User talk:Ipigott/Archive 1

Kolyma
I came across the Kolyma article while checking out some facts presented in a Danish newspaper article and was surprised to see that it had been marked as lacking neutrality in view of assertations made about the Kolyma Gulag (without reliable references, etc.). As I believe it is extremely important to ensure that the story of the Gulag is presented properly, I have spent a few hours on this article. The main problem seems to be that the author is not too familiar with Wiki editing. So I have begun to straighten a few things out - in particular correct internal links to the authors cited, additional links to the outside world and some footnoting. It would be great if some of the experts on Russia and Russian (Soviet) history could chip in too. There has been a suggestion that the geographical page on Kolyma should be separated from the article on the Gulag. Sooner or later, I think we should do that but the immediate problem is one of establishing the authenticity of the current write-up. I found it interesting that of all the Kolyma articles in other languages - and there are currently 16 (see http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolima) - only two (French and Catalan) describe the Gulag. Poland has a special page on this. I look forward to hearing from interested parties.
 * Thank you for your effort in cleaning this up. I had several concerns about how these historical topics are reflected in the Wikipedia, in particular:
 * Gross inflation of casualty numbers (I think the current version is more or less ok for that)
 * Use of strong emotional terms to describe an encyclopedic subject, which is completely unacceptable in my opinion. List the numbers, the facts and let the reader do the math. There is a little bit of that left in the current version, but it's probably ok now, too.
 * Biased representation of the camps as working only to destroy as many people as possible, and comparison to Nazi death camps. The goal of the Soviet system was to industrialize the country in 10 years (something that the Western countries covered in two centuries before that), and to prepare for the inevitable large-scale war against countless aggressors -- Germany, the US, Japan, etc, each of whom has invaded Russia just two decades prior to that. To that end, the most important purpose of the camps was to build the industry that has later launched the man in space and up to this day is in the heart of modern Russia, and to manage to do so in complete isolation and with very few available resources, before getting attacked. The brutality of the methods is very regrettable, but should be mentioned in an objective article along with the actual productive goals of the program, and the benefits the country has reaped, although at a very, very high price.
 * Drawing most of the information from Solzh's Gulag and dissidents' accounts, who most certainly should not monopolize the license for eternal truth. As I mentioned in the page's discussion, eyewitness accounts are important, but not the only one and by far not the most objective source of info. If you record testimony of 227 inmates of Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo Bay, they will say that those places are hell on Earth, the most mercilessly terrorized, particularly sadistic and the most unimaginably cruel human-run organizations, and the whole US concentration camp system is "evil", as, they would probably claim, are the US themselves. This alone would not make a good article on Guantánamo Bay.
 * Furthermore, Solzh's book was used as an ideological weapon against the 70's and later Soviet Union to present even the second part of the 20th century in Russia as one endless deadly torture and gulag, which is, of course, a complete nonsense.
 * Given that hysterical overestimation and bias are very common in the West when it comes to these topics, I long ago gave up on trying to thoroughly improve related pages, because every time it sparks an endless flame war with people who tell me about tens and hundreds of millions of fictional casualties, and then my edits get erased or lost in the never-ending stream of b.s. So now I only do minor corrections, and appreciate when people try to constructively research the topic. If the arguments I presented here would help you in your further editing, then good; if not, then Wikipedia will remain a place of hysterical hatred for anything Soviet, especially in comparison to much more mellow and well-researched Britannica and Encarta. Guinness man 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate these comments and will certainly bear them in mind for future editing.

