Hello, Nick Michael, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Psy guy(talk)19:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that cite! It's an interesting one indeed. I don't suppose you have a page number, do you? I put in an "xx" which you can replace if you can look it up (it's between the "ref" tags after the line in the article text, but shows at the end under "notes"). Otherwise the page number can come out, but the usual style these days is to put in pages for cites. Thanks! Antandrus (talk)22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - you're absolutely right to prioritise text over the rest. There are far too many turds dressed up with Christmas decorations, especially in Visual arts articles!
Johnbod01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- my wiki Xmas card above. I've spread a few of your images around - they actually work really well with sharp images as they are so close to the actual size - see peasant, stocks, Hope, Landsknecht etc - rather cheekily put one on Renaissance Fair - don't know how long that will last. Have a good break! J Johnbod23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your note on Antandrus' talk page and made a couple edits to the article, basically for house style things. It's a very nice article, well done! My only request would be for you to add inline citations using the <ref></ref> format. What I usually do is add what is essentially Harvard referencing within the tags. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Cheers, Mak(talk)00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And adding to the above: nice job! I'm quite pleased to see this article. I changed the redirect, added a disambig notice at the top, and wikified a couple of things.
Should you feel so inclined, there are numerous other anthologies and publications from the same era that need articles. The ones by Thomas Ravenscroft come to mind. I'm starting on some publications from a hundred years earlier (for example, I recently put up an article on Petrucci's Odhecaton). Happy editing, Antandrus (talk)01:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: Giles Farnaby) Marvellous! I'll have a closer look when I'm home from work. Have a look at Peter Philips for another glaring omission in our encyclopedia. There's a lot to be done on the Elizabethan and Jacobean era English musicians (and Germans too...) Best, Antandrus (talk)23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very fine! You do excellent work. Your article reminds me that we need a Pierre Phalèse -- I'd been meaning to do that for a while now. I wonder if there is enough information on Tregian to attempt an article there? Best wishes, and have a wonderful new year, Antandrus (talk)23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick,
I started him off with a two-line stub (which has almost exhausted my knowledge of him) because I have seen officious bots going round de-linking redlinks, and there are several to DH which it would be a pity to lose. I'm not planning to do more.
Bonne Noel to all, J Johnbod23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to check out the springs on a wheellock and violia! The are V style springs. I was thrown off by the clock like nature of the winding handle and the circular lock style. So that you know any spring can be prone to failure as repeatedly stressing the metal is its primary function. Everything that I have read on this subject seems to indicate that the lock was desirable for its function (in wet or damp weather it was more reliable than the flintlock) but that any problem with the lock demanded return to the gunsmith.
That's it! Yes, thank you, I was not dreaming. It has been many many years since I dealt with that material and so am glad to have sources that are better-informed than I. Merci! --Wspencer11(talk to me...)03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally changed the tag on both of these based on the time spent in prison (crime-bio-stub is not just for criminals but those accused of or related to crime i.e police). However having re-read both these articles I agree crime is probably not what they are most notable for so rather than reverting back to bio-stub I have put a UK-reli-bio-stub and UK-writer-stub respectively. If you feel this is still not correct then by all means change them, preferably not to bio-stub though as they both can atleast be classed as UK-bio-stub and I am trying to keep bio-stub down in size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waacstats (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have added the Memling portrait of Antoine of Burgundy to the Commons, made a category for him there, and put a "commonscat" link on his page.
If you are interested in Burgundian fashion, perhaps you can add something something to 1400-1500 in fashion which has been tacked on to the front of our series. It's not my period, and I am not up to tackling expanding it by myself.
