Nikolaj1905

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

Please take heed of WP:PROFRINGE. Propaganda for creationism does not belong inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you please give me a break, Tgeorgescu! I explicitly wrote that I do NOT contest the claims, but am merely requesting a citation! In fact, I have spent much time and energy arguing AGAINST the pseudoscientific claims of young earth creationism in various fora, so why don't you just supply the quotation instead of slandering me for pointing out the lack of one? Nikolaj1905 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm Veverve. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Papal selection before 1059 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Redlinked categories

There's no special notification that will pop up to inform you that you're trying to use a category that doesn't exist, no, but there are still other steps you can take:

1. If instead of hitting "publish changes" right away you use the "show preview" button first, then you'll get taken to a "the changes haven't been saved yet, but this is what the page will look like when they are" summary page, which you can check to see if the categories you tried to add are redlinks that you need to modify or remove.
2. If you do hit "publish changes" without previewing, you can still review the page after you've saved it to notice if there are redlinked categories that you need to modify or remove.
3. You can install WP:HOTCAT, a gadget designed to help out with category maintenance. Basically, if you have that installed then the categories at the bottom of an article will each have little plus and minus signs next to them, which you can click to add a new category, modify an existing one or remove one that shouldn't be there. The added bonus here is that if you're trying to add or modify a category, then as you're typing there will be "autocomplete" suggestions based on what you're typing — so if those suddenly disappear entirely, you'll know that you're trying to add a category that doesn't exist at all (or have made a typo somewhere in what you've already typed), and need to back up and fix the typo or try something else entirely, before you've even hit save on the change.

So there's no magic popup, but there are still lots of things you can do to ensure that you're only adding existing categories. Hopefully one of those will be convenient for you. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That is definitely useful! Nikolaj1905 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Lothair II of Italy tag

Instead of placing an {{according to whom}} tag on Lothair II of Italy, you might check his wife Adelaide of Italy article. If there are no sources to support "the spirited and intelligent", then I'd remove it from Lothair II's article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kansas Bear! Thank you for engaging!

Adelaide was undoubtedly extremely intelligent, and "spirited" also seems to be a fitting word to describe her. Both of those words, however ("spirited" in particular) seem to be character appraisals that should not appear in the encyclopedia's own "voice". So if you know of a source that cites a contemporary historian or a notable later expert for ascribing intelligence and spiritedness to Adelaide, I think the right way to put it would be "who was described by [the appropriate source] as spirited and intelligent. Otherwise, I think the words should simply be deleted.

Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The article on Adelaide of Italy does not include a verbatim description of her as "spirited and intelligent", and neither does the Historiography section in the article Cultural_depictions_of_Adelaide_of_Italy. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Men in Middle-earth, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Chiswick Chap!

I don't think you're being fair on me here. @M F Gervais's family tree may be somewhat art-laden, but it provides a fine overview of the families of Men in Middle-Earth. The only specific problem that @CAVincent pointed out was that it was unreadable, but many maps and charts on Wikipedia are until you enlarge them. @CAVincent did write that there are "a host of other problems", but they did not specify what those problems are on either the talk page of the article, or on M F Gervais's user talk page (as far as I could see). Hence, I restored M F Gervais's revision, knowing that it would probably be deleted again, but hopefully with a more thorough explanation of what exactly is wrong with it. But I certainly did not expect a condescending telling-off, claiming that I "have already been told" that it is unencyclopedic. By whom have I been told, and when, and in what context? I don't recall having had any communication about the issue with either you or CAVincent.

You are right, of course, that I knew that there was no consensus, but are you telling me that if an editor reverts an edit (and that without providing a specific reason for doing so), then it is a violation of the edit war policy to restore it? Does everyone on Wikipedia have a veto right to every edit that is made?

Again, there are probably good reasons why M F Gervais's edit did not live up to encyclopedic standards (and since I have seen a host of constructive edits from your profile, you are probably much more capable of discerning that than I am), but why not simply state those reasons, then, instead of launching accusations against me? What happened to "assume good faith"?

P.S. Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the user M F Gervais, I have no idea who they are, and I have no knowledge of their previous contributions; I was merely surprised at the blanket rejection of their edit.

Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing. Yes, I was referring to the comments by the two editors you mention, which broadly chimed with my views even if I might have expressed things differently. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello again.

Thank you for replying!

I don't think you understood me quite correctly. One of the two editors that I mentioned was the one who made the edit in question (I was not the one who originally made it; I only restored it because I found CAVincent's reasons for deleting it inadequate). So since you told me off for restoring the edit made by M F Gervais, I highly doubt that M F Gervais's views chime with yours... Nikolaj1905 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there

I'd really like to know the exact reason(s) behind this withdrawal. I'd like to know them so that I can modify/change the image to bring it into line with the rules to which only you seem to have the key. Apart from the fact that you had to enlarge it to read it properly (and Nikolaj1905 rightly pointed out that this is not at all unusual within Wikipedia itself), in my opinion this image provides an immediate aerial view of the various protagonists of the Edain and Eldar. A view that even Tolkien himself had published at som point.

And finally, I would like to understand why, according to your point of view, information shouldn't be presented in an 'aesthetic and beautiful' way in order to be encyclopaedic? M F Gervais (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello there!

It looks like @Chiswick Chap has left this discussion. He has yet to answer the questions I asked him about why he gave me such a rude and condescending reproach for restoring your edit, so I would not count on him to answer your questions here. But anyway, he was not the one who originally deleted your image, so the best advice I can give you is probably to go to @CAVincent's user talk page and ask him exactly what was wrong with your edit.

It does sadden me that there seem to be so many seasoned Wikipedia editors whose courtesy does not seem to match their great editing skills. I for one am beginning to ask myself whether it is worthwhile to keep making edits when we can't even get a decent explanation of what we have done wrong...

Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Nikolaj1905, I simply issued a standard (templated) warning on the repeated re-insertion, so your remarks about seasoned editors etc are wholly misplaced. I'll just note here that I concur with the original removal as the image is very far from encyclopedic. And please don't keep pinging me, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, I have not "repeatedly reinserted" anything!

As for the rudeness, I was not speaking about the templated warning on this page (misplaced though it were), I was talking about your edit summary where you accused me of editwarring and condescendingly lectured me that I "had already been told" that the edit (which, I repeat, was NOT made by me) was not encyclopedic.

But why do I even bother - you don't seem to have read any of what I have written so far, or you wouldn't be accusing me of "repeated re-insertion". I made ONE revert of a deletion of SOMEONE ELSE's edit. I just don't get how that makes me the bad guy in your eyes, liable to be threatened with a warning and what not. Since I don't know what I've done wrong, and you're not willing to tell me, I see no other way to heed the warning than to make no further edits to Wikipedia. At least that'll save me some time.

Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

tl;dr ... but if it was a mistake, my apologies. I still think the image completely unencyclopedic, which if I recall was another editor's view also. I have, by the way, already asked you not to ping me but you've done it again. Please respect other editors' time and privacy. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)