Yolanda
I've been trying to put something together on Yolanda of Vianden as she seems to be one of Luxembourg's more important historical figures, especially in the light of the Codex Mariendalis, the original manuscript of Brother Hermann's Yolanda von Vianden, rediscovered in 1999. Can anyone shed any light on the digitisation work planned in connection with this manuscript? It would be great if a link could be included. Also, I am looking for public domain images of Yolanda as those for non-commercial and educational use are automatically deleted.
 * Sorry no idea. Good article so far, I hadn't even known it was Walram (II) of Montjoie (Monschau) (who later married a Fauquemont/Valkenburg) she was to marry. That would indeed have been a great advantage for Vianden. Though I expect at the time I read about Yolanda I hadn't known about the three Walrams of Montjoie (the third actually a Fauquemont only in female line a Limbourg-Montjoie but he adopted those arms and their policy).--Caranorn 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There doesn't seem to be very much on Walram II in English. I believe he did indeed get married to someone else after Yolanda's refusal but can't remember the details. Do you think it would be more correct to refer to him as Walram II of Montjoie? (In Dutch it seems to be Waleram van Monschou.)--Ipigott 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it will do for now until someone (maybe me) writes an article about him (and others about his father and about his grand-son). Simply numbering them could be problematic (Walram IV of Limbourg was also lord of Montjoie, so he would probably be Walram I of Montjoie, his son Walram would be walram II of Montjoie (also known as walram of Limbourg or Walram of Poilvache), the one we are talking about would be Walram III of Montjoie (by the way I was wrong, he married Jutta von Ravensberg, his sister Bertha married Dietrich/Thierry of Fauquemont, whose son is Walram of Fauquemont or Walram IV of Montjoie (iirc also known as the red, though he often gets confused with his cousin Walram of Luxembourg-Ligny). In any case that line of four Walrams of Montjoie is interesting as they became quite notorious as fighters in the region.
 * Here is a link with a rough genealogy (based on primary sources), though Walram IV is not yet covered.--Caranorn 12:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Douarnenez
I'm in the middle of writing contributions to the Douarnenez site. Would welcome furthe contributions or comments, particularly on the cultural life, the revival of Breton, folklore, music, cuisine.

Møns Klint
Was surprised to see there was no English-language page on Møns Klint, although there were sketches in other languages. I have now tried to summarise the key data in view of the huge popularity of the site - have a look and let me know what you think. Until now there have been no reactions. Hope to hear from someone soon.

Mamer page
I've more or less covered all the basics on Mamer for the time being. There are however a number of pending questions: - Is is right to refer to Mamer as a town? It is certainly not a ville or Stadt in Luxembourg terms? Locally it is referred to as a duerf, village. - Similarly, I think Holzem and Capellen should be villages rather than small towns. - Anyone interest in starting pages on some of the topics in the article, e.g. Mamer Castle, Nicolas Mameranus, Koenigsbund school complex, Roman Mamer, etc.? If not, I might get around to it myself one of these days. - It would also be great to get some local input on cultural activities, perhaps with images of paintings or historical background. - Genealogy in Mamer might also be interesting with accounts of the best known families, emigration, US communities. And please post your reactions.

Vianden Castle
Hello,

I just noticed you added to the Vianden article that the castle restorations were fully completed. I don't think that's correct, unless there were drastic improvements this year. I don't really know what the long term plans are, but I expect it will take a few more years of archaeological work and renovations. The latest pictures I'd seen of the castle also still showed scaffolding in various places. Lastly there is the question whether it's a good idea to fully restore the castle, in any case that would raise the question to which state to restore it (as currently various phases of it's building history are visible, which is of course a good thing). Anyhow, unless you know more then I do I'd change that sentence back to something along the lines of mostly restored.--Caranorn 23:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the issue how Yolanda ended up in the convent is not a legend, though it is true much has been speculated about motivation etc. I also don't have any good sources at hand (at least not that I know of), so I won't be adding anything anytime soon.
 * Concerning city and town, I feel city is appropriate though I've noticed that for instance in articles concerning dutch city grants these are called towns. But doing so actually risks leading to confusion. For me a town is a french bourg, a much less formal title (which can be attributed to a small rural community behind walls or of special status, to part of a larger city etc.). A city on the other hand is indeed the french ville, one granted that title and corresponding rights by charter. This once was a very important distinction and the reason why even today a small place like Vianden is called a city (my own village I seem to recall has a greater population then Vianden). The fact that Hollerich-Bonnevoie once was granted that status is also quite important (at that time city grants were of course for matters such as industrialization and population, but it was still a special grant), though by now it's mostly an anecdote (most locals probably don't know). In general, changing terminology from city to town could also create create a problem with Luxembourg City as I'm not sure any local place would bear the title based on size alone (we definitely do not fulfill the requirements for major city as applied in Germany, though I'm not sure what kind of population they require for minor city). But anyhow, it's largely a matter of tradition, places such as Vianden, Echternach or Luxembourg have had the status of ville for most of the past 7-8 centuries, while towns are often of much more recent origin and much less regional or local importance (particularly US use of town). Concerning Mamer and any other community without status of a 'ville' I'd agree that it should just be called a village or a municipality/commune. While these have grown relatively large in the past century they don't have any special status.
 * See also city, particularly it's The difference between towns and cities section, plus town and city charter (which is sadly underdeveloped). --Caranorn 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle Infrastucture Integration
I've had a go at editing the article in view of the style and vocab warnings pasted on it until today. I hope I have not changed anything important. I'm a little unclear about the worldwide applications of VII. It seems to me that at the moment it is based firmly on support from the U.S. DOT and ties up with the ITS initiative. Can anyone cast any light on this? Are there VII applications/research/projects outside the U.S. If so, where? There was no reference to the VII Consortium although this seem to be a key body in the area. I'll perhaps put a summary of their concerns in the article.