Hi there. I just moticed this edit you made at the talk page that I had redirected. First, the edit wasn't showing up on the page because the redirect bit at the top over-rides everything else. Second, you seem confused between redirects and merges. A pure redirect is a page created as a redirect with no other history. Sometimes, a page is merged to another page, and a redirect is left at the original article. There are cases where a page or redirect need to be deleted, but this is not one of them. Deletion of a page is different from removal of the content from the page. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion and Wikipedia:Page history for more details, and ask at the Help Desk (or aske me) if you have any questions. Wikipedia is not really a china shop! Anything that is done wrong can usually be easily repaired. Carcharoth14:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was sewn by an ancestor of mine, Elizabeth Laidman, born c.1750/1. But I'm afraid that little Lizzie wasn't a dab hand at sewing and I hope she had other talents - some of the other ones I have seen are quite amazing! Incidentally, I have discovered the rest of the quotation (it's a long poem), but have failed for years now to discover the source of it. It's not Biblical, that's for sure. This family has Quaker forbears, and it may have something to do with the Society of Friends, but I still can't find anything about it.Nick Michael14:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very fine indeed! We've needed that article. The 1590s were a small golden age for music, in many places; I love the music in this collection. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, Things are starting to move over there, if you are interested. We could do with someone who knows the subject, as PKM & I are I think rather picking it up as we go along (I am certainly). We recently did the preceding century, which still needs expansion if you know about that. I see you have been cleaning up the toilets; was that my fault with the edit to Lady? The things one never thought one would be doing on WP! Cheers Johnbod19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your addition to the (Hans) Sebald Beham article. Unfortunately the Hans Beham who was a bell founder is not the same as Sebald Beham the engraver. Different people (no evidence that they were even related - and they probably weren't: although his family did originate from Poland, HSB actually spelled his name Peham until he changed it in about 1532), and different places.
If you agree with this, or unless you can provide evidence against it, could you please revert your edit.
If I were you I would create a new article on Hans Beham the founder, and add a disambiguation page.
Thank you for pointing this out, but perhaps you could help by taking a look at the German reference I provided. [1] I don't know the language and had to rely on Babel Fish translation for that. What I find most puzzling is that even the dates match for Hans and Sebald Beham if what you say is true. Both of them lived in Nuremberg... I will gladly revert my edit if you’ll be so kind as to help by pointing out an online reference to Beham the bell founder somehow indicating the similarities and/or differences between them, or should we ask a German speaking editor - a history buff - to confirm your findings in German Wikipedia? --Poeticbent talk 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry forgot about that bit, & did not pick it up on a quick scan. Hyatt Major doesn't mention the legal trouble in the bit I was reading, but certainly thinks Durer or his estate was rather ripped off. I'll steer a middle course.
Did you look at any of the fashion articles? Hennin is a bit stuck.
Many thanks for those comments, which I will work in. There is talk of pushing the article up the GA/FA ladder, which I am dubious about. On the loop, at hennin I put "There is very often a short loop seen on the forehead (right), presumably to adjust the hennin forward, and perhaps even to hold it on in wind." - which is (ahem!) pure OR, or OG (guess). This, my only pure costume history book:
Payne, Blanche; Winakor, Geitel; Farrell-Beck Jane: The History of Costume, from Ancient Mesopotamia to the Twentieth Century, 2nd Edn, HarperCollins, 1992. ISBN0060471417
- says (p.260): "the function of the small black loop over the forehead and what held these contraptions on the head are mysteries; the cone in fig 10-19 [a steeple hennin, similar to some in the Getty link at hennin] looks as though it adheres to the head by suction."
I have seen other references, but in a similar vein. I think it is clear the steeples were firmly attached to the very tightly pulled back hair, somehow, and held on that way. A big knot in the hair, with pins through that & the steeple? Or the end of the veil tied below a knot in the hair, and pulled tight through the open top of the cone before pinning? A good maid needed, I'm sure.
Hello Nick Michael,
I changed "cruet", "fish knife" and "doily" to U. I am unsure of which they actually are, but they seem to me to be definite upper-class items. Am I missing something? I am of course perfectly willing to change it. :)
Thanks,
FrenchIsAwesome04:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recent corrections on my Zombie article on Simple Wiki!
I recognised your IP address, thats how sad I am. I know how to put IP addresses to names.
Thanks again, Gwib19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be interested to know, dear pater, that the person who reached the longest confirmed lifespan, Jeanne Calment, attributed her longevity to Olive oil, which she poured on all of her food and rubbed into her skin!
