day, we agree on the most important points. --- Coffeeandcrumbs19:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response & ping. My experience with other articles about people involved in twitter flare-ups is that once the person is out of the news cycle, many of the worst contributors go away. Unfortunately with Omar I feel like this is less likely :/ so definitely "making the best of a bad situation" is a good way to go. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Re [2]. Since you're wondering (and I fear you may be losing sleep over it), if you set your monitor to the standard size (2560 x 1600 px), then the images will be 5 cm across, which is quite small. Most of us have the default image size set to 300 px for this reason. Hawkeye7(discuss)06:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Valery Bykovsky
He is already off of In the News, before I even woke up. At least we made an effort! If you have Burgess' book on cosmonauts, feel free to use that to expand his early life. I might expand his flight history a bit more. Kees08 (Talk)16:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I just noticed that Neil Armstrong has never been featured on the Main Page. Wouldn't be awesome that on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing (July 1621, 2019), we filled the entire Main Page with stuff related to space exploration and etc. I mean every DYK and OTD + FA. Everything but ITN.--- Coffeeandcrumbs02:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Cool idea, we'd just need to ignore a few rules. First (within the rules, you need to talk to Hawkeye7, because so far he is requested to appear on 16 July, launch day. I'd agree that the day of his most famous sentence is perhaps the better day. Now: it's a rule that the same thing is not featured on the Main page twice. An exception I recall was Frank Sinatra, when two DYK sets of 12 hours were all Sinatra (look for Sinatra, 12 was the day), with an image in every set, and for Jean Sibelius, when they permitted (reluctantly) one DYK on the day along with the TFA of his Eighth Symphony, but no image, - so the only image for him that day was awful, while the better ones appeared a day before and after (look for Sibelius, 8 was the day), and spaced out even more into January 2015, - both anniversaries a few days from each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking that the DYK would not be difficult if we treated it like we do April Fools, but more serious and focused on space exploration. There can be blurbs about space, aliens, planets, asteroids, stars, constellations, Sci-Fi, anything from beyond Earth. Any and all biographies of astronomers, astronauts and scientists would qualify. We have a whole year to start collecting.--- Coffeeandcrumbs07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but talk to the DYK project early in that year, perhaps now ;) - Moon landing seems to deserve the same as Sinatra, 16 hooks, or more, + the TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
First things first, @Hawkeye7: are you ok with a July 21 celebration nomination instead. Armstrong stepped on the moon at 02:56 UTC on July 21, 1969. --- Coffeeandcrumbs07:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
In the possible event I could be wasting people's time by proposing this, I would like comments from Alex Shih, Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Gatoclass, Maile66, and Yoninah. (Sorry if I missed anyone.) Are there any objections to running a space exploration or STEM theme throughout the DYK for July 21, 2019. This will correspond with the inclusion of Neil Armstrong as the FA of the day. Armstrong stepped foot on the moon at 02:56 UTC on July 21, 1969. We would be marking the 50th anniversary of that landmark event in human history and perhaps demostrating the effects it had over the last 50 years of development in technology.--- Coffeeandcrumbs22:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a positively brilliant idea that already has a precedent. Recent additions/2016/September. Sept 8 & 9 ran 3 full sets on Star Trek. Although, because the earlier space exploration was a race between the USA and the Soviet Union, it also would not be out of place for someone to take Valentina Tereshkova to a GA class about that time to run it. Where would the International Space Station be without the Russians? And the Chinese now, too. Combined space exploration efforts have contributed to international cooperation. Great idea. Maybe coordinate this with the TFA bunch also. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm all for it. I was involved in the Frank Sinatra theme set organized by Dr. Blofeld and it was really fun. We put up new articles and new GAs too. If you have more than 8 articles, you could run them in 12-hour sets. Start making us a list! Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
