User talk:Elekhh/Archive 2011-2

DYK nomination of Aparados da Serra National Park
Hello! Your submission of Aparados da Serra National Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Liberty Place
Thanks for the heads up. I addressed your concerns. Thanks for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Protected areas
Hi Elekhh. Thank you for reaching out to me. I'm very supportive of the articles that fall within this wikiproject. Mostly, though, you'll find me creating or expanding them, rather than involvement with bots, etc. -- just not my thing. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aparados da Serra National Park
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
My name is Victor Grigas and I'm a Storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're exploring new ways to explain why Wikipedia is so special and we’ve started a Wikipedia Stories Project, where we’re chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community, especially editors and active contributors in the movement like you. I'll be traveling to Wikimania next month to collect stories for our 2011 Fundraiser. While there I'd love the chance to meet with you and hear your thoughts about Wikipedia. We’ll have a schedule of available times for you to sign up if you’re interested, but right now, we’d like to make the initial contact to gauge your interest. Please let me know by emailing me at vgrigas@wikimedia.org or responding on my talk page.

thank you,

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama)
Hi, would you please explain more about your comment? and your meaning of the purpose (i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art)? do you prefer a side-by-side work like this or this one as FP? IMO to a normal viewer who doesn't have any knowledge of working with image editing programs, this photomontage is an art, and it does illustrate it's purpose to them very well, the purpose of showing what can be done in image editing programs, showing to what extent and how, one can manipulate the images and the concept of photomontage. Please let me know what kind of manipulated/photoshopped art work will get your support for FP, thank you.  ■ MMXX  talk  15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Azure Kingfisher
Dear Elekhh: I notice you have removed two photos of mine (and someone else's video) from the article on the Azure Kingfisher with the comments; "(remove poor quality images with no additional EV; remove soundless video. All linked via Commons." First of all, would you please expain what you mean by "no additional EV"? I don't understand.

Now, I placed those photos in the article to show things that are not clear in the photo in the taxobox - i.e. the colouring of the bird on its flanks, and the extremely prominent lores which look, from a frontal view, like huge eyes and may have some role in either frightening prey, and/or scaring off predators. I did not refer to this in the article because it is not proven (how could one prove this?) but, I hoped it might get readers to to not only be aware of the very prominent lores, but that it might encourage them to consider what role they might play. I would like to replace them in the article to make these points, if there are not too many objections. Perhaps I should make it clearer why they are there?

Finally, I do object to you saying the photos are "poor quality images". If you blow them up you will see they are quite sharp. And, although they are taken on the floor of my house - this happened quite naturally after the bird had flown into a window pane and was recovering from shock - I did absolutely nothing to set those photos up. Anyway, I don't want to make an issue of this point - but I would like your opinion on the earlier ones. Thank you, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following this up, I indeed acted per WP:BOLD and the image guidelines, without being an expert on the topic, so I might have been wrong. EV means encyclopaedic value, and I meant that the images do not depict any major feature of the subject not already described in the text or illustrated by the recently inserted taxbox image. The caption of the first said "Note rich color, much blue on flanks" which is depicted by the taxbox image, and the second said "showing large white lores" which I interpreted based on Lore (anatomy) as also being depicted by the taxbox image. My remarks on quality referred not to the sharpness or resolution but the distracting background. On that ground these would not pass QI. Sorry if my edit summary wording sounded a bit harsh, had of course no intention to offend. Since you are knowledgeable on the subject I can suggest to improve the image gallery on Commons by better structuring the content and providing adequate captions, and than link it more prominently in the article in the external links section via Template:Commons-inline, possibly replacing the current dead link. That would be in line with the image guidelines and appropriate for such a short article. If you consider that any of the images I removed does however convey essential information not already depicted or described please feel free to reintroduce it with a clearer caption. --Elekhh (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yellowstone
Hi, Elekhh. I think I should tell you that I found this comment a little bizarre, not to say uncharitable. The last sentence in your subsequent comment demonstrates to me that we agree quite well about what Wikipedia should be. Obviously, editors can and do disagree about how to go about making it "more comprehensive and reliable than other encyclopedias". I believe that a general adherence to the core content policies—WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV—is essential to achieving those aims, and I am taken aback that my pointing out the possibility of synthesis (a key part of WP:NOR) might be construed as "wikilawyering". Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is some misunderstanding here. I am not sure what did you find bizarre in that comment. All my comments were about encouraging further research on the matter, and directing editors towards the right place to contribute. My comments regarding WP:NOR were meant in that context. --Elekhh (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you referred to my linking to WP:Synthesis and in the same breath said "we shouldn't be stopped by wikilawyering from improving Wikipedia". I took that as an implication that raising the possibility of synthesis was somehow tantamount to wikilawyering. If I misunderstood, I apologize, and I'm grateful for your clarification. I agree with you that further research would be a good thing, but I would hope that the fruits of original research will not be allowed to take root and grow in the article. Fwiw, what I'm seeing with this whole matter is a BRD cycle that was aborted prematurely when the bold editor reverted my reversion instead of allowing the discussion to develop first. My objection to the change is that it flies in the face of verifiable statements from literally countless sources. After about five hours of looking up sources, I'm pretty confident that what's verifiable has now been verified. I shy away from anything approaching edit warring, however, and am trusting that other editors watching the talk page will step forward. Rivertorch (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

