User talk:Copper Dreamer

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cercle Hermaphroditos has been accepted
 Cercle Hermaphroditos, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! 97198 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Cercle_Hermaphroditos help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Paper Brigade
Dear Copper Dreamer: Several points to your message on editing my contributions to the Paper Brigade.

I'm not certain why you removed the citation for Fishman's recent book, Fishman, David E. The Book Smugglers: Partisans, Poets, and the Race to Save Jewish Treasures from the Nazis. 2017., which is one of the latest and leading resources on the topic.

Removing the entry about the post-war Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program and Captain Seymour Pomrenze also ignores the excellent work done by them at the Offenbach Archival Depot to restore the Paper Brigade YIVO materials later looted and disbursed by the Nazis.

Adding to the bibliography those items which have further information not footnoted is an excellent resource in Wikipedia. An old concept of encyclopedias is that the purpose of the resource is 'provocation, not information". This means that while an outline of the subject is good, the resource should also direct readers to where to find out more information.

Adding the OCLC contact information to the title of a book shows the complete information about the source, as well as listing the libraries that have it in their collection. Also, the purpose of Wiki is for other people to add data and information. Seldom are articles left alone, no matter how well put together or written, and variation in style, citation format and content are to be expected.

Hadden (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey ; thanks for your message! A few brief clarifying notes - these probably won't be in order because some of my answers are duplicative:
 * The bibliography section is a bibliography; it is the full citations for the things referred to with inline citations in 'references'. This is why I removed several entries, including the Fishman citation - they are not used in the article and so while they would be appropriate in a further reading section it is possibly confusing to readers to have them grouped with things that are used. I don't have any objection to a further reading section, for what it's worth - I think that would be fantastic!
 * The removal of Pomrenze's entry was, as the edit summary suggests, not because the work was not important but because the reference you provided (while fascinating reading and definitely deserving of its own coverage) did not support the article text. The monuments men article makes a lot of mention of the MFAA program's laudable work, but does not explicitly tie it to the YIVO archives. If you are aware of some works that do explicitly tie it in, I am more than happy to incorporate that work, although probably more as a pointer to the MFAA/Pomrenze articles than a big chunk since it's relevant to the legacy of the archives but only somewhat related to the Brigade.
 * I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is collaborative and that articles are rarely left alone - in fact, I encourage collaborative editing, and am very grateful for your contributions (as you can see, I've incorporated quite a bit of what you provided). But variations in style, citation format and content are, within an article, less than kosher: WP:CITESTYLE notes "As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the [citation] style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page". This is why I reformatted the citations you provided that were included.
 * Once again - none of this is to critique the utility of the information you provided, or to suggest I am anything other than thankful for your edits; they were fantastically helpful and provided a lot of information I didn't already have. And like I said in my first message, I am entirely fine with reformatting/reflowing things following major edits - I am grateful for the information. Copper Dreamer (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paper Brigade
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paper Brigade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paper Brigade
The article Paper Brigade you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paper Brigade for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paper Brigade
The article Paper Brigade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paper Brigade for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you so much! :). Copper Dreamer (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Paris Book of Customs) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Paris Book of Customs, Copper Dreamer!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good! I've added a bit more explanation of why a Yiddish book was written in Italy and added tags on the talk page."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks! Copper Dreamer (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Also (obvious thing in retrospect) I've added its current shelfmark ID. Blythwood (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Shmerke Kaczerginski at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Shmerke Kaczerginski
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Papirosn
I found in the sources that is one of the songs that Kaczerginski saved.I have created a draft  User:Shrike/Papirosn about the song.Any help will be appreciated. --Shrike (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shmerke Kaczerginski
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shmerke Kaczerginski you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Shmerke Kaczerginski/GA1
Copper Dreamer, this is a final call to respond to the GA review that was opened over five months ago. If you don't wish to pursue this, you can either say so on the nomination or just let it ride, but it would be polite to let the reviewer know. The review could close at any time—it's entirely up to the reviewer—but I thought you should know that at this moment it was still not too late to respond one way or the other. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shmerke Kaczerginski
The article Shmerke Kaczerginski you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shmerke Kaczerginski for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)