This is an archive of past discussions with User:Corinne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ian.thomson I just wondered what you thought of these edits, and the ones just previous to them by the same editor, to Mithraism. After all the changes, I wonder if the only really useful change will turn out be the addition of "Greek/Latin". Are the slight changes in wording an improvement, or not?
Glancing over all the changes (in isolation) before I rush off for lunch, I'd figure "mostly harmless." But you're right about CIMRM. I don't remember the exact link, but IIRC, "first mention should be a spelled out Wikilink" is part of the manual of style. It'd be nice to put the initials after it just to be clear what it is when we use the initials throughout the rest of the article (can't remember if it's in the MOS, probably not forbidden by it). I also see where you're coming from regarding the "Greek/Latin," we should probably be clearer that it is a Latinized form of Ahriman (since the Greek form was the slightly different Areimanios). Otherwise, *shrug*. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Haploidavey Oh, dear. S/He has certainly chosen some arcane subjects to edit. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on this. Thank goodness you noticed; otherwise a lot of science articles would become unreadable. This editor looks like a non-native speaker of English who has a science background, and is well-meaning but does not have an accurate sense of his/her writing abilities. If s/he keeps going, maybe someone needs to drop him/her a note. – Corinne (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Orangutans
EEng I hadn't looked at your user page in a while, so I was looking at the pictures and reading the captions, etc., just now. I noticed that in the caption for the image at the left in the section "Museum of Separated At Birth, Pt. 3", you have "organutans" instead of "orangutans". Given the subject matter of nearby sections, it might have been intentional, but I thought I'd point it out in case it wasn't. Of course, it probably doesn't matter either way... ;) – Corinne (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, congratulations on your sharp eye. You are on my list of Approved and Trusted Talk Page Stalkers, authorized to fix stuff like that on my user page without having to ask. If somehow your change is misguided, rest assured I'll simply set things right with a gentle explanation. Remember, WP:BEBOLD (though it's true that when it comes to an editor's user page, a bit of circumspection needs to be blended in). EEng18:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
EEng What did I write that was so bad that it needed to be reverted in the discussion regarding pull quotes on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Am I not supposed to add comments? Were my comments off-base in some way? Please tell me so I can learn from this. – Corinne (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You're talking about this edit [2]. Well, if you click Next edit you'll see Mirokado immediately reverted his removal of your comment, which must have been inadvertent. EEng02:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Rothorpe Of course you are right; present perfect is needed with "since 2016", so your edit is definitely an improvement, and it reads well. I'm not sure whether "since 2016" is really needed yet since we are still in 2016. If it is removed, then the "currently serves" wording would work. If you or others think the "since 2016" is necessary, then "has served" is correct. The only other possible change – not very different – would be to start the sentence with "since 2016", which I think places less emphasis on the time period and more on the position:
Since 2016 Gregory has served as a CNN political analyst.
Thanks, that's very reassuring. I think 'since 2016' was probably added with the passing of the next six weeks in mind, so I'm inclined to leave it. Rothorpe (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1) The editor changed "274 AD" to {{sm|a.d.}}274. Can you tell me:
(a) What that template is, and
(b) how it represents an improvement?
2) Can you or User:Natalie.Desautels explain something to me? The editor changed "A" to "À", apparently correcting the French. I can understand that. But the editor changed "," to ":" before the final phrase. I thought that "à propos" meant "regarding", but Google translates it as "about". I don't understand the title of the article. Is Paul Fest a person? Why would "about Paul Fest" or even "regarding Paul Fest" be there? Is the change from "," to ":" correct? I cannot access the source. It appears that the editor knows what s/he is doing, and probably has access to the source, but can someone explain the title of this work? It's in Note 31. – Corinne (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(occasional watcher) I've no idea what advantage the template claims to offer; hitherto I've been blissfully unaware of it. A sandbox test produces a small a.d.. Fine, assuming such a thing's ever needed (though the dots are depracated in the current WP:MOS).