===A pod suggestion for you: Re-imagining Lost Space: Community Planning and Desgin=== Hi Elekhh! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and I thought you'd be a good fit for this one: Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Re-imagining Lost Space: Community Planning and Design (Bruce Sharky). If you're up for it, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor.

There is also an architectural design class and some some others that you might be intersted in.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint, sounds interesting, so I signed up. --Elekhh (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Elekhh,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:GoldenGateBridge BakerBeach MC.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 26, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-08-26.  howcheng  {chat} 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bagsværd Church
Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Paustian House
Hello! Your submission of Paustian House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Paustian House
Orlady (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fredensborg Houses
Orlady (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can Lis source
I have come across an excellent description of Utzon's Majorca houses here. The site disappeared for a while and has just come online again. From the icon at the bottom of the page, it looks as if it is Weston's work Utzon: Inspiration, Vision, Architecture. I was wondering if you could help by identifying the exact source, page numbers, etc., if you happen to have the book. I am not too happy about ascribing it to Contemporary Baleares! It will also be useful for Can Feliz which I intend to write soon. - Ipigott (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't have the book, but I secured access to it via library, so will be able to check this in the coming days. --Elekhh (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway but you shouldn't have gone to the trouble. On rereading the article carefully I see that it is not Weston but has probably been inspired by him. Perhaps I'll also request a library copy of the book - it should help with all the other articles too. - Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs
Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
 * Sociology of Poverty
 * Architectural Design
 * Introduction to Educational Psychology
 * Intro to Mass Communication
 * Psychology Seminar
 * Theories of the State
 * Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:


 * Housing and Social Policy
 * Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
 * History & Systems
 * Horror Cinema
 * Digital Media... just bits in a box
 * Composition I
 * Telecommunications Management
 * Training Systems
 * Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
 * Art and Terrorism
 * Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Utzon Center
Orlady (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Miscelanious
Hi Elekhh, I have just written a shot article about Dronningegården, a residential complex in Copenhagen, and am wondering about which "completed in XXXX" category to put it in. When something consists of several identical elements, should it be categorized according to the first one completed or the final one? I'd say that the former option gave the most relevant result but any guidelines? Should you have anything to add to the article, or any improvements to make on my rahter clumpsy description of its architecture, it would be great of course.

And something completely different, I am very tempted by a system of architecture categories related to the article on Adaptive reuse ndash; something like "Category:Converted power stations in France", converted silos in Germany". They should of course correspond to the existing "buildings by type" categories. since it would be a rather comprehensice system of new categories, I assume it is something which should be discussed or follow some kind of formal procedure but have no experience with these things. But do you think it is a relevant idea?