So if you continue drinking it by the galleon, you'll be around to bug me and James for another 50 odd years! Gwib13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GOT MY FIRST BARNSTAR! And it was for a real reason as well, not something like "because you're so awesome". It was for all my work on those interwiki links. Woohee!
Hello Nick - there is an RfC on whether to remove the photo from the article if you would like to participate and vote. --DavidShankbone17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw that title in my edit summary, I just had to check it out! I think my memoirs will be entitled "David Shankbone's Virginal Book" --DavidShankbone22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the pubic war reared its hairy head on my ArbCom case with User:THF - it was raised as my own COI (despite consistent consensus to the contrary). People seem to be fascinated with that region...enough that it makes it into an ArbCom over COI edits to Michael Moore articles. Who knew! --DavidShankbone14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you mentioned Bible in this context. The text is uniquely identified by edition /ISBN number + page. Anyway, I made an online ref to the 1892 edition. Feel free to add a modern reference(eg. ISBN0520225791), if you think google will go out of business. :-) `'Míkka>t22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I award you with an invisible barnstar, since so many of your mysterious articles remain invisible to the recognition they deserve. Gwib (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick -- I completely approve, and think that moving virginal to its own article is a superb idea. (Frankly, I had no idea it wasn't -- but I haven't looked at keyboard articles for a while!) There are many good reasons to do so, and you have given many on my talk page. Should you encounter any resistance, (highly unlikely), I'll back you up. The spinet precedent is significant. Oh, and by the way, I approve without reservation that delightful barnstar above this note. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nick. Your project sounds very interesting. Here are some suggestions:
If members of your grandmother's family died or were buried in Singapore, you might try applying to the Births and Deaths Unit of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to see if extracts from the Register of Deaths can be obtained. I believe applications can be made online. If a death certificate can be found, it will have information such as the cause of death and date and place of burial, which will provide leads for further inquiries to be made.
The National Archives of Singapore has a website called a2o (Access to Archives Online), where you can conduct online searches for records held there. It will help if you have an idea of what sort of records you are looking for (burial records and shipping lists, for instance).
Post a message on the Singapore Heritage Yahoo! group. Members of the community are usually enthusiastic about helping people with their inquiries.
Your ancestors may have attended services at one of the synagogues in Singapore, which might hold records that refer to them. You might try contacting the Jewish Welfare Board to see if they can provide any leads. Their contact details are as follows:
Nothing yet JackLee: I joined the Singapore Heritage Yahoo group and am trying to get the flavour of it before I post. National Archives of Singapore is a brilliant site - many thanks for that. I have found many mentions of the names I am looking for, but unfortunately all connected with property, and it is impossible to know if they are one and the same person or related to them or what.
As for the Immigration & Checkpoints site, this looked promising, but in the end is not feasible: you can request a search, but you are obliged to give a month and a year, and the cost is $35 for that month - and $35 for every month thereafter. Since I only have a year - and that's hearsay - it yould be prohibitively expensive for a search that would by no means have any guarantee success.
I have written to the Jewish Welfare Board and await their reply (hopefully).
If I do get anywhere, I will certainly let you know. Meanwhile, I wish you the best of luck with your PhD which must be taking up most of your time and energy… Nick Michael (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yup, it's probably best to try for a record at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority only if you have more detailed information. Also, check its website to see if it even holds records dating back as far as the 19th century – systematic registration of births and deaths may not have been in place that early on. [Scratch that – birth and death records date back to 1872. — JackLee, 21:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)] Your best bet may be synagogue and burial records (assuming they died and were buried in Singapore).[reply]
The property angle might be worth exploring. The histories of many Singapore street names appear in Victor R. Savage; Brenda S.A. Yeoh (2004), Toponymics: A Study of Singapore Street Names, Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, and if you can pin down whether it was your ancestors who lent their names to any properties, you can apply for copies of property deeds and land titles at the Singapore Land Authority's Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS) website.
