User talk:Birdhurst

Thanks!

Your copy-editing of Dennis Brain makes the article a hundred times better. Your work is appreciated! Ross Uber - Talk - Contributions - 05:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Birdhurst, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I noticed your copyediting of the Birdsville Races, and as per User:Ross Uber's comments, thanks, they make the article better.

I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Naming conventions

Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Thank you for signing up!

A Y Arktos\^talk 09:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemerocoetes macrophthalmus

Hello birdhurst, Thank you for picking up the Peninsula error (peninsular is the adjective of course). However, I would prefer that the fish lengths be left as centimetres. They are more understandable than the very high mm values. Most other fish lengths are in cms (sometimes metres for large ones) . Also, in your change for Hemerocoetes macrophthalmus you seem to have used a letter 'o' instead of a zero. ;-) GrahamBould 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good work!!

Thanks for your various edits that fixed up a lot of errors in Wellington articles that I watch, seriously improved them!!moza 11:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Hauptbahnhof

Hi Birdhurst. Thanks for your proofread of Berlin Hauptbahnhof. However, please note that "mainline," rather than "main line" is correct in a railway context and is used in this manner elsewhere on Wikipedia, notably in Rail terminology. Also, the question of the translation of Hauptbahnhof has already been discussed on Talk:Berlin Hauptbahnhof itself. (While "Main Station" may be more literal, many translators prefer "Central Station," as it is a more common term in English, and we agreed to avoid the issue). It wouldn't hurt to have a look at the article discussion in future to see if your questions have been addressed. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your sterling work copyediting London Underground-related articles. It really makes a big difference to have them tidied up - they'd been suffering a little from wikirot recently. Mike 14:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copy-editing

Hi—Saw your copy-editing of the O-Bahn article. Nice. And you're interested in music, too, with reference to the Brain article, I notice.

If you're inclined, the Featured Article Candidate room (WP:FAC) desperately needs good editors to critique the continual advance of poorly written articles into the ranks of the featured.

You'd be most welcome to drop in occasionally, or more often, to help to raise the standards; it's a hard battle at the moment.

Thanks

Tony 12:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing help needed at Azeris

Hello, I hear that you're quite the copyeditor. I was wondering if you could help out at the Azerbaijani people page? It is very close to making it as a featured article (it's in the nomination phase) and could use one final copyedit. You'd be contributed to a good cause as I wrote it and editing my own work has been time consuming and isn't a substitute for a 2nd set of eyes. Anyway, hope to see you there. Ciao. Tombseye 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Street Station

I'm really bemused by your edits here. From what I can see of your edit history, you seem to be a reasonable copyeditor, and I didn't find much wrong with your edits to Flinders Street Station. Yet some of your edits to Southern Cross Station are, I'm sorry to say, really quite awful.

"On Spencer Street between Collins and La Trobe Streets at the western edge of the central business district..."

"By July 2004 the project had fallen behind schedule, and this was covered extensively in the media."

You've turned mediocre prose into lousy prose. Moreover, there's places where you've taken text that was entirely accurate ("it opened in 1859") and added in unnecessary words ("it was opened in 1859") that really do make the text sound like it was written by an ESL student. Frankly, I'm not sure whether you're being careless, or whether you really don't know better. If it's the former, then please take more care in future, but if it's the latter, I really suggest you think twice about engaging in copyediting on the English project. Rebecca 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there are some issues with the article that do require a copyedit. Your version did fix some of these - however, it stuffed up several more, and I'm disinclined to go through and have to merge two different, but equally bad versions. Rebecca 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No objections at all with that one. Rebecca 11:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City & South London Railway page

Your copy-editing of this page was most welcome. Thank you. I have however changed one sentence. Your alteration of the last word in the sentence "The former northern terminus at King William Street tube station was problematic due to its lack of capacity, a difficult approach curve and its alignment making it impossible to extend the line north." has been altered by me to "...impossible to extend the line from this point."

Although the line was eventually extended to the north, this was not part of the original plan and an extension could have been proposed in any direction. The line was actually facing east and it may have made sense to have continued it in that direction. Unfortunately it was completely boxed in by buildings on two sides and the Monument on the other. This meant that an extension in any direction (not just north) was out of the question.

SH 1

Hi. If I'm correctly interpreting an earlier edit of yours to New Zealand State Highway network, I take it that SH 1 has now replaced SH 1F all the way to Cape Reinga. If that's correct you might want to update State Highway 1 (New Zealand) too. I'd do it but I haven't been able to verify the change, so over to you. Nurg 01:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O-Bahn Busway

I've seen your so-called 'copyediting' before; you haven't improved many of the articles you've changed. Linking every date is not an improvement (you've linked '2006' repeatedly throughout the article), and neither is removing detail from the wording. michael ^talk 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"an article that's clearly had a lot of time and energy devoted to it." The hours spent writing it are mine; I spent my time researching and writing that article. If you're going to 'copyedit', do not link every date and don't alter the meaning of the text. michael ^talk 06:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated linking of '2006' doesn't help; and, if I'm reading correctly, those are instructions on how dates are organised (February 17 rather than 17 February) rather than explicit linking instructions: the dates that are linked to are completely irrelevant to the article. 'L-shaped track' is correct; there are no rails, (such a term has not been used to describe the track in any of my sources) there are two peices of L-shaped track. michael ^talk 06:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to narrow gauge

Hi Birdhurst, I see in your copy editing of narrow gauge you have hyphenated most occurrences of the terms "narrow gauge", "standard gauge" and "broad gauge". I have reverted these. Virtually every reference book, including most of those cited in the article, do not hyphenate these terms and your hyphenation of the terms where used as Wikilinks broke those links. In general it is not a good idea to change the standard usage of terms like this in an article without first discussing the proposed change in the article's talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what you say makes sense. I think in this case the term "narrow gauge" should be used as a complete term as this is the common practice. Anyway, thanks for the response and good luck editing. Best, Gwernol 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britomart

Hi Birdhurst - ignoring our spat about dates for the moment, I see that you worked on the "next station" box - are you involved with the creation of this box, or did you just do a 'drive-by' tweaking?

If you are involved, does this mean that we can now delete the lower three boxes (who only duplicate the one gathered box, really)? Also, would it be possible so that the box is a) alignable to the right, and wraps text? MadMaxDog 11:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo words for snow

Good work on this article. Thanks for the corrections. The article was interesting but was in need of style editing. Berimbau1 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "the" preceeding station names

Referring to your edits made on the Kuala Lumpur Railway Station article, is there any need to avoid the use of "the" ("The XX station...") before the name of a train station? While there are indeed articles which forego the word (i.e. the Pennsylvania Station (New York City), London King's Cross railway station and Flinders Street Station), the Kuala Lumpur Railway Station is officially given a "railway station" suffix as opposed to just "station", the latter possibly meriting the lack of the use of "the", but the former seemingly grammatically incorrect. The inclusion of "the" is relatively harmless, so why the need to remove the word? - Two hundred percent 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting of Metro Light Rail

Thanks for the copyedit. I've been working on this article for a while and have only got that section done, but your edits make it read a lot better. Thanks. JRG 11:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]