And a last thing, a long while back I tried to suggest that Infobox park be modified to include "designer(s)" but noone has responded. Any opinion?Ramblersen (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, so here a DYK nom for you (seems that I'm in a serial production mode atm). Would be good if you could add a ref regarding "Nordic Functionalism". Regarding completion date, as a building complex and from a construction engineering and land use perspective it would be the later date (as currently categorised). From architectural perspective of course the date of the design might be more relevant...
 * Adaptive reuse is interesting, and would support such a category. Best to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. regarding the system, I think a good way would be to let it grow slowly from a root "Category:Adaptive reuse".
 * Regarding the park infobox, I left some comments at the template's talk page. --Elekhh (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the answers and for the DYK nomination ndash; nice gesture on the official Architecture Day in Denmark! I was actually a bit in doubt about the style issue and was meaning to ask you about it but with all mu other questions ended up leaving it out. But I have now added a reference. On this page there might be a relevant illustration for the history section but it is protected against copying, do you think it should be added and would wou know how to snatch it? Since the author is unknown and there is only fifty years protection on non-artistic photos in Denmark, it should not be a problem to use it.Ramblersen (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should have opened a champagne if I knew :) The images are really nice, especially like #1 and #3, but I am afraid they wouldn't be very secure at Commons, given that the year they were taken is not specified, than whether they are non-artistic is subject to interpretation, plus there is a copyright notice... But if you think you have a strong enough case, the way to get it is with Print screen, than paste into any image editing software (such as Paint), then crop it and save the file. --Elekhh (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well ALL Danish images come with copyright notices - aslo when they have obviously expired or are photos of 300 years old paintings (I bet there are runestones with copyright notices on them). I have uploaded hundred of such pictures and never had any complains. So I wouldn't worry about that. And I don't really see how anyone can claim copyrights over images when the author is unknown? I seem to recall once having seen a specific license tag on a commons image for 'author unknown', can that be true? But I guess there isn't much need for a historic image for such a short article so maybe I'll just let it be.Ramblersen (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny! I didn't want to discourage you at all. I think an image of the "most notorious slum in the city" replaced by these buildings would be absolutely worth including. But in Danish copyright law works by unknown authors enter PD 70 years after publication. Given that "demolitions began in the early 1940s" means that the images are not yet PD on that basis. Btw I do not like these copyright laws either, just wanted to warn you regarding the trouble you can run into when uploading to Commons. --Elekhh (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Feliz
I was wondering whether you have any photographer friends on Mallorca who might be prepared to go out to S'Horta and take some pictures of Can Feliz. Even a distant view from the village would help. I haven't been able to find anything in the public domain. ¶ I certainly would second a DYK for Ramblersen. He's been doing a lot of good work recently in connection with the architecture and streets of Copenhagen. And I've noticed that when he red-links streets, it's usually because he intends to write about them - so don't be too quick in removing them! - Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that, that was in rush indeed. Regarding Mallorca unfortunately I don't know anyone, and there aren't any Quality or Featured images from anybody local. Neither could I detect anybody working there on the current Wiki Loves Monuments contest. Placed a tag on the page but, from experience there is little chance that will bring quick results. --Elekhh (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad. Perhaps now that the article has the coordinates of the house, more people will be successful in finding it. Then we might get some photos we can use. - Ipigott (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Utzon Center DYK
Over 3,000 views was not too bad, especially as the article seems to have brought some 2,500 people in to see the Utzon article. Did you make any progress with the Utzon sketches? In regard to Bagsværd Church, I have now found the complete set of four (not two) sketches Utzon used to present his ideas of the church. They are in the second logbook which is devoted to the building. Thanks once again for all your support. - Ipigott (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems that it was a good month for Utzon, probably his best since Nov/Dec 2008. I see he'll make it to top 500 architecture article and top 100 Danish article for the month. Regarding sketches, did some research and found no precedent for fair use sketch uploads. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture and depending on how it goes might post it to the village pump. Would be great to obtain support for having them as default eligible category like album covers and screenshots. But maybe I'm just dreamin'. Regarding the Bagsværd sketches, Weston included this and this on full page width at the start of the chapter, and the same were included in the 2004 Louisiana exhibition catalogue, which makes a good case for a fair use rationale. --Elekhh (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you are still trying to do something for fair use sketches. Unfortunately the links to Bagsværd do not work either here or in your wikiproject architecture message. - Ipigott (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How strange. Updated the links, hope they work now. --Elekhh (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about naming church articles
Elekhh, I have noticed that you are active in the Architecture Project and are interested in articles about Louis Kahn. I wonder if you would give your opinion on a question I have.

I have been working on articles for buildings by Louis Kahn, as outlined at User:Bilpen. While working on Kahn's First Unitarian Church of Rochester, I realized that I have enough material for two articles, one about the congregation and one about the building, which are now in draft form at User:Bilpen/sandbox and User:Bilpen/sandbox_2.