Request
I see that you've been doing some work on articles related to Kolyma, Dalstroy, etc. If you have the time and interest, could you please see if you could help expand the article I started for MV Sovetskaya Latviya? Many thanks! — Zalktis 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will bring this to the attention of Jens Alstrup who is currently in Magadan investigating the history of the camps and the transportation of prisoners during the Stalin era.

dyk nomination

 * ...that the Iroise Sea is part of the Atlantic ocean and is Frances first marine park? by User:Ipigott OK? Victuallers 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from Titelberg
I have translated the english language version of the article regarding Titelberg to Norwegian bokmål/riksmål, and would be happy to have some pics for it. If you upload yours on Commons I could use them, I do hope that's possible. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging Russian projects into one project - your input requested
Hi, you are receiving this message as you are a member of WikiProject Russian history. I have made a proposal to merge several Russian related projects into WP:RUSSIA. You can view the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russian_history. As a member of the Russian history project, your input is requested; so that all editors are reading off the same page please limit discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. We all look forward to your input. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In The News!

 * Whoops! Infoboxes are picky sometimes, I've corrected the error and date. Thanks for notifying me and great work! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Høst
Sorry, didn't mean to step into you. I'm just a bit quick with expansion templates sometimes because I find a lot of things that can use expansion don't get marked quickly enough. It's a new project I'm working on; I'm still working out some of the kinks in my method, sorry. (To that end...if you want to leave translation for others to do, you can use Template:Expand Danish when there's something to be translated from the Danish Wikipedia.)

I have been looking at some of your other work on the subject; very impressive. I'd love to help out, only I don't speak Danish. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your quick reaction and understanding comments. As to the Danish WP, there is often quite a bit of content but it is seldom referenced and usually copied verbatim from another site. But nobody seems to bother. So most of my stuff is based on research from other sources - plus a personal interest.