When they did it with the Star Trek theme, it also included TFA, but I'm not sure how it was coordinated ahead of time. @Miyagawa: you played a large part in the connected articles of that. Do you remember how it was coordinated ahead of time? — Maile (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I did the coordination myself for the Star Trek project. In fact it ended up being more of a celebration of the 50th than the actual producers of the show did at the time. So with the Star Trek, I had aimed for the FA and DYK sets - the FP came on quite late as I hadn't realised that we had a Star Trek related FP that hadn't been shown yet. The FA and DYK consultations were done separately - because they were done at the same time. So I don't recall if either side knew it was going to be a main page takeover at first. However, FP knew at the time of nomination. As for coordinating the DYKs, there aren't a great deal of ST editors who work up articles (lots of wikignomes though), but I announced the project at the WikiProject and once I built up a head of articles awaiting DYK, others joined in. As I shall probably do for the new takeover! :) Miyagawa (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I am away until September, but will get cracking on Apollo 11 when I return. There's not a lot of time to get multiple articles through FAC. I would be all for a special project. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I've no objection in principle on running a themed TFA series, depending on what's available by then. Not keen on 12-hour TFA runs though, world time zones mean some people won't even have the opportunity to see some TFAs. If we are going to do it, let's give them full value and extend the run if necessary. Dank, Ealdgyth, and Wehwalt. for comments on 12-hour idea Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Perhaps, we should wait to make decisions on specifics. As long as you agree in principle to running a series of TFAs. I think the 12 hour Yoninah mentioned is for DYK which is running a theme concurrently. My idea is to fill the whole Main Page with a theme. As far as TFA is concerned, my idea is to run a series on specific milestone days: July 16 (launch date), July 19 (enter lunar orbit), July 20 (landing on moon a few hours before midnight), July 21 (Armstrong steps on the moon after several hours in the lunar module). --- Coffeeandcrumbs06:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I would get them to FA first and then worry about what order to run them in. I remember 9 years ago there were complaints we had nothing much to run on the 40th anniversary. I wouldn't mind an embarrassment of riches for the 50th. I've been working on Apollo 15 postage stamp incident and may do additional improvement on that mission's articles, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You may have been curious why I suddenly became interested in your work. I am trying to organize a major takeover of the Main Page on the 50th Anniversary of the Moon Walk. It may be for a single day, maybe for 3 days, or maybe for a whole week or more. The idea is to fill as much of the Main Page with items related to space exploration. Crucial to this endeavor are several FA articles, namely the FA for Neil Armstrong, and possible FAs for Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and the Apollo 11 article itself.
You can read the discussions above where many of the stakeholders from TFA and DYK have already expressed interest if not enthusiasm. Tell me what you think.
But a crucial step is getting the golden stars on the crucial articles we need. You just so happen to be working on that. --- Coffeeandcrumbs19:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
That is literally the exact same thing I am doing, so far I had only recruited Hawkeye7. I have a large number of astronaut biographies and have been listening to many audiobooks as well. I have Collins at GAN with Aldrin as my next target. So thank you for your interest and for recruiting me to a larger, more organized cause than I created :). Kees08 (Talk)19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
In my preliminary plan there is space for two lists, a special edition on July 21 and a regular edition on July 19 which I think falls on a Friday. I don't have a tab ready for discussing it. Just post it under miscellaneous for now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs03:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Will do. I have been following the progress. I am also going to request copy edit from GOCE. I think it needs a copy edit still.--- Coffeeandcrumbs20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Just make sure it is before the seven days are up (or whatever that rule is). I plan to keep working on the article between now and the 50th anniversary date. Kees08 (Talk)20:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08:Would you like me to take Chaffee to DYK? It has never been featured in DYK. Not a "first" but it would be good to have on hand. If we don't use it we can let it be posted on a different date. --- Coffeeandcrumbs22:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds good to me; there is a featured picture of him that could be used for it as well maybe. Suggestions could be something like
...that Chaffee, who died in the Apollo 1 fire, was the youngest astronaut NASA had selected (at that time...make it sound better lol).