My question is what to name the two articles. The problem is that "church" is an ambiguous term, referring equally well to a congregation or a building, so either article could be legitimately named "First Unitarian Church of Rochester". Does that mean that I should name the second one something like "First Unitarian Church of Rochester (building)" and create a disambiguation page? That seems awkward for two articles that are so closely related, but maybe that is the best way to go. On the other hand, if, say, the Acme Insurance Company had an architecturally significant building, then Wikipedia could have articles named "Acme Insurance Company" and "Acme Insurance Company Building", so perhaps I could name my articles "First Unitarian Church of Rochester" and "First Unitarian Church of Rochester Building"? That sounds awkward too.

Does Wikipedia have a standard way of handling this situation? I looked around, but I didn't find anything. Certainly this is not the only congregation with both an interesting history and an architecturally significant building, so it would be nice if there was a Wikipedia standard to follow in such cases. Any advice you have here would be greatly appreciated.

(FYI, when I finish writing my drafts, my plans are to move the existing First Unitarian Church of Rochester article, which is about the building, to, say, "First Unitarian Church of Rochester Building" and add my material about the building. Then I would edit the remaining First Unitarian Church of Rochester page, which would be a redirect page at that point, with my material about the congregation.) Bilpen (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that "church building" sounds awkward, and on Wikipedia so far it has been assumed that church=building. Also relevant here is which one would be primary topic, and since I'm biased for Kahn I would tend to opt for the building. So another option to think about could be "First Unitarian Church of Rochester" for the building, and the other "First Unitarian Church of Rochester (congregation)".
 * There is some guidance at WP:SPLIT and WP:LENGTH. Your drafts have prose length of 44 KB (congregation) and 26 KB (building), while the current article is below 1 KB. That gives a total of 71 KB for which the guideline states that "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)"... Here I tend to say that since the articles are very closely related having them as one might be a good option, and maybe by merging them it can be shortened a bit. So another way forward could be to merge both drafts into the current article and than initiate a discussion about possible splitting. That way you could gather more input from editors about the need to split and the best way to do it.
 * Sorry if this does not make things much clearer, but I hope it helps a bit. In the end you're the expert on the topic and will know what's the best to do. --Elekhh (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw do you think there are any sketches by Louis Kahn which are relevant for this discussion ?--Elekhh (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a relief to know that I wasn't overlooking a standard procedure for handling this situation. It's also intriguing to know that people might not necessarily object if I combine these two drafts into one unusually large article.  By removing duplicate material I could probably reduce the word count by a few thousand bytes, so I will play with that idea.