Joan Bieder ([2007?]), Aileen T. Lau (ed.), The Jews of Singapore, Singapore: Suntree Media {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) – the blurb: "Many would be surprised to learn that Singapore has been home to a thriving Jewish community for almost 170 years – and even more surprised to hear that the community traces its roots to Baghdad, Iraq. What brought this group of Jewish pioneers from Baghdad to an island in the Southeast Asia? ... To give a full picture of the community, the author weaves together information from interviews, oral histories, memoirs, personal letters, family documents, photographs, correspondence and government records from Singapore, Israeli, Dutch and British archives, and traces the histories of the community's larger-than-life leaders and their families. Told through an introduction and 18 chapters, the author reveals how Jewish community members in Singapore suffered, survived and prospered to the present times. The book, with 450 illustrations and maps, and peppered with numerous box stories, highlights the contributions that Jewish leaders have made to Singaporean finance, business, medicine and law, while living in a Republic that provides respect, religious freedom, equal opportunity and full integration into society."
Eze Nathan (1986), The History of Jews in Singapore, 1830–1945, Singapore: HERBILU Editorial & Marketing Services.
Hi. Gwib nominated this article to appear on the "Did you know?" section on the Main Page, but a reviewer has noted that the fact in the nomination is currently unreferenced: see "Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 27". If you would like to try and get the article mentioned in DYK, you need to fix this problem by giving the relevant fact in the article a citation, and notifying the reviewer that you've done so on the DYK template talk page. You should do so ASAP as nominations in that list are currently being considered and non-qualifying ones will shortly be regarded as expired. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virginals, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I see you removed the etymology of Dinner claiming there was no evidence that it was derived from disiunare. I wondered about this since the etymology sounds authentic (I thought of the French déjeûner), and I see that OED (or rather the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology) derives it from "Rom. *disjunare for *disjejunare break one's fast, f. dis- + jejunium fast". Would you object restoring the etymology on this evidence? Nick Michael (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the ODEE is saying with the asterisk is that the word is a "guess" that is completely unattested in texts. If you examine the RAE (the equivalent dictionary for Spanish), they derive desayunar from Spanish ayunar, and not from a Latin root. The fact is that no Latin word *disieiuno has ever been found in any Latin texts, so to include that information in the etymology would be to add pure speculation that isn't accepted in most dictionaries. The OED itself doesn't seem to have this questionable etymology, and other major English language dictionaries don't either. If you add back some sort of etymology, you should make it clear that even the experts admit it is guesswork with no data to support it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Spanish ayunar derives from Latin ieiunare, the present active infinitive of ieiuno "I fast". However, desayunar appears to have originated in Spanish, or at least post-Latin, when there were separate languages in Spain. The word could have originated in Catalan, Castillan, Occitan, or some other Romance language in the region, and then spread to neighboring languages. We just don't know at this point. All we know for certain is that no equivalent word is found in Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest going into more detail in the "DESCRIPTION" section.
I.e. where it says "consisting of 72 pages", add "consisting of 72 pages bound together with string, paper made of wood, style of writing is cursive" if the information is accessible. --Gwib (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions! I see you know Gwib here. I know him from the Simple English Wikipedia. Nice to meet you. :-) --RyRy (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the corrections? He was only the king of Hungary. This is simply ridiculous, that some nationalists say things which are obviously not true, i correct them with reliable references, but nobody want to acknowledge the truth and the other users ddelete what is true and show this nonsense. This is simply ridiculous that "King of Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia". The references say the contradict of this statement, but the article still shows the incorrect statements. I would like to ask you, what should i do in order to correct it? Toroko (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question, this is absolutely obvious so please don't offer me any discussion pages. This is ridiculous that some primitive people can't bear their history. But in my opinion Wikipedia should not take care of them. If you don't believe me, please see after it in books, but this is obvious that he was only the king of hungary, it is terrible, that some nationalists try to dispute about it, there is no question about it. Toroko (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I didn't want to heart you. When i wrote "nationalist", of course i said it to those who wrote incorrect things in this article. On the discussion page, the mentioned reference (from tripatlas.com) is a copy of the Wikipedia article, not an own, original writing so it is not reliable. I think the Britannica reference is considered to be much more reliable. So i will correct the article again. But i said, i have no problem with you, and i am sorry for being indignant yesterday. Toroko (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the mechanism description and photos with labels. It really makes it understandable. Where did you get the pics? ChrisPer (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, gradually building one. So far I have got distracted more than worked on it, but have so far completed CAD tracings of photos scaled to suit, bought a .54 barrel and profiled it to tapered octagon to round with muzzle flare, worked on a practice lockplate, and bought some stag and pyrite. The cast antlers I bought may be too grey, white would be nicer. I was inspired by the Lauber book but the English Civil War example he makes is butt-ugly so I traced the puffer shown in the link above. You might like to visit this forum http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showforum.php?fid/15/ to see other builders working. You will need to register to join in, but its a valuable forum.