Thank you, Haploidavey. I don't think the MOS would recommend the small A.D., but right now I can't find any reference to it. The information about Paul. Fest. is interesting. While I believe I had heard of Festus, I had never heard of Paul the Deacon. I look forward to reading those articles. I think if I had seen periods/full stops after "Paul" and "Fest", I would have realized they were abbreviations, but maybe not what they stood for. Thanks again! – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Baffle gab1978 or Miniapolis, do you know any guideline regarding the use of the small A.D.? I haven't seen it much, and I don't think it should be used, but I can't find anything that covers it. – Corinne (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Aha! I do remember seeing "smallcaps" before. They're used to accurately render unicase Latin text (from inscriptions on monuments - coinage and whatnot); so not a commonplace. See last item at MOS:SMALLCAPS. Haploidavey (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Corinne, been very busy these past few days. Only seeing your message right now. I wouldn't use that template, simply (I guess) because there's no WP that says that it should or has to be used. We want to keep some sort of consistency throughout all articles after all. Thus, in other words, not really an improvement so to say. But definetely an edit made in good faith obviously. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Thank you, Gerda! What a nice surprise! I can't believe two years have passed so quickly. How are doing these days? I don't know any details, but I read a while ago that you were not well. I hope you are feeling and doing better. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit dispute over an inline wiktionary link
Hi Corinne, could you look at this edit in which I reverted the removal of a wiktionary link? I don't understand the other person's point of view, and would be glad of an opinion from a skilled copyeditor such as yourself. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sminthopsis84 I apologize for the delay in responding. I've been a bit busy. I saw your comment and had to give it some thought. I looked in WP:MOS and found a few relevant statements. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, the section called "Overlinking and underlinking", specifically the third bulleted item under "What generally should be linked":
Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwikimedia link to Wiktionary could be used.
The question would be whether the adjective "grisly" could be called a technical term, an example of jargon, or a slang expression or phrase. Unfortunately, I don't think "grisly" falls into any of those categories.
On the other hand, later in this article, in the second paragraph of the section "What generally should not be linked", we read:
A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:
Everyday words understood by most readers in context. (etc.)
The questions here are (a) whether "grisly" can be considered an everyday word, and (b) whether it is "particularly relevant to the context in the article". I think the word is on the broad border between a commonly used word and an unusual word. It's a somewhat unusual word. As for (b), I think "grisly" is "particularly relevant to the context in the article", so on that basis, linking to the Wiktionary entry might be justified.
If you look down lower in this Manual of Style article, you will see a section headed "An example article", shortcut WP:COMMONWORDS. It takes an article and gives examples of what to link and what not to link. The first bulleted item recommends linking terms that are quite technical. The third bulleted item recommends not linking a term ("United States") because that article is too broad and has no direct connection to the topic of this example article (supply and demand). The fourth bulleted item recommends not linking a term ("wheat") that is "a common term with no particular relationship" to the article on supply and demand. We need to look at the second bulleted item:
Consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic.
Because the topic of supply and demand is on a somewhat technical (economic) subject, the phrase "technical dimensions" is important here. In a less technical subject such as politics, I think "technical" can be dispensed with, and we can understand the guideline to say:
Consider linking [these fairly common words] only if they have dimensions/meanings other than the obvious ones that are specifically relevant to the topic.
Then the question is, does the word "grisly", a somewhat unusual (which really also means somewhat common) word, have dimensions or meanings other than the obvious ones that are specifically relevant to the topic? I think the answer is no. "Grisly" means grisly.
Then we ought to consider readership. According to User:Checkingfax,
25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17; 50% between 17 and 35; 25% between 35 and 85.
I think we need to keep that first group in mind as we edit articles, and young readers may not be familiar with "grisly", and not understanding the word may prevent these readers from grasping the full reality of the situation in Bangladesh. The link would definitely help these readers. It would also help non-native speakers of English, of which I suspect there are many among Wikipedia's readers, and I believe you may have had these readers in mind when you added the link, and I can understand that.