...that Chaffee is one of three astronauts to have a building named after them at Purdue University? (I would have to add a tad of detail for that one)
Recruit the Lord of the Iron Islands, King of Salt and Rock, Son of the Sea Wind, and Lord Reaper of Pyke
Dear Lord Balon Greyjoy, I was wondering if you have read some of the pings I sent while your were on a wiki-break. I am collecting DYK's for a featured take over of the Main Page to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Moon Walk on July 21, 2019. Your DYK nomination for Wally Schirra could to be included in this project and reserved for publication that week. Would this be some thing you would be interested in? Please read the above threads to get an idea of what we have in mind. --- Coffeeandcrumbs06:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I would be interested in helping out with this project, both with the Wally Schirra DYK and further improvement to space articles. I just moved to a new country and am still getting situated, so I can't edit much over the next month or so. But I would be happy to contribute in preparation for the 50th anniversary. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Balon Greyjoy:Could you add a note to the nomination template saying you would like to reserve this DYK for July 2019? The word of the nominator is all that is required to save a DYK for a specific date. I will make sure the problems are fixed and it passes DYK review. --- Coffeeandcrumbs06:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I can review do the GA reviews. Just a heads up, I'm living in a hotel for the next few weeks and on sub-standard internet, so apologies in advance if my updates are slow going. Also, what is the name I should use when tagging you? When I use Coffeeandcrumbs, it's a red link. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Balon Greyjoy: Thank you! I am getting the pings, redlink not withstanding. I was similarly crippled for the past few weeks. I am back to full power now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs02:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert! Would WP:MIL be interested in WP:S2019? We are organizing a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first Moon landing on July 21, 2019. Many of the articles we aim to target and populate on the Main Page are military veterans with long and distinguished careers in the armed forces. We want to internationalize and diversify our reach to include the most notable contributors to the space race, many of whom are notable figures in the Russian military. Please offer your thoughts.--- Coffeeandcrumbs02:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Coffeeandcrumbs, I am no longer acting as a co-ordinator of MILHIST, so can't really comment here. Sorry. I believe there would be quite a few project members who would be interested in this effort, but I think it would be best if you post a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. All the best and good luck with your project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Re:Spider Man (Insomniac Games)
I never thought about the possibility of it being a GA honestly. But hopefully it has potential and maybe I should give it a shot. Jhenderson77700:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically User:Coffeeandcrumbs/Alexei Leonov, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you did that pagemove at User:FT2's request. I couldn't find any sign of that, though maybe I didn't look in enough places. If FT2 wanted it moved, then fine, but otherwise I thought the article was in good enough shape for both mainspace and DYK even though it was still being expanded. There is some discussion of this on the talk page. I'm not a significant contributor to the article but have been watching it and commenting on it, so I found the move pretty jarring. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it is in the best interest of everyone. The article was clearly in draft stage. FT2 can move it back anytime, which is why I made sure that the redirect was deleted to make sure that absolutely nothing would block them from moving it back. The article had personal notes and it contained a tag at the top that discouraged others from editing it. We generally don't have such things in the main space where it can be indexed by search engines.--- Coffeeandcrumbs22:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
FT2 posted on the talk page that people should go ahead and edit, though. The "personal notes" were just some TBD markers, that are common in articles. I think it is fine for search engines to index that page, to the extent that it's ok for any page to be indexed. I'm still in favor of de-indexing the whole encyclopedia but if we're going to do it selectively, that page was fine for keeping indexed. Anyway, I can't speak for FT2 but I find those kinds of undiscussed moves to be disruptive so IMHO it's best to suggest it on the talk page first. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Scolaire: No. Thank you. I was starting to think I was insane. Let's see how this plays out. I have been thinking about this article for about a week now and the title just struck me as weird. But I am not even from that part of the world and no expert on the subject. Here an interesting fact. The word trouble appears in the article 71 times including those in the references etc. Compare that to 93 mentions of the word conflict. I read almost every instance of trouble reading it instead as conflict and the article was better. Except for when referring to the term itself, I saw no reason for using the word. --- Coffeeandcrumbs14:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"The Troubles" originated as a kind of nickname on the streets of Belfast and Derry in the early 70s, and was taken up by news media everywhere (in Ireland and Britain, at least) and by authors of books. The problem is that the article is on the watchlist of over 400 people, the great majority of whom, I'd guess, are Irish or British and grew up hearing about "the Troubles"; and most of whom, I'd guess, have edited this article over the nearly 20 years of its life. They've got an emotional investment in the name, and they're likely to form the majority of contributors in any discussion. I've often thought about proposing a move to "Northern Ireland conflict", but I never did, precisely because I knew there would be a mass of knee-jerk opposes.