 * Katrine Lotz's PhD dissertation at, pages 66-76, has several great sketches and floor plans of First Unitarian by Kahn. I don't have the nerve to upload them myself as long as it is an open question as to whether they are fair use, but if it is determined that they are, I would be happy to upload them.Bilpen (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dronningegården
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal
Nice work on the Renewable Energy Portal! Johnfos (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you as well! --Elekhh (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled
Hi Elekhh. I'm just  letting  you  know that  I  have accorded you  Autopatrolled rights. I see no  reasons to  waith  for you  to  apply or for someone to  nominate you. Happy editing, and keep  up  the good work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Elekhh (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping
I've emailed you about the portal write-up. Tony  (talk)  14:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Architecture of Kuwaiti
I imagine this title was created automatically. I have tried to move it to Architecture of Kuwait but failed. Would you be kind enough to handle it. - Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the problem was that if the destination file already exists and has more than one edit than only an admin can perform the move. --Elekhh (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guessed that was the cause of the difficulty. Pity these things keep moving backwards and forwards. If you have the time, I would appreciate any comments you might have on the first draft of Kuwait National Assembly Building. Do you think it would be useful to add sections on acoustics and lighting? The problem is that there are very few sources and I hesitate to keep quoting from just two books. Perhaps you know of other sources yourself? - Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're fantastic: wiki coverage of Utzon is about to become the best available! I think acoustics and lighting are notable, so yes worth including. I wonder if it should be merged with National Assembly of Kuwait. Have a look above to another discussion about having separate articles on building and institution. Your feedback welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I followed this discussion but I think we are faced with a rather different problem here. The article on the National Assembly of Kuwait is all about the parliament itself, not really about the building. For the U.K., there are separate articles on the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and the Palace of Westminster. For France we have the National Assembly of France and the Palais Bourbon. I therefore think it could be argued that there should also be separate articles in the case of Kuwait, one for the parliament, the other for the building. If the building had a name of its own, that would facilitate things, but it doesn't. I've also started putting something together on Utzon's Melli Bank where the same problem could also arise but the branch Utzon built is not the same as the BMI building shown under Bank Melli Iran. So here again I would argue in favour of a separate article. Perhaps "Melli Bank (Utzon)" or "Bank Melli, University of Tehran". What do you think? - Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think is a question of how strongly interrelated the two topics are, and how notable on their own. If an institution always resided in the same building, or a building was always used by the same institution, it can make sense to have one article, which is often the case. By institutions with long history however there might have been a larger number of buildings used throughout history. The National Assembly of Kuwait was first convened in 1962, and not that much later in 1969 the design competition was launched so from its ca.50 years history 43 years overlap (85%). Nevertheless, I agree that can be separate articles due to distinct notability. The same argument would than apply for Melli. I think "Melli Bank, University of Tehran Branch" as in your intro sounds most natural. --Elekhh (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then I'll proceed along those lines. BTW, thanks also for fixing the coordinates on Kuwait. I'll have to check other recent articles to see if I haven't mixed up east and west. I must say in connection with Jørn Utzon, I am really surprised to see how little coverage there is of his most notable buildings on the internet. Very little on Kuwait and even less on the Melli Bank. I hope my WP articles will trigger wider attention. - Ipigott (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your user page
I saw you had been making some minor alterations to your user page and thought I would have a look. Although the information is fine and the photos even better, I must say that the display on my notebook screen looks rather strange. Your coloured box encloses only three of the four photos at the top and the fourth one can only just be seen on the right hand side outisde the box. Wiki Me is way out of sight on the right but is inside the box. The box itself seems to expand and contract depending on the amount of information to be enclosed. Perhaps everything looks fine on a larger or wider screen but not on the one I'm using at the moment. My settings are also WP defaults so I suppose I am a fairly typical user. Just thought I should let you know. - Ipigott (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. On my monitor(s) was all ok, but I can imagine that smaller monitors might have issues. I rearranged the content into three columns, hope it looks ok now. I'm using Firefox, so maybe some of the issues are caused by IE (assuming that's what you are using). --Elekhh (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything is fine now. I suppose you removed one of the images. Maybe it was my IE that caused the problems. I didn't think of trying Firefox. - Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Progress?
Please check out Beth Sholom Congregation (Elkins Park, Pennsylvania), especially the photo galleries which I extensively revised. It's hard to objectively judge which photos to include or discard when some of them are my own, but feel free to throw out some of mine. I've thought of taking one of these to WP:Picture Peer Review to see if I could possibly reach the level required in your NRHP challenge, but ... Any feedback would be helpful. Smallbones (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Always happy to do cleanup in architecture articles :). Your images are highly valuable, taken from well chosen angles and under good lighting conditions. I imagine you were thinking of File:FLW Beth Sholom exterior.jpg which is an excellent lead image. Unfortunately it has many technical quality issues which make it unlikely to succeed at WP:FP: it is blurred on the left, grainy, and has some CA (on the left). But I think it would have a fair chance as a Valued image candidate for being currently the best in representing this subject, if you're interested. Nevertheless please add it to the NRHP challenge as is fully within the first part of the criteria (iconic image of 20th century architecture), and has a good chance to a honourable mention at least :). --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bellavista housing estate
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! This one did really well with over 7,000 views. You are really putting Danish architecture on the world map. - Ipigott (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first the architects themselves, and than you by writing comprehensive articles... nice to see the coverage constantly improving! Wish there was for each country a dedicated editor like you :) --Elekhh (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to coverage of architecture in other countries, I have a query on new articles here but as yet have no satisfactory reply. Perhaps you can help? - Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for responding re Pierre Chareau. Manytexts (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again thanks Elekhh, this time for the links. Manytexts (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

House 21
I accidently came across this timely new article and thought it might be a good candidate for DYK? - Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint, indeed interesting article with potential. Currently only 750 characters so will need to double for DYK eligibility. I unfortunately have no time atm, but will check in a few days. I also tried to improve the formula for the new article search tool and the results are getting better, but will need further adjustments. Unfortunately the bot runs erratically at intervals ranging from few hours to weeks, and need to wait for the next run each time for testing any change in the search parameters, so is a slow process. --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can easily add to House 21. The German-language article is substantive. - Ipigott (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, go and conquer Austria as well :) will be happy to nominate. --Elekhh (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Years ago I lived and worked for a while in Vienna, so there are personal reasons for my interest too. I think the article's OK now. I've added quite a bit. It would be good to give credit to Spitzl. It might encourage him to write more articles in English. Most of his contributions are in German. - Ipigott (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice city, I love Vienna. And Austrian architecture is quite interesting (Günther Domenig, Hans Hollein, Raimund Abraham, Coop Himmelb(l)au, and many more). The DYK is here. Feel free to improve on the hook or propose alternatives. --Elekhh (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you nominated it but there are one or two problems, probably as a result of my interference! First of all, the article has now been moved to 21er Haus. Secondly, I think it would be more correct in English to phrase the DYK as:


 * ... that 21er Haus (pictured) located in Vienna, was originally constructed as the Austrian pavilion for Expo 58 in Brussels?
 * Hope you can fix it. Thanks for your help. - Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks very much for the addition to Portal:Arts! Most appreciated. ;) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Images of Finn Juhl's House
I have written Finn In connection with Ipigott's Danish design campaign, Juhl's House (or rather the Ordrupgaard museum which runs it) to hear if they had some images of the house and furnishings which could be used on Wikipedia. After an extra explanation, the last response I got was "You will receive an invitation to Dropbox. Here you will find a series of images from Finn Juhl's home" ("Du vil modtage en invitation til Dropbox. Her finder du en serie billeder fra Finn Juhls hjem"). Very nice of them but it leaves me somewhat uncertain of what exactly they are willing to allow and I think I will have to send them a follow-up mail about it. I don't think they are too familiar with the system but unfortunately neither am I. So would you happen to be able to tell me what the most common alternatives are in a case like this in terms of licensing in case they only want to allow a limited use? If I have to write them again I would prefer to be able to give them some fairly clear and simple options so that I don't trouble them more that necessary. I looked at the David Collection for comparisons since I know that the museum themselves have uploaded a set of images but they have simply allowed all use - do you think I can assume that Ordrupgaard is willing to do the same based on the response I got? Sorry to trouble you with this, my explasions got very confusing, I hope you get what I mean anyway.Ramblersen (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If they agree with a free CC license (with the BY-SA clause which guarantees that the author will be always credited) they will have to confirm the release via OTRS by sending an e-mail directly to Wikimedia Commons. There is a template here in the thick frame. Simply copy-paste that into the e-mail you are sending to them. It is important they send the e-mail directly to Commons. In the meanwhile you can upload the images and add an OTRS pending tag. Somebody with OTRS permission will change that after the Foundation receives the e-mail confirming the license. That's the process I followed with the KUNSTEN Museum, and it worked pretty neatly. I must say so far I always have been successful with requesting release of images under free license from Denmark, so I hope you will as well! If they don't agree with a free license the only alternative would be the very restricted US fair use upload to the English Wikipedia only, which is only possible if the image has been published previously, and no alternatives are possible. Hope this answers your question. --Elekhh (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