So, I think linking "grisly" to the Wiktionary entry is a judgment call here. On the one hand, if we don't link the word, we leave the choice to look the word up in a dictionary or on Wiktionary up to the reader, and we're declining to make it easy for the reader. On the other hand, unless the article is bordering on being over-linked in general, one link to Wiktionary should not be a problem, unless one has a particular objection to adding links to Wiktionary. If it were my choice, I would not link "grisly" to Wiktionary because I think it is common enough that most readers would understand it, and the word is not being used with an unusual meaning. I see that FreeKnowledgeCreator removed "grisly" entirely saying it was "unnecessary editorializing", and I also have to agree with that. I hope this helps. – Corinne (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, thank you Corinne, for a wonderfully thoughtful reply. Those other edits that you made to polish the page are very nice, and would be unlikely to have ever occurred without your efforts (it's nice to see "which" changed to "that" when appropriate!). (I am surprised that the contentious word has now been entirely removed, and am happy to see it so.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne. Have you noticed the extraordinary number of instances of "led" (past tense and past participle of the verb "to lead") mis-spelled as "lead"? Maybe some editors are assuming the verb conjugates like the verb "to read". This mis-spelling is now quite common in other media, even in quality newspapers. I've corrected some hundreds of cases, but I'm sure there must be thousands more. Searching for phrases which are particularly likely to be mis-spelled (such as "was lead", "been lead" and "lead to believe") saves time, but I've just about run out of examples. The next step would have to be a search for just the word "lead", which brings up tens of thousands of hits. Any suggestions? Maybe a bot could identify likely candidates? 185.14.214.94 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, 185 and Rothorpe. I have also noticed that misspelling, and when I come across it, I correct it. I don't know anything about bots. Maybe Redrose64 could help here. I think it would be pretty difficult to develop a bot to correct misspellings of irregular verb forms. First of all, there are regional variations in past tense and past participle forms. Second, unless specific phrases like the ones you mentioned above are included in the code of the bot, how is a bot to figure out whether the past tense or the past participle is needed, which regional form is appropriate, whether the sentence is using the historical present tense even in an article about something from the past, in which case the bot shouldn't correct it to the past tense, etc. It's got to distinguish between main text and a quote, which could contain a tense different from the surrounding sentences, and whether the subjunctive is being used. I'm wondering whether tutorials on how to edit on Wikipedia, and maybe also the WP:Manual of Style – perhaps in the Grammar and usage section – should contain a link to English irregular verbs, in which there is a good list of forms. You could also look at it this way: mistakes like that are another reason why good copy-editors are needed on Wikipedia. – Corinne (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no way this would be approved, as even if you could somehow exclude quotations (which would be a prerequisite and is a lot harder than it sounds) the false-positive rate would be astronomical. (George Harrison was lead guitarist for the Beatles, if the pipe was installed before 1950 it is likely that its lining would have been lead, Brion Vibber was lead developer of Mediawiki, the primary cause of the decline in inland waterfowl populations has been lead poisoning from shotgun pellets.) Even unequivocal typo fixes like "cemetry", "targetted" and "agression" need to be manually reviewed when being fixed as there are occasions when the apparent error is actually correct, let alone a situation like "lead"/"led" where both spellings have multiple meanings and are correct in multiple contexts. The closest thing to a bot you could possibly get approval for would be a WP:AWB script in which you manually reviewed every substitution for context, and even then you'd quite likely find yourself blocked unless you were very careful to check every change. ‑ Iridescent09:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
[Same user as 185.14.214.94 above] I wasn't suggesting using a bot to make any changes itself, rather it would present a list of candidate articles for an editor to review. The simple Wikipedia search process doesn't allow, for example, excluding "a lead", "the lead", "lead" preceded by a number, as in "a 3-2 lead", "lead vocal*", "lead guitar*", "lead role*" (where the asterisk is a wildcard), and many more. A program could use these tests to filter out many correct spellings from the candidates list. The list would still contain many false positives, as did my searches for "was lead", "been lead" etc. There are currently over 300,000 articles containing the word "lead"; it would be utterly impractical to review them all manually. However, if a bot, or some other type of program, could eliminate articles where "lead" is probably the correct spelling, the remainder might be manageable. (I strongly suspect it's impractical, but I thought I'd ask the experts just in case it's not.)
IP 185/87, I appreciate your interest in this problem of mis-spelling, and your wish to find a solution, but I still don't understand how a bot or other program could
eliminate articles where "lead" is probably the correct spelling.