By the way, I mentioned your name, but I was adding to my existing post, so you won't get an alert. I said, "I'm not sure ["The Troubles"] conveys anything to readers in the rest of the world (Coffeeandcrumbs, for instance?). Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I am watching. I completely agree with your characterization. It is jarring to read The Troubles in the body of the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: first I want to make clear that, as you can see from my talk page here, I am very pro-NASA, space exploration, and especially women in STEM. The issue is not major. But the caption for the second photo on the page and the section headings are not NPOV and encyclopedic. I plan on contributing to the page to help fix these issues. I am working on a project to cover the entire Main Page with space exploration-related articles for the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. If this article was qualified for DYK, I would be very happy to include it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs21:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? Did I give you the impression, I was concerned about what you are pro about? Can't say, I'm particularly pro or against any of that, just saw an Agence France Press article ("NASA astronaut to set record for longest spaceflight by a woman") about interesting people 'in the news', as they say. Thanks again, if you will make clear your concerns about the article/or edit it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: I doubt you did anything to break User:AnomieBOT. You probably did break some references. But editors including myself do that all the time sometimes intentionally. This is because there are automated editors (bots) that come along and clean up after us. But that did not happen in this case. Why? I don't know. But don't worry about it. You did nothing wrong that I can see.
On a separate note, what happened to your signature? It looks broken. Did you try to change it from the standard version somehow? Please sign again below by typing four tildes (~~~~) and I can try to help you fix it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs13:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Your signature looks fine now. I am not understanding what you mean "it was changed for a reason"? What was changed? --- Coffeeandcrumbs13:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought when I first looked at my signature in the edit section (stop) lol ~ I thought I saw only my user name, then the next time I saw it twice ~ this the funny part I just realized. The second one is my user talk signature.
I thought there was an upgrade for every one ~ but I didn't get the user talk signature until I created my user talk page ~~ I didn't relate the two until just now LMAO Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2019
This edit request to User:Coffeeandcrumbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I realize and in context that is how it read to me. But it was a moot point from the moment the comment was clarified. It was best to move on to other more important matters. Thank you for your sentiments. --- Coffeeandcrumbs23:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Raid on North Korea's embassy in Madrid
I liked your move towards consistency. I was reverted, doing the same, per CITEVAR, - the first author has the right to dictate set the style. Same for the infobox, sigh. Discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing new, sorry. This creator believes in parenthetical references, and had exactly one. I - not remembering, I actually noticed late in expanding who the creator was - didn't recognize the brackets as an inline citation, - I saw none, so did them my style, removing the strange bracketed things. He didn't like the removal, understandably, and returned them. Now we had two styles. I unified, thinking one vs. many made for an easy choice - wrong. He started reverting all new ones following his style, but gave up after one. That's what you met. Just for info, don't be surprised when reverted. - Same attitude towards an infobox, and I disliked the edit summary particularly, but perhaps take it too personal? How can I not when mentioned by first name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
He can revert that is his prerogative. I will just change every other citation to match his chosen style. --- Coffeeandcrumbs08:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't take it personally. Let's go find another soprano to edit. Women are more fun to write about. --- Coffeeandcrumbs08:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
There's no lack of people to write about, but I go for those who died and merit a RD notice. There were two more yesterday, and yes, a soprano, but they died in April as turned out later, after I improved (to add to a certain frustration). Next thing will be one of Katzer's operas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valentina Tereshkova, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
Hello! I'm writing to see if you are planning to further imrprove Mae Jemison in the near future? I've noticed that there have been some improvements to it since my GA review, but there haven't been edits for a few days, and I don't want to needlessly leave the review open if it won't be further improved. Please let me know. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Balon Greyjoy: I wasn't aware there was a 7-day limit on these reviews. I do not think I alone can make the required changes in time. Can we extend the review to at least the end of the month? If significant changes have not been made by then it should be closed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs01:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, I wasn't sure whether you would have gotten the ping that there has been a response to your DYK review on this page. Please stop by when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Coffeeandcrumbs. I think this edit was really poorly judged. The facts being cited are clearly noteworthy and relevant to the topic – i.e. which parties were in the outgoing coalition government, and which parties won seats in the Faroe Islands and Greenland. I can't believe you really think this information is undue, and therefore my only conclusion is that the tagging is being done to make a point.
Not everything on Wikipedia requires a source – as per WP:CITE only information that is likely to be challenged or direct quotes need references. No-one would seriously challenge the information in question, unless they were trying to make a WP:POINT, in which case the tagging is not being done in good faith. Number5720:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I wish you would follow my advise. Everything about a living person or a controversial topic such as an election is likely to be challenged. --- Coffeeandcrumbs21:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) No it's not. Stating that Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut won the two Greenlandic seats is not controversial, nor is stating which parties were in Rasmussen's coalition – these are basic facts that no-one would seriously challenge unless they were WP:NOTHERE. I do agree with some of your tags, but some others were totally unnecessary. This isn't about ITN (I have no interest in that), but about the tagging issue.