St. John's
Are you planning on doing anything about the merger you proposed between St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador and Demographics of St. John's, or are you just leaving the tag there? Newfoundlander&#38;Labradorian (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just completed that earlier request as part of a WikiProject cleanup and was hoping for further input to confirm consensus. Anybody can perform the merger, or close the request. Given that there were no opposes I guess is fine to proceed with the merger, however if you wish to make any comments please feel to do so at Talk:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. --Elekhh (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 21er Haus
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg (city) infobox update
With all your experience of Wikipedia mechanics, you might be able to help me out. I'm afraid I have been unable to update the name of the mayor in the Luxembourg (city) infobox. Several pieces of data, including the name of the mayor, seem to be contained in an item "LAU2 = 11001" in the box but I cannot find where this originates. The name of the former mayor Paul Helminger should be replaced by that of Xavier Bettel who was sworn in a few days ago and is listed on the city site here as well as on the lb:Lëtzebuerg (Stad) page. I've had a query on the talk page for a while but unfortunately no response. Hope you can help. - Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't come across such an editor-unfriendly system before, but managed to fix it for now. It remains however a question whether is good to have things so complicated, and undocumented. It could make sense if it would be a broadly used data (transcluded into dozens of articles), and/or automatically updated by a bot based on some external database, but none of these seems to be the case... I left a message at the article talk page as well. --Elekhh (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Portal
Hello Elekkh, I am Virender, a student from Mumbai, India, currently pursuing dual degree (B. Tech + M. Tech) in the filed of Energy Science & Engineering at IIT Bombay. I would like to contribute to the portal. Would be great if could direct me as in how I can go about it. Thanks. Virenkainth (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Virender, great to hear that you're interested! The Renewable Energy Portal showcases the best content on Wikipedia relating to this topic. For instance articles which are improved to good quality are usually included, or images which are featured. I am not sure what your exact interest is, but there is plenty of work to be done on RE related articles, including on those about India. General todos for the portal are here. If you're interested in India, there is a lot of work to be done on Renewable energy in India which doesn't provide yet a good overview, and the collection of images at Commons:Category:Renewable energy in India is also very restricted, hence nothing from India yet on the Portal. If you let me know what are you most interested in I can give you further suggestions, just let me know. cheers. --Elekhh (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Elekhh, apologies for the delay in responding. I went through all your suggestions, I think renewable energy in India portal doesn't have many people working on it, so I'd like to contribute there. If you could guide me to the todos of this portal... Also, would be great if you could put me in touch with other people working or interested in working upon the same. Cheers! Virenkainth (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't guide you all down, sorry for that, but I think if you explore the portal well, half is done. Love to take part in discuusions at the talk page, creating some witty ideas and improve the content. You may consider repairing some artciles. Please consult more experienced users -- Extra    999  (Contact me) 11:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As indicated above, the article Renewable energy in India does not provide a good overview. For instance should state the relative importance of each form of RE, have a section summarising Biofuel in India and also a section on hydropower. You can have a look at Renewable energy in Russia as an example of good article on the same topic. --Elekhh (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder
The WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest closes in a few minutes. You set a tough challenge, so I wasn't surprised that there weren't too may entries. In any case, please tie up any loose ends there in a day or so (maybe a brief note on the page). Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of New Danish cuisine
Hi Elekhh. I'm sorry to bother you about this but I feel this page has been wrongly deleted. Apparently it was deemed to have been an advertisement and I had no chance to respond before action was taken. As you know, I have absolutely no interest in advertising anything to do with Danish cuisine. I wrote the page on the express advice of Ramblersen who provided the links for most of the content (see my talk page). I have been working day and night for the past three or four days trying to improve the quality of Danish cuisine which has now been more or less completed. You will also see that the article contains a section on New Danish cuisine along the same lines. (Perhaps this will also be removed??) More thorough coverage of the New Danish cuisine followed on naturally from this work. You can see an almost identical copy of what was deleted in my sandbox here. I tried to find out which administrator deleted the article but could not find any trace although a message was posted on my talk page. I don't know if there's anything you can do to sort this out or if the topic will remain permanently taboo. - Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts on this. With assistance from Filing Flunky, I've worked on the version of the article at User:Ipigott/Sandbox2 which has now been fully revised. Would you mind having a look at it yourself? If you think it is now in order, would you please advise on how I should proceed. - Ipigott (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC) ‎
 * Hard to read with those tasty images :) I saw that the deleting admin still has some concerns regarding the weight given to a single restaurant, but I don't know the subject well enough to judge. Once is all ok, you can simply recreate the page. Normally that's done by copy-pasting, but here I would also add to the edit summary "moved from User:Ipigott/Sandbox2", thus linking to the edit history which provides credit to Filing Flunky for his edits. --Elekhh (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for helping me to get this to fly again. I've already reincluded a few of the restaurants I had deleted in an attempt to avoid too much promotion. I also hope to develop the article further along these lines in due course but I would first like to allow other editors to make any additions and changes they see fit. And btw, I am no expert on Danish gourmet cooking either. This all followed on from my attempt to get Danish cuisine tidied up and Ramlersen's (very sensible) suggestion that there should be more coverage of the New Nordic cuisine. There certainly seems to be less risk of being accused of "advertising" when dealing with traditional areas of culture like architecture, art, literature, music and related biographies. But I've learnt my lesson now. I'll be much more careful in future. I can't remember ever having had so much trouble with a new article before! - Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You did excellent work again and keeping your cool brought much needed peace to Wikipedia. You deserve a delicious "New Danish" dinner with a good Danish wine ;) ( any resemblance between this statement and any advertisement is purely aleatory and non-intentional. No legal liability of any possible or impossible consequences is accepted. ) Btw the same I experience each time I adventure in topics like global warming or politics. --Elekhh (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow! Thank you very much. Smallbones (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Article Feedback 5
Another query for you Elekhh, if you have the time to deal with it. As you are into the assessment game, I was wondering whether you could help me understand why the article Kuwait National Assembly Building has been tagged with this category. It was inserted by Reedy Bot. I tried to look into the background but did not find much except that it has something to do with assessment. I could not find any human being behind the bot and saw that if I put anything on its talk page, I would bring the bot to a standstill. I see however that a huge number of articles are being tagged with this category, thousands every hour as far as I can see. I am all for assessment but I would like to understand why this particular article was selected and what the follow-up is likely to be. If you cannot deal with this youself, perhaps you can tell me who can. - Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that more and more articles have a box on the bottom asking readers to rate the page (as now Kuwait National Assembly Building). It is a different type of assessment, directed to readers. More info at Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. --Elekhh (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing is displayed on my screen. Is there a special parameter that needs to be used for it to show up? - Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It should show up per default. I tried with IE and it works as well. I see somebody else also had this problem. All I can suggest is try logging out and see if it still works, also check if is not disabled in your preferences at "My preferences" > "Appearance" > "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages". If nothing works notify the developers at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool. --Elekhh (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to know that when I use Mozilla, I can see the "Rate this page" addition but although I have restarted the machine, I do not get it on Internet Explorer. My basic settings are default anyway as I like to see how things look to other users. I have the standard Internet Explorer 8 but it appears to be the Danish version as the screen messages are in Danish. Maybe it's because I use a Danish keyboard for the Æ, Ø and Å? This is the only explanation I can find as to why the rating addition does not appear. You can pass this info on to those responsible if you think it's worthwhile. Thanks for your explanations. - Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cesaria Evora
I was the nominator, please do not modify. Link to demonstrate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=466352008. You have committed an abuse. You were only the updater. Keep editing! - The Amazzing Race (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you were, sorry for the error (which you perceived as an abuse), it was the result of using the Template:ITN candidate my name was inserted automatically. Unfortunately doesn't seem to have much support. --Elekhh (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