 * I've had a quick look at your loooooooong user pages and see you have excellent qualifications and interests to be involved in all this Scandinavian art stuff (I've been doing quite a bit on Norway too) - so I would much appreciate any feedback. And to continue in Italian, another nice one is Chi parla semina, chi ascolta raccoglie.- Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Culture of Denmark
Sorry that I've taken so long to reply to your request, but I've been on a bit of a break over the holidays. (...am currently still on it, actually). However, I'll add a brief overview of Danish cinema to the Culture of Denmark article in the next day or so. I'll have more time to take a closer look at the two articles in a couple of weeks, but on a first perusal, I think you are doing a tremendous job on the rewrite and referencing. They are much improved. Thanks for the great work. Cheers — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted request: History of the bikini‎
The article has good content, great refs, a fine scattering of relevant images. Some parts, especially the last sub-section would require more work though. What it doesn't have is good copy. The copy, to be very truthful, is awful. Can you, please, help tidy up the copy throughout? I'll be there at every step, to clarify stuff, and, of course, to lend my hand. Can you, please? Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are referring to the section on "mixed fortunes". I have had a look through it. I don't think it is so much a question of bad copy as correctly presenting the history of the bikini since the 1990s. This would probably require a considerable amount of research which I really do not have time to undertake at the moment although I might come back later. May I suggest you write up your concerns on the article's discussion page. Good luck! - Ipigott (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave the last part out, I'm still researching. But, the rest of sections are more or less rounded up. As soon as the last part is done, I'll let you know. Thanks a million times for lending a hand. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I have finally followed up on your suggestion and copy-edited the whole thing in its present form. If you want to take responsibility for the article, I would suggest you check the references to the Latin poet Martial. I have looked at the original Latin versions of his writings on both Philaenis and Chione and final little evidence to support use of the bikini. Indeed, as far as I can see, the passages make no reference to the "top" or breastband, an integral part of the bikini as we know it. See Philaenis and Chione. Perhaps this should be posted on the talk page? - Ipigott (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking that part out (I had only the Crompton book to rely on so far). The last part is more or less rounded up now, until new and good information surfaces suddenly (it happens quite often though, if we keep searching). I am there with you, trying to present the information as coherently as I can, but I really need to watch over (it's only my atrocious English, you see). Thanks with all my heart. Just let me know what else I need to work on. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Harpasto quoque subligata ludit et flauescit haphe - well... I could agree to the sources that take this to be a reference to some bikini-like garb. It's not as straight forward as prose, may be. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think so. In any case, I'm pretty happy with the whole thing too now. It might be a good idea to avoid some of the repititions between the bikini article and this history. Maybe a final section on Current trends would round it off. Here you might pick up some ideas from Swimwear 2009 or Four bikini trends for 2009. But now I need to move on to other things. - Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything. Looking forward to collaborating on another article someday. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Visual art
I hate to pour cold water on the effort you have put in, but I can't feel very positive about your additions here. First we already have too many general potted histories of art going over the same subjects, ok not in the same way, see: History of art, Western art history, History of painting, Western painting, Outline of painting history, and probably others. Secondly, I can see you don't really have a depth of knowledge in the field of art history, and the sources you are using are not nearly good enough - see WP:RS, whose standards they don't meet. There are in fact many good sources available on-line at Google books and websites, but these aren't them, with a couple of exceptions like the Metropolitan. Nothing is harder than boiling down several thousand years of art history to a couple of thousand words, and it should not be attempted without wide knowledge of the field. A useful expansion of the article would be to stick purely to types of object/media, and cover the applied arts/decorative arts etc, with lots of links. I hope I haven't offended! Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Johnbod for getting back to me on this. I must say I have felt pretty isolated in recent weeks in my efforts to add some slight improvements to the Level 1 and Level 2 articles requiring attention. Despite my requests on their talk pages, I have not yet received a single reaction to my work on Personal life, Human sexuality, or Society, all of which - like Visual arts - are still in Start class. As you probably know, one of the most popular strategic proposals in recent weeks has been the one on Core Topics Complete which specifically calls for action in this connection. Which brings us back to Visual arts.


 * I must say that when I first looked at the article a week or so ago, I had to agree that it left a lot to be desired. While I am not, as you guessed, an expert on the specific field of visual arts worldwide, I have spent most of the past 12 years or so working on the need to provide better access to cultural resources in the information era. From that perspective, I felt that most people who have a general interest in arts (whether the performing arts or the visual arts) expect to find a little more than three or four lines on each topic with a link to a "main article" on the subject. In my experience, each article in Wikipedia should be more or less self contained: in other words, the reader should not be constantly required to leave it in order to browse through something else. With this in mind, I thought it would be useful to try to trace some of the key developments in each area of interest while livening the article up with a few interesting images.


 * I think it is great that someone with your background and Wikipedia experience should come along and show some interest in all this. One of the contributions you could make would be to help to put together a bibliography (or section on further reading) which would allow readers to delve deeper into the various areas of interest. In this connection, I have hesitated until now to copy over some of the reference works cited in related articles without having the chance to read them myself. The same goes for the references, that is to say those that are actually cited as in many of the "main articles" they are sadly lacking.


 * Finally, as you refer to the need to avoid "potted histories", I would be most grateful to receive some ideas from you as to how you think we should proceed with an article of this type when there is obviously a requirement to advance from start class. Perhaps it would be preferable to comment on global (or regional) trends which have been more generally responsible for developments in the arts.


 * I would also be happy to receive your reactions to the articles I have contributed to on Art of Denmark and Art of Norway which perhaps also require another approach.