Anyway, I don't want to create some kind of conflict – I just came to state my concerns about the tagging. I see you have added some sources and are trying to improve the article, which is appreciated. Cheers, Number5721:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed here you said: "We are in the final stages of a plan to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moonwalk on the Main Page on July 16–24. I began preparation for this last year, in August 2018." I'd be interested in reading about the plans - is there a central page anywhere where this is co-ordinated? I am asking because there have been similar efforts for other anniversaries, and some are successful and some are not, and I try to keep track of them to see how things can be improved or carried forward (will post something similar at WT:MILHIST). Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: It is split in several places. I first began advocating for this in August 2018, on this page (↑ above ↑). Then I created WP:S2019 (see the talk pages there for some of the discussion). Then I went to WT:DYK (see the top discuss section) and asked for a general IAR exception there. I also posted at WT:OTD.
Having a centralized location for coordination is very much need for such a project to be successful. My attempt at creating one is not pretty but the WT:S2019DYK was crucial to our success. So was the contributions of Kees08 without whom we would have surely failed.
Perhaps you missed it but at MILHIST, I suggested creating a task force as a sub page of the WikiProject. That is the best course of action I would suggest. The coordination should occur from a sub page on the most active WikiProject related to the date. It should begin about 6 months to 1 year before the date and be widely advertised. Any earlier is overkill. --- Coffeeandcrumbs13:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please start a move discussion and explain your reasoning for a page move. I may end up agreeing with you in the end but your rationale that, now that it is in two countries, it should be called an epidemic is not in the source you cite above. --- Coffeeandcrumbs02:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
An easy way to find NASA portraits is to go to this website, find the ID number, and search in the NASA Image and Video Library with the ID. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not; for the McCandless photo you uploaded, the search comes up with nothing, but for a different one it does (S82-36442). Figured I would let you know about the tool, even though it was not relevant in that particular upload, in case it helps you in the future. Kees08 (Talk)05:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I will start a section here and list some options to pick from, you can use your discretion to pick the best. Not sure the etiquette on multiple nominations and all that.
If I had to pick one from this group I would probably pick Schweickart's EVA, thought I would give you a couple other options to consider as well. Kees08 (Talk)18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Stephen, I understand. Just didn't want you to think that I was yelling "IS THIS THING ON?!!?" If you catch my meaning. It is nice when things are nice but it's not the end of the world. --- Coffeeandcrumbs00:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A tag on top means (to me): you can't trust this article. The opera is a highly viewed page, it's probably fine even if not cited throughout. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I bet all the sources are there but just need to copy the footnotes a few times. If you can and have the time, please fix it up. I want to add it to July 16 OTD. --- Coffeeandcrumbs19:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
July 21 at DYK
Hi, I wonder if you'd like to make it easy for prep promotion by doing a mock-up of the sets you want promoted on July 21 at the designated page (I can't locate it right now). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Just waiting until Valentina is ready before proposing. Note that all of them are firsts in space, including the first Earthlings, the first cat, and the first "phone call" from the surface of the Moon.