MVRDV Article
I admit that I'm way over my head in the mechanics of contributing to WP, but I just read the above article and was able to note that you had contributed to it- though in what way I don't know. I usually stick to minor spelling and grammatical fixes, but I found this article profoundly troubling and unworthy of WP as it stands.

Many parts of the Philosophy section read like a press release, and perhaps innocently contain language that is either less than grammatical in English, or more troublingly are examples of the kind of elliptical language used by architects and by others in the arts to blunt concrete critical discussion of the work in question, or maybe both.

Example: "MVRDV is well known for its philosophy of densification and multiple space use." How does densification qualify as a "philosophy?" You can have a philosophy about densification (and then you might as well state it), but alone densification is an activity or process. Among whom is their philosophy well known, and what does "multiple space use" really mean? Many uses of one space, or the use of many spaces at once, or something else? Does their philosophy extend to encompass it?

Example: "Their Studies in Density implies a city that is not only in front, behind or next to, but also above and below." How is a city "implied?" Each in the sequence of prepositions requires an object in English. As it stands this sentence does not mean anything.

Example: "In short a city in which ground level zero no longer exists but has dissolved into a multiple and simultaneous presence of levels where...." Again, this doesn't really mean anything in English, and I have to think that cities dissolving into a presence of levels is meant as some sort of evocation of an image. Cities don't dissolve. They crumble. They are sacked. They are ruined, abandoned, transformed, preserved, discussed, and designed but they don't dissolve unless they are made of soluable material and exposed to an appropriate solvent.

I have many such issues with virtually all of this section, but don't know how to raise them. I can't even make out who generated this content, but from my experience in the field it sounds like promotional copy generated by the designers themselves or their promoters. If you can steer me in the right direction, or remove these kinds of statements from this article since you seem to be an avid and accomplished editor with some familiarity with architectural discourse, that would be great. If you are the generator of this content, I would ask you to remove this refrain from this sort of contribution for the reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bulatovich (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear that you are interested to help improve this article. Regarding WP editing, the best place to raise concerns is the article's talk page Talk:MVRDV, and you can also ask for help at related WikiProjects such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. For finding out who contributed to the article you should click the "history" tab and than the "contributors" link and will arive to this list.
 * Now regarding content, indeed I just removed last week a whole section which was copyvio, and by the sound of it the Philosophy section might be as well. It was added by an anonymous user (IP) in December 2008‎, the same which added the "Sustainability" section copyvio. I will simply remove it based on the concerns you raised. Otherwise please feel free to contribute and be bold. --Elekhh (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)