Also, have you seen the paper "Leonardo, the Wheel Lock, and the Milling Process" Author(s): Vernard Foley, Steven Rowley, David F. Cassidy, F. Charles Logan Source: Technology and Culture, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 399-427 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3104759 . Very interesting piece of research. I have pdf if you would like me to email it. ChrisPer (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello Nick Michael! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 41 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Hello Nick, user:GiacomoReturned and me are working on the article 23 Herrengasse that is sitting in my user space. I'd like to ask you, if you, or anybody you know have an image of the building or could take one. Any other help you may provide on subject will be appreciated too of course. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm glad to know they're appreciated. Your wheellock photos were something of an inspiration, actually. I ran across them, then shortly after that the under-illustrated snaphaunce article, and I thought to myself "Well, there can't be that many of them laying around the homes of wiki editors, so I'd better do it myself."
Hatchetfish (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NM -- could you explain this edit[3] I just don't understand the edit summary ("Removed ref which led to some unrelated publicity...") Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Hilton (diarist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jacobite and Preston (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.
Hello. In December, another editor noticed that content at Mitzi Meyerson was duplicated at her official site. This was listed for investigation at the copyright problems board. You should have been notified so that you could offer information about this, but unfortunately you were not.
Investigation shows that when the article was created in June 2007, it substantially duplicated the content on her website: [4]. It seems that you later updated it to match changes to that website. I'm afraid that we cannot use this content without explicit authorization of Ms. Meyerson.
I am extending the listing period for this copyright evaluation and supplying for you the notice that you should have been given when it was initially blanked. If you have permission from Ms. Meyerson to use her text, please be sure to follow the procedures described in the notice. If not, the content will need to be rewritten or removed if the artcle is to be retained. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this notice. I never had any permission to use Mitzi Meyerson's website; in fact I am not personally acquainted with her. However I think the article may have come before the website! Anyway, if there are copyright problems I have no issue with the article being deleted. Thanks. Nick Michael (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I did check that - particularly with prolific and good faith contributors, I usually assume backwards copying first - but the version I found seems to be datestamped to March 2007, while the article was created in June of that month. I also looked for but failed to find any of the signs of natural evolution that I look for to verify that the official site has copied from us (although that certainly does sometimes happen). --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mitzi Meyerson, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.mitzi-meyerson.de/biography.php, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Mitzi Meyerson with a link to where we can find that note.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Mitzi Meyerson saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
I'm afraid I'm a bit concerned about a few of your other articles as well. I routinely spot-check contributions from editors who may have misunderstood our approach to copyright based on listings at the copyright problems board. I cannot view your source, but it looks as though you might have taken some text from Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian England for George Hilton (diarist), based on a Google book search. (See Talk:George_Hilton_(diarist)). I see that back in 2007, you created the article Bob van Asperen with some content that looks to have been copied from [5]. For example, your first edit to the article included the following:
In the field of musicology Bob van Asperen has prepared many editions and reconstructions of works by J.S. Bach (sonatas and concerti), and the Dutch composers Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, Sybrandus van Noordt (the first Dutch harpsichord sonata, c1703), and Cornelius Thymenszoon Padbrué, of which he made a reconstruction of the first Dutch oratorio, the Tears of Peter and Paul, 1646 - on a text by the Dutch '"Prince of Poets" Joost van den Vondel.
The source - drawing from an archived version several months older than yours - said:
In the field of musicology Bob van Asperen has prepared many editions and reconstructions of works by J.S. Bach (sonatas and concerti), and the Dutch composers Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, Sybrandus van Noordt (the first Dutch harpsichord sonata, c1703), and Cornelius Thymenszoon Padbrué, of which he made a reconstruction of the first Dutch oratorio, the Tears of Peter and Paul, 1646 - on a text by Dutch "Price of Poets" Vondel.