With the TFA RFC closed as no consensus, I assume we proceed with the planned Neil Armstrong TFA, the DYK articles we have been preparing, Collins as the photo at DYK, Aldrin the photo at OTD, and the Aldrin in a spacesuit famous photograph as POTD? Let me know if that sounds right. I am currently working on touching up all the DYK articles so they will be ready. Kees08 (Talk)07:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I can help with that. I do not see Félicette in our mockup, are we still intending to run that? I assume you were just waiting for it to get approved. The goal is to have Tereshkova in place of Jemison right? Kees08 (Talk)18:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: I think we should have as many women as possible. I would rather replace David Scott as that was a second IAR, the other being Collins. I want to have as few IAR as possible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs18:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay! Could you make one of the sample DYK pages our ideal page so I can help you finish knocking out whatever is needed? My next two weeks will be preparing for the anniversary (along w/ working on my ongoing reviews). Kees08 (Talk)20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, not sure what to do about it, but seeing Aldrin's portrait with the colors adjusted next to Collins' and Armstrong's images without any color adjustment is pretty jarring (specifically the color of the Moon). Kees08 (Talk)18:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I prefer alt1 because it is interesting, and is probably the reason why most people have never heard of her before. Distinguishes the main difference between the French and Soviet/US approaches to biological payloads. But I don't have strong feelings, if you do pick whichever you like. Kees08 (Talk)20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I created Apollo 11 anniversaries and have done a real shit job with filling in information. I originally created it so I could cut down the information on the Apollo 11 page in the anniversaries section, and because it is full of recentism. Anyways, I think the 50th anniversary information should go there, and if it gets large enough that it warrants the fork we could do it then. As with 98% of my thoughts on wiki, if you see it another way and want to create the article no big deal. Kees08 (Talk)06:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Coffeeandcrumbs -- Did you mean to do this? I can think of few less useful places to try to hold a conversation between a few regular main-page editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, I think you have an OK one. The only other hooky things I read were the primary physician for West German athletes at the 1972, 1976, and 1980 Winter Olympics and At the 1978 IIHF general congress, he advocated for full face protection on hockey helmets for Under-20 players, to reduce face and eye injuries at the World Juniors --- Coffeeandcrumbs20:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! A high res-image of Sputnik they have hanging would be nice too. I looked through Commons for a good candidate and did not see any. I think the NASA cutout is garbage, the flash is distracting, and the resolution is not great. Kees08 (Talk)00:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I hope to work on this set tomorrow. I notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/DYK/July 21/1 that you have two non-bio hooks in a row in slots 2 and 3, and two bio hooks in a row in slots 6 and 7. Can you move things around to alternate bios and non-bios as much as possible? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, that's not in any particular set order. Just a suggestion. I wanted to avoid having two Americans in a row or having two Russians in a row. However, you can do whatever order. And if and when Tereshkova is reviewed, you have 1 alternate, you can run 9 hooks or you can save Jemison for a later date . But I would rather not count my chickens before they have hatched. --- Coffeeandcrumbs01:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, if we run 9 hooks, we have 5 Russian, 3 American, and 1 French hook. I assume you're running Michael Collins in the image slot because he's connected with Apollo 11. But from a set balance point of view, it would make more sense to run with a Russian image (Yuri Gagarin is the most obvious candidate, though the hook isn't so punchy for the image slot) and then spread out the Russian hooks with American hooks sandwiched in-between. It wouldn't make sense to drop Mae Jemison because then the Russians will really take over. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, if you look at the Main Page as a whole, I don't think it is imbalanced. Besides there is no rule against a DYK set that is heavy with hooks from a non-US country. It is probably never going to happen again. US-heavy DYK sets I think are avoided because it can happen almost daily if left unchecked. The likelihood of that happening with Russia is slim to none. --- Coffeeandcrumbs21:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the main page mockup; now I see that the 3 Apollo 11 crew members are what pops out at you on the main page, implying the 50th anniversary. That explains everything. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Please be careful about editing the hooks in prep, as you have a vested interest as nominator. You can ping me or post a request at WT:DYK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A neat hook for Felicette would be something like "...that the cat Felicette followed mice into space?", perhaps putting it in the 'quirky' slot. Probably way too later for that, something I was thinking about. Kees08 (Talk)04:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the thing that people at DYK were gravitated to was the image of a weightless cat floating in space. But you and I know that was not how it happened. She was weightless but not free. I am going to say Felicette is going to break some records, I promise you. All these hooks will be record breakers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs11:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This is nothing. Try reading the original uncommented (yet translated into EN) I-Ching:
Hexagram 35 is named 晉 (jìn), "Prospering". Other variations include "progress" and "aquas". Its inner trigram is ☷ (坤 kūn) field = (地) earth, and its outer trigram is ☲ (離 lí) radiance = (火) fire.
Etc.
Only this. Yet each is a lexem, highly contextual vs the other ones.
Zezen, I bet every time a person wrote one of those 10000+ books, each book itself changed the meaning of the hexagram. Just how the overuse of the journalese phrase "rioting and mayhem" changed the meaning of mayhem. Mayhem used to mean "the intentional maiming of another person". Now, we understand it to mean almost the same thing as "chaos". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed:
From Middle Englishmayme, mahaime, from Anglo-Normanmahaim (“mutilation”), from Old Frenchmahaign (“bodily harm, loss of limb”), from Proto-Germanic*maidijaną (“to cripple, injure”) (compare Middle High Germanmeidem, meiden (“gelding”), Old Norsemeiða (“to injure”), Gothic 𐌼𐌰𐌹𐌳𐌾𐌰𐌽 (maidjan, “to alter, falsify”)), from Proto-Indo-European*mey- (“to change”). More at mad. The original meaning referred to the crime of maiming, the other senses derived from this.