In addition, you think clearly and write well, and you're most welcome here on Wikipedia. Why not register an account and choose a user name so we feel we're talking to a fellow editor? – Corinne (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne. The caps ought to go :-), and if they're book titles they should be in italics (not quotes). All the best, Miniapolis03:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Miniapolis. OMG, I see what you mean. I've been busy, but also taking a break from editing Advaita Vedanta. I really have to avoid fun things and get back to it. – Corinne (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Miniapolis Thanks for taking care of that formatting. I just looked again at the article, and I saw toward the end of the block quote a single quotation mark without its corresponding mark, and I remember (as I was removing a lot of double quotation marks) that the use of both single and double quotation marks within that long block quote was confusing. Can you take a look (when you have time) at what I removed, and see if you think any single quotation marks are needed, and, if so, where to put the missing one? Or do you think all these quotes should be listed separately instead of a long quote with "..." between them? – Corinne (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, Corinne. I will check it out. Thank you. FYI, if you want to mention somebody and link to their user page, but not ping them, you can use the noping template {{noping}} such as this: {{noping|Check Facts}} which will render this: Check Facts. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}06:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 (or any (talk page stalker)) I've just added five images to the top of my talk page. I wonder if there is a way to have the five pictures in a row as they are now, but with the three landscape images larger and the two ceramic images smaller, and with the gray borders around the images as minimized as possible. Kind of like this: A a A a A. I couldn't figure out how to do that. – Corinne (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The disadvantages of {{multiple image}} are that it sets the width absolutely, meaning that if a viewer's browser window is narrower than the total width of the images it will force a scroll-bar, whereas with galleries if the window is too narrow some of the images will move to the next line to free up space; plus, because it works on the basis of telling Mediawiki to display an image at foo proportion of its total size rather than the usual "resize it to this pixel width", should someone upload a better version of the image with twice the resolution, it will display at twice the size. It's not quite what you're looking for, but you can force a row of images to display borderless with mode=packed—see below for an example (resize your browser window and watch the images reshuffle themselves).
Claude Lorrain, Landscape with Apollo Guarding the Herds of Admetus and Mercury Stealing Them (1645)
Blue and white porcelain jar with plum and bamboo design, Joseon dynasty, Korea, 15th century
Jacobus van Looy (1890–95): Café, Franz-Hals-Museum, Haarlem, the Netherlands
Sèvres sucrier (sugar pot) and cover, Bouret shape – c. 1770
Thank you, both. I have moved most of the images on my user page to a subpage that I created, following instructions at WP:User page. Also following those instructions, I created a link to that subpage and placed it on my user page. However, when I click on it, it leads to a long list of articles in WP that contain the name "Corinne". How can I modify the link so that it leads directly to my new subpage? – Corinne (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Soaringbear First, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, there are some things you need to learn about how to post and express comments on an editor's talk page. After I explain a few things about that, I will respond to your concern about my edit to Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes.
1) In the first comment you posted on my talk page, which is this edit, you left your comment at the top of my talk page. You should have left it at the bottom of the talk page. You should have started a new section (since there was no section about that article on the talk page), with a heading. You create a heading on a talk page by clicking on "New section" at the top of the talk page and typing a heading of your choice in the empty bar at the top of the edit window. In addition, you should have provided a link to the edit in question for convenient reference. Lastly, you neglected to sign your comment by typing in four tildes. Here is a tilde: ~ That will automatically enter your user name and the date and time of your edit when you save your edit. Also, you really ought to try to be a bit more courteous. Saying an editor's edit is "senseless" is getting a little close to commenting on the editor rather than focusing on the edit itself. All you have to do is say that you don't understand my edit or my edit summary and politely ask for a reason or explanation. Courtesy goes a long way on Wikipedia. When Redrose64 undid your edit, s/he provided an edit summary that said to read WP:TPG. If you clicked on that link, you would have found a whole page about how to leave and respond to comments on talk pages. If you haven't yet read that page, I urge you to read it. I see in your second edit that you learned to sign your comment. I did not respond to the first comment because I've been busy, not because I was ignoring you.