Other passages also seem to follow closely.
Much of this content has been rewritten, to the point that the article currently would really only need some revision and also, preferably, but if content was copied from the book for George Hilton (diarist), I'm afraid it's going to need a thorough rewrite. Can you shed any light on that? --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, the Bob van Asperen article is definitely naughty isn't it? I'm sure I wouldn't do that now I'm older and wiser..!
As for George Hilton (diarist), well, the only publication on the chap is the book you cite. It's interesting that the snippets you have checked don't actually appear in the book as such, but do show piecemeal, which is why they scored a hit on Google Books. I mean, "Violent and inebriate" is mine, but "Hilton records his drunken bouts" is from the book. Likewise (as far as I remember) for the other examples you quote. I'm not quite sure how the article could be rewritten in order to satisfy the copyright issues since it's the only source. You better do what you have to. I hope there aren't many more such sins! Nick Michael (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you understand that Bob van Asperen is a close paraphrase. I looked to see if it could be salvaged, but in my opinion, the effort to do a cleanup would exceed the effort to start from scratch. As the original editor of the article, you may have interest in starting over, although, of course, anyone else can as well. Now that you are older and wiser, you can do it more appropriately this time. I plan to delete it.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nick Michael. I noticed this edit of Dessert used an incorrect formatting of the {{fact}} template. Just a quick tip: the proper format is {{fact|date=April 2013}}. Only the month and year are used and the month should be spelled out. Also the "date=" part is necessary. If it's done as {{fact|11.4.2013}}, then the page gets added to Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. Also a bot will think the tag does not have a date parameter and add one. This causes an additional edit to appear in the article's history. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jason for pointing this out. I don't do enough {{fact}} tagging to remember the format by heart, and I usually rely on receiving an error result if it's wrong; but in this case WP accepts the erroneous tag because it has another use. Sorry, and thanks again for the tip. BTW, where can I find guidance on tag formats - it's like a jungle out there when you're looking for guidance! Nick Michael (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. Why are you using a font size which is so terribly small? It makes it difficult to read. You'll need to supply the information that you see concerning the block so it can be checked. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser! I've just come home and on my home computer I'm not blocked at all. I don't understand it. Thanks for your input Berean - but from here I don't see that I'm using any font other than the Wikipedia default font, same as all the others. What can be going on? Nick Michael (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see the smaller font, as I've set my Chrome to default at 16pt. But I see at the top of this page: div style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9pt; text-align: left;" -- Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out Diannaa. I changed the font in the place you mentioned to 16pt. Now it appears huge on my screen. Sorry, but I'm not computer savvy enough to understand what's going on here... Nick Michael (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See here The note is still there but it's now an edit notice, which means it has much greater visibility and will be apparent to anyone who edits the article, even from a section header. I'm not sure what a "bona fide" editor is... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nick Michael. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I got an alert, and when I opened it, I found I had a page on Arabic Wikipedia. At least, it's my username. I never created an account on Arabic Wikipedia. How has this happened? Here is a link to it:
This is because the WikiSystem automatically starts a global account, meaning you can use your username at other Wikis, without needing a new account; they cannot be deleted, since no account can; however, as long as any other of those Wiki accounts aren't used, it's no concern and it won't show on any activity logs. See Wikipedia:Unified login. SwisterTwistertalk21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nick Michael. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Nick Michael. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Nick! Hope you are well - good to see you are still around. I saw the above & it reminded me of our lovely day in Berne. Oddly, I was also looking at the painted prints book yesterday. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, yes, still alive! And very nice to hear from you. You should come over again when the coast is clear. I still think (with thanks to you) of our visits to the print departments of the V&A and BM which were very exciting for me. I do hope all is well with you and family, and that we'll meet again. Nick Michael (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think at least the BM have now tightened up, & at the least you (even before COVID) had to book ahead. Their justification is that most of it is now online at very hi-res, which is true. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