Meaning #1 may have arisen by popular misunderstanding of the common journalese expression "rioting and mayhem".
Still, it is not as charged or pernicious as e.g. "homophobia", instead of aversion to homosexuality (got good RSes for that claim). Or good ol' "fasciscm" already meaningless in the 1940s, see Orwell's article about the same: https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc etc.
Newspeak is much worse. Myself I lived in a "republican and people" country, this term in its very name, for 18 years, with anti-societal one-party system and eternal love to a semi-neighbouring country in its constitution (not kidding). Or think of this country, so uber-democratic that democracy is also in its name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
It is really easy to make mistakes with some of the computer facilities available. You suggested this Ngram, but it generates two related error messages. The problem is that it cannot do a case-insensitive search at the same time as going combinations. I did parametric testing and think that this Ngram is what you wanted to do. The numbers are much larger 1,813,261 and 839,062 for Kiev and Kviv in 2019 instead of 3,161 and 2,263.
With the corrected results, Kyiv is not rising exponentially. If you are interested I posted a table of 2019 results at User talk:TaivoLinguist#Kiev/Kyiv results with Google Ngrams. Taivo and I have participated in name discussions for Ukrainian cities for years.
Several things are clear on Wikipedia: we all make mistakes (including me), the editor I disagree with over one issue I will probably agree with on another issue, and people change their minds over time. Good luck.-- Toddy1(talk)10:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1, I wonder if Google Ngram accounts for reprints. When a 2010 book is reprinted in 2014 and 2019, does it count appearances in all three? Because this would have a huge effect in slowing down a change. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I have investigated this question. I think @TaivoLinguist: might also be interested.
I did a search on Google Books for "Midshipman Easy",[7] and it shows a year for each. As far as I know, there has only ever been one book called "Midshipman Easy" (published in 1836 and still in print). The year shown will be the year used by Ngram. I needed a book to compare it with and chose "The Price of Blood"; I was thinking of Semenov's 1910 book, but it turns out that many books have that title.[8]
I next did an Ngram comparing "Midshipman Easy" with "The Price of Blood".[9] Try pressing the "case insensitive button" (on is blue, off is white); it massively changes the graphs.
When case sensitive with smoothing 0, Nrram produces a value of 15142 for "Midshipman Easy" for 1800, which seemed implausible because the book was published in 1836. So I did a search on Google Books for "Midshipman Easy" with the date range set as 1 January 1800 to 1 January 1801.[10]
Some of the Google Books hits (like this one) are genuine in the sense that it was published in 1800, and the words "midshipman" and "easy" appear on the same page (though not together). Since this example shows them not capitalised, it should not appear in a cases-sensitive Ngram for "Midshipman Easy".
Some of the Google Books hits are for books with wrong metadata on the date.[11][12] These are books that talk about or list other books, and hence have "Midshipman Easy" capitalised.
So the answer to your question is that a book with three editions with different dates will probably be treated as three books with separate dates.
From the point of view of someone programming a tool like Ngram, it is not easy to decide whether it should or not. People today are still buying (and presumably reading) new copies of "Midshipman Easy", so in a very real sense its words are still current, even though it was first published 184 years ago. And yet they were written all that time ago.-- Toddy1(talk)09:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Request for comment regarding clerking duties on Talk:Kiev
Hi Coffeeandcrumbs. There is a discussion here (User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's_behaviour_at_Talk:Kiev) where another user mentioned you and said that there was some misunderstanding on your part when you asked User:Kahastok to do clerking and unhide Mzajac's vote. Could you please respond in that discussion and clarify? Thank you,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Homespun movement
Hello there. I think I may have unintentionally upset you by editing Homespun movement. Was just trying to help but will leave your article be! Best of luck with it. Seems like a great addition to the encyclopedia. Enby (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Enby, you have not upset me at all. I am happy you are here to help. I am pretty sure your addition is likely appropriate. But I like to keep a strict adherence to adding citations for everything. If I believed it was incorrect, I would have deleted it. I placed a [citation needed] on it only because of just that, it needs a citation. I may find one for it some time later. Until then, there is no issue with letting it stay. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! <3
Hi Coffeeandccrumbs!