 * Please let me have some feedback on this - and please feel free to delete any references - or indeed any other passages - which you feel are causing a deterioration in the quality of the article. I will certainly not feel offended. And perhaps you could expand on precisely what you mean by "object/media"? - Ipigott (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made quick comments on Denmark & Norway at the talk pages, mainly pointing out gaps. On visual arts, I'm not exactly sure what to do - we have too many top level articles chasing the same material, & few of them much good. I think one should probably remain short and concentrate on the widest range of media, without much historical narrative, and with lots of links.  What one can usefully say on such a vast subject beyond that, I'm not sure. I may make some edits some time - probably not much now. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Den lille havfru.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Den lille havfru.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sertmann (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I am aware that photos of the Little Mermaid may run up against copyright problems but this particular one has been on Wikipedia for over a year without any comment until now. You may be interested to hear that Bjørn Nørgaard recently won a court case in Denmark after using a similar photo in one of his art works, on the grounds that the photo was not a dominent aspect of the work. Perhaps the same argument can be used for WP articles. However, I will replace my Little Mermaid with less controversial images which, I think, fall more clearly within the Danish right of panorama.-Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that even File:The Little Mermaid-tourists.jpg is slated for deletion despite the probably application of the Danish right of panorama. So I will simply delete the file.-Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: images in Architecture of Denmark
Honestly, I started playing with image placement (I like that) there, and maybe went too far :-). Feel free to amend, but let me explain why did I start (see this on 1024x768 or 1280x1024 res).
 * Image widths were non-uniform, which is striking on its own and results in ugly text overflow on my screens (I use 1024x768 and 1280x1024 for testing as I believe those are most popular) - this is a MoS issue.
 * Some images went too far from their respective sections.
 * Images were crossing the section breaks and had gaps between them - the rule of thumb (when too many images) is to start placing them from right under the section heading and have them uniformly taking left/right sides within a section. Crossing sections on the right is tolerated, but MoS is against crossing on the left, and too many crossings again garble the text.

It is hard to please every screen resolution. There is no problem in having left and right images unless there are too many of them, then they cross next sections and the text gets ugly. I know two solutions: galleries at the bottom of a section (as I did) and

operators at the bottom of a section. This leaves text gaps though. Thus if left/right placing is desired, I would slightly reduce No of images (5 is too many for those short sections), take a high-res screen and test the outcome by reducing its resolution. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back so quickly and for all your explanations. I'll certainly take this into account in the future. As you can probaly appreciate, for articles on art and architecture the images add a great deal to comprehension of the text, especially if they can be viewed together with the passages to which they refer. You may have noticed that I only started this article a couple of weeks ago and am still working on it. As I continue to edit the various sections, there is likely to be more text, providing opportunities to reposition RH images.


 * Please excuse my use of language. For me "playing around" simply means "adjusting". I certainly did not mean to imply you were using them as toys! Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bjarke Ingels and Architecture of Denmark
I have added a bit on Ingels and the contemporary scene in general. In the process I axed the bit about Bjørn Nørgaard and Bispebjerg Bakke, feal free to put it back in. But I did so for this section not to get too comprehensive and I honestly don't think the building is that important. Though an interesting project, I think it is my impression that it is the general opinion that it ended up pretty modest and plain. I haven't seen any international coverage (which I prefer for references) either. I also think it's very dubious to refer to Bjørn Nørgaard as an "architect" (even one of the most important contemporary Danish ones). He has no training as such and I don't think he has been involved in other building designs (save the design of Amager Square if you count that one). On the Bispebjerg Bakke project he was brought in as a sculptor along with architects to contribute with a different perspective. As for my addition, see it as a first rough draft. I'm aware that it ended up a pretty boring and monotenous listing but it includes most of the names I think deserves mention and some references to back them up. It needs some more substance and a better flow. Feal free to change it back to your own previous version or mess with it any way you pleases. Otherwise I will try to improve it myself in a little while. Ramblersen (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for all this. It makes me wonder whether there should not be a separate article on contemporary Danish architecture. But perhaps we should wait for a while to see how things develop. As you will see, my edits are almost entirely concerned with improving the language and presentation - apart for a few lines on BIG which I thought smacked too much of commercial blurb. Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it may have become too long compared to the other sections. But another option is just to cut it down a bit, for instance I guess there's no need to mention exactly what competitions BIG has won, those who want to know can just go to the Bjarke Ingels article. But since I figured I needed the references I added it for now, it can easily be removed. I think the section called "Danish architectural firms" could be excluded now or referred to a separate article complementing List of Danish architects. And then possibly a "See also..." link at the beginning of the contemporary architecture section.Ramblersen (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to be shortened until a separate article on contemporary Danish architects is written. I would prefer to keep the Danish architectural firms for now as I think it might be an item that corresponds to various searches. By the way, I've included the Church of Our Lady, Kalundborg, in the main article and have also written up a short article about it. You are welcome to comment.


 * I was also wondering whether it would be useful to say something about Danish summer houses. It seems to me they form quite an important part of modern Danish architecture. But I don't know how easy it will be to find good, reliable sources. Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would probably be more tempted by something about the urban vernacular architecture characterizing the -bro districts but I've been unable to find any sources on it. And though I think it is quite destinctive, I would have a hard time pinpointing what it is. As for summer houses, most of them seem no-architecture-at-all to me but I'm not really that well aquainted with summer houses in general so maybe you're right. Danish "kolonihaver" but I've got no diea what allotments look like in other countries. And I think it falls outside the scoap of this article to cover it. Don't paint the lilly. One thing the article could use though were some decent pictures of modern architecture, the stock in commons is extremely poor. But well that prettu much goes for photos from Denmark in general in there. Ramblersen (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also looked for sources relating to the -bros but did not find very much. Library books may be the answer. There is a short article on kolonihaver in Danish - Kolonihaveområde - but in my opinion, what makes Danish allotments so special is the tremendous trouble people take not only in keeping their gardens in perfect conditon but also the way they transform little huts into mini-palaces. I don't think you'll find the same things in other countries. Even the Norwegians and Swedes don't take them quite so seriously. But even in Denmark I would not call it architecture. And as for the lack of pictures of modern architecture in Copenhagen, you are on the spot and you know what you are looking for, so why not spend a day out with your camera? - Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Danish architecture
Tank you do much for looking into it. I do know that there are some but most are of a quite poor quality, not representing the buildings very well. And I miss photos of a lot of the most important buildings from the last couple of years such as Saxo Bank, Mountain Dwellings, Sluseholmen Canal District, Metropolis and quite a few others. Same goes for a lot of old buildings thoug. Talking of photos btw, do you know if photos from here would be eligible for uploading to wikipedia commons, it states that "Billeder og film i Galleri kan frit anvendes ved omtale af byudviklingsprojektet og med følgende krediteringer:[...]". I have really no experience with file uploading at all and it has seemed quite a jungle thouse few times I have tried to look into it. As for pictures for the Architecture of Denmark article, I'll add a picture or two, I'm not a fan of too extensive use of galleries (and I actually thought they were against wiki policies, I think I saw that somewhere), less is more, so imo that will do - at least until there's a better stock to choose from. Anyway I shouldn't bother you with all this photo Mumbo Jumbo...sorry.:-).Ramblersen (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, it is not easy to justify use of pictures from other sources unless there is very clear and explicit clarification that the copyright is in the public domain or has been specifically assigned to you personally. As the Carlsberg explanations are not only in Danish but require credit to be given to various owners depending on where the photo is taken from, I think this would cause problems. I have uploaded many of my own photos and have had no problems. I would suggest you do the same. To tell you the truth, I am not too keen on galleries either but they do seem to serve a useful purpose in cases where numerous illustrations are required. You will see from the article's talk page that the galleries in Architecture of Denmark were not my idea but rather a result of someone's screen resolution problems. I just think it would be useful for people who have never been to Denmark to get a better idea of how attractive much of the modern architecture really is. In my experience, unless people can immediately see a picture they do not bother to follow up links to other sites. So a few photos of attractive modern buildings would be useful, whether or not they are in gallery format. - Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a public domain photo of Saxo Bank:


 * Saxo Bank


 * You can search for others on Google images. Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Bendt's Church for DYK?
Hi. I've nominated St. Bendt's Church, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Please add more refs and footnotes to the article. Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks PHFLai for picking this up for DYK nomination. I have added some additional sources as you requested and am happy to say that they revealed some interesting new details. Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll need to add a little more referencing to this article; see T:TDYK. Ucucha 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor whose been here since 2006 hadn't been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for officializing my status as autoreviewer. There must, however, be some error in the system as I have often reviewed and approved the yellow-tinted new articles and my actions seem to have worked perfectly. I believe I once found some indication that I WAS an autoreviewer. I don't know whether you should take this any further. Perhaps lots of unapproved editors are able to act as autoreviewers! Ipigott (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be auto confirmed. Any Editor who has been here a few days and done a certain number of edits is automatically wp:Autoconfirmed, and can move pages and mark pages as patrolled. Autoreviewer is slightly different, it means that all the articles you create will be marked as patrolled and don't require another editor to review them and mark them as patroled.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I always wondered why so many very new articles were displayed as if they had been patrolled. Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Reply to your 12 December 2009 points. (Ice Explorer (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

WikiProject Architecture
Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards

Place of birth and death in biographies
Great to see all the new articles you are spitting out! But I think the manual of style stipulates that places of births and deathshould not go with the dates of birth and death in the beginning but indtead ne incorporated in the text. Not that it seems awfully important though.Ramblersen (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I certainly see the point in mentioning the place of birth and/or death in the text of longer biographical articles but it might seem rather artificial in cases where very little is known about the life of an individual apart from the dates and places of birth and death. I'll try to take account of it in future though. Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Elekhh (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Physiospect
I have nominated Physiospect, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Physiospect. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Physiospect is certainly not fake. With all due respect, I am surprised that with your experience in the field, you can so dogmatically assert that a system which actually exists is fake. I and other members of my family have personally experienced the system in Belgium. It is used by several practitioners in Continental Europe, particularly in France and Belgium. I certainly would not have created an article along these lines if I had not had evidence of the existence of the system. I would certainly be interested in learning what induced you to believe this was a fake.


 * I would invite you and other interested parties to take a closer look at some of the websites documenting the system. For example, the information at Physiospect-002 corresponds very closely to the system I have seen in operation. There are also several interesting sites in French, e.g the ones from Eric Fleury, or Pysioscan, the Swiss distributor. Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please comment in the AfD discussion, not here. Note that the concern is not whether or not this product exists, but whether or not reliable sources that pass the medical sources guideline have covered this product in enough detail to satisfy our notability guideline. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional explanation. I had of course posted all this on the article's talk page. Ipigott (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment at Articles for deletion/Physiospect. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Architecture of Denmark
Regarding your question on my talk page vis-avis the section on contemporary architecture, my main reservation regarding an extra subsection would be that it might make this section too long. But as I've stated on the Architecture of Denmark talk page, I think the "Recent urban developments" subsection belongs in the contemporary section and not, as it is now, in the 29th century. And there I guess it will complement the subsection on international success nicely. So that would probably be my choise but I'm sure I will be perfectly happy with any model you will ultimately decide upon. Also to exclude work abroad alltogether if that is what the general opinion is for and it ends a lot of tedious discussions. I just saw the Sydney Opera and the Arch in Paris as a very incomplete and not very up-to-date picture plus I consider it a relevant aspect. But if others don't, it's perfectly fine with me. Talking about the destinction between "Architecture of Denmark" and "History of human settlement in Denmark", I stumbled over this article on Danish Wikipedia which might be able to provide some inspiration for this or other articles: Danmarks førindustrielle bebyggelse - though it is of course unsourced as articles on Danish wikipedia tend to be.Ramblersen (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. I have moved urban developments as you suggest. I have also looked at Danmarks førindustrielle bebyggelse and find it very well presented and quite well researched. Rmir2 seems to be the person who has contributed most of the content - he also seems to be involved in a host of other articles related to Denmark. I find it rather strange that Danmarks førindustrielle bebyggelse's interlanguage links are to Settlement (in general) as it is very specifically about Denmark. Something along these lines would certainly be useful in the English Wikipedia too although I don't think it really belongs to Architecture in Denmark. Probably a completely new article is called for. I'll think about it. Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
(Ice Explorer (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Architecture of Denmark GA initial review complete
Please check the Talk:Architecture of Denmark/GA1 page for necessary and suggested article improvements. I will stay in touch. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage/Danish architecture
Hi Ipigott! I'm having problems with how to translate some technical terms into English and wondered if you would bother to help me out. It can just be whenever it suits you and if you can't come up with an answer instantly, don't go to any trouble. I've thrown them in a sandbox HERE not to mess up your talk page.Ramblersen (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it did.:-)Ramblersen (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)