There's a user vandalising the Killing of Daniel Prude wiki. Thanks for reverting his changes! He has got many warnings on his page for vandalizing content with a racist intentionality and users constantly undo his edits but he continues to publish them every few seconds though... He has been reported to the admins, how can we speed along the process of blocking him? Hope it gets solved! Lots of love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Heya, Coffeeandcrumbs. See that we are both working towards getting Toots' page where it needs to be for RD. Love all the research and additional references you are adding. I am good at the prose and weaving the story, which his page needs. Any way I could persuade you to add in referenced facts and data for the 1980's and 1990's then I can take a pass at it? Frankly, when I went to Toots' page this morning to add it to the RD list, I was shocked at how much work it needed. Glad it is getting the love it needs now. 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In appreciation
The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Powel
Hi C&C, I know I'm giving you a hard time on the FAC, and I know its stressful. I also know it it will be an article that I will eventually support, some day or other, given your evident tireless dedication. But I don't think its there yet, and that not to say its not a great achievement. FAC can be a bear, this is just a note to say keep on hanging in there and don't take it so seriously, or personally or anything...have been in your shoes a few times (eg am currently being eaten alive on the talk of Honan Chapel!); am being picky so that standards are kept and that, in the long term, getting the star is more meaningful. Ceoil (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Ceoil, if you added a thousand comments without editorializing, I would have simply responded to each one and made my best attempt to fix the prose. However, I do not appreciate the animosity and terse judgmental comments you interject throughout. From my point of view, it seems to be an attempt to derail the FAC. This is my very first FAC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts from Venicescapes (not coordinated with above)
Hello. I wanted to write to you on your talk page and hence off the FAC record. The article has undoubtedly come a long way and has been greatly expanded and enhanced since its nomination. You should be proud. Of course, a source review is still needed, but I am not in the position to do that.
As I initially noted, I'm not qualified to comment on the subject itself, not having specific expertise. So I can support the article only to the extent that it is comprehensive and neutral and appears to be well-researched. However, I think it will be difficult for you to overcome the strong opposition that has been expressed by Ceoil. Also, Anchor break seems to have a number of lingering concerns regarding content. In retrospect, as Ceoil notes, the nomination may have been premature. So, I’m wondering if your best strategy at this point would be to withdraw the nomination and work with some willing editors, myself included, to review the sources and perfect the article further. I don’t want to discourage you, and if you want to continue, I can support those aspects of the article that I can address. But this may not be the best way to reach the goal of FA. Please let me know your thoughts.Venicescapes (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I respect your wishes and will add my support on the basis of those aspects that I was able to review. Again, I can't testify as to the sources. At present, I don't have other comments. Best wishes for your success.Venicescapes (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I will say, gee fizz. This has been much more in-depth than my first FA for sure. But it's probably done more good for the article regardless, which is more important than bling in the end. GMGtalk21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, I agree. Anyway the review ends, I am happy with what resulted. In hindsight, the article probably needed more development before bringing to FAC. I have learned a valuable lesson. What do you think should be our next step? I've kinda lost track what more we should do to respond to comments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I know. It's gotten a bit hard to track. We may have fared better if we had gone to WP:GCE first maybe. I am not convinced, but had considered we should get up with Sam, get with GCE, look it over a bit, and try a second nom. Maybe we should ask one of the FAC coordinators what their opinion is? I've only ever done one FA. So I'm hardly an expert. GMGtalk21:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, as Venicescapes suggests above, it maybe smart to withdraw the nom and invite Venicescapes, Tagishsimon, and Sam (if she is available) to the talk page for further review for comprehensiveness. Once that is handled, we could ask GCE for a copy edit. However, I have heard rumors that some at GCE do more harm than good. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe the others you've pinged have opinions. I dunno. I'm...maybe a bit MacArthur at times in my use of archaic language and maybe that's caused part of the issue. GMGtalk22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry but it wont last long. I am only using it in protest until a particularly irksome bias is resolved. I will be back in red as soon as that happens. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, yep. Just shot 137 times. Only 1 instance of "dead" and one instance of "killing" in the prose, but 9 instances of "dead" and 3 instances of "fatal" in the titles of citations. That does not even consider the instances of these words in the prose of the sources. Bending over backwards to not acknowledge "death" or "killing". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't believe it. I was like...so did BOTH of them die, or just the one? I had to read the entire article to figure that out. Just bizarre. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