2) When I saw your edit to Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes, I was looking at it in the article's revision history, where you see two columns, one on the left showing the previous version and one on the right showing the new version. I realized after I saved my edit that I had mis-read it because I did not see the period/full-stop before the "sfn" reference template, nor the capital "i" in "In", so I read it as: "During the government of Juan Jose Arevalo, Ydígoras had been linked to several of the 25 attempted coups during 1945-51 in the 1950 Guatemalan presidential election." So, the mis-reading (and thus my edit summary) was a mistake on my part, and I was planning to write you a note about that, but I've been so busy I haven't had time to edit on WP for a few days, so I apologize for that. But, after I saved my edit and realized my mistake, and regretted my edit summary, I thought that perhaps the addition of the details at that early point in the article was not such a good idea. I thought it was just the lead, and that the details were really about Juan Jose Arevalo more than about Ydígoras Fuentes, and the article is about Ydígoras Fuentes, so I thought those details were better introduced in a more in-depth section later in the article. That's why I didn't undo my edit. I didn't even see that this was not the lead of a longer article until today. You can see from the article's talk page that this article is a stub, which means it's just the barest of details about the man. It needs development, and could very well be developed into a more thorough article if someone takes the time to find, add, and organize relevant information from reliable sources. If you are interested in the topic, perhaps you could develop this article. If you haven't yet written an article for Wikipedia, this could be your first one. See WP:ARTICLE, and the menu of related articles at the right-hand side. Or, you might suggest it as an article to be improved at WP:TAFI. So, I apologize for my edit summary. I should have looked at it more carefully before I made my edit. If you disagree with me, go ahead and put the information back in. Sometimes editors make mistakes and it can be resolved with a courteous exchange. I hope you continue to enjoy editing on Wikipedia. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I see my edit has been undone with the pretty much the same edit summary as before. It almost looks as if the editor never even read what I wrote here. Whatever. It's not that important. – Corinne (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough and comprehensive copyediting. I think, the article is ready now for GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I tried to add the GOCE template {{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date={{subst:date}}}} after that last WikiProject, but couldn't get it so that it is hidden and shows "Show" at the right side like the others, without the DYK thing at the end disappearing. What is that "1" at the end of the WikiProject banner shell? – Corinne (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Help:Gallery tag#Captions has an example of how to align the captions left (the gallery doesn't have to be packed, but it looks nice). Even I could do it, and I clutch up at HTML :-); since I was in edit mode anyway, I did it. Don't know if {{GOCE}} works with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, because I always add it separately. That |1= just starts the banner list. All the best, Miniapolis02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 I wanted to add the GOCE template, and have it hidden like the other WikiProject banners above it, so I just added it. I took away the "1" because I thought that was what was making the last line go away yesterday when I tried to add the GOCE template but didn't because it didn't look right, but when I saved my edit just now, the last line, the Did you know nomination template, disappeared. It's still there in edit mode, but it doesn't appear. Can you take a look and see what I've done and whether something needs to be changed? Thank you. – Corinne (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 I just finished copy-editing Iazyges for Iazyges, who has just left this kind note for me. When I left both the standard GOCE message about a completed copy-edit and a follow-up note on User Talk:Iazyges/Archives/2016/November#Iazyges, I noticed that the GOCE message and my follow-up note appeared at the bottom of the talk page, quite far from the heading "Iazyges". Perhaps Iazyges does not mind this look, but I wonder if you might make a suggestion or two about ways to bring the content closer to its section heading, which is a more normal arrangement. Thanks in advance. – Corinne (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 Oh, sorry. TAFI stands for "Today's articles for improvement". If you click on the link in that heading at the top of this page, "article for improvement", it leads to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement, which, if you're signed up, regularly sends out articles that have been selected because they need improvement. At the top right corner of that page, you'll see that the shortcut link is WP:TAFI. Regarding the rest, thank you. I was hoping for some magic glue, but I guess there is none. Magic glue – Corinne (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent example below. The heading "This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2016)" follows this post directly, but the blue box is pushed down by this image. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax or an (talk page stalker)s, I just finished making some copy-edits to William Ellery Channing. I may try to break up a few long sentences, but in the meantime, I need help with references. Since I believe the MOS in general discourages mentioning the titles of sources in the article text itself, I removed one source in this edit, in the "Later years" section (note the tag), but I don't know how to add it to the references. I left the pages numbers there in the text; I guess those should be removed, too. Also, I notice that a reference just before that is an external link, but I don't know what to do with that. I won't edit the article for a while, so feel free to work on it (or, if you have the patience, explain it to me, but I'd just as soon not have to do it). ;) Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Iridescent Well, I've made more edits since I posted the above comment, but the page numbers are still there. I didn't want to remove them and have them disappear, since they would be useful in the reference. Can you help me with this reference issue? Also, if you're interested, see User talk:Rothorpe#William Ellery Channing. Finally, I noticed on the article's talk page Talk:William Ellery Channing that the article is Start-class. I was wondering whether, now that it has been copy-edited, it could be moved up a bit. (I see, though, that there is a tag about half-way through the article that citations are needed.) – Corinne (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Parenthetical referencing—which is what we have here—looks horrible, but it is one of Wikipedia's approved citation styles, and per this when it's used, we're supposed to include the page numbers. (I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep about whether an article is B, C, or Start class. The quality and importance scales are a vestige of a long-abandoned project to produce print and CD-ROM versions of Wikipedia, when the WMF wanted a metric to determine which articles were worthy of inclusion in situations when space was limited; with the sole exception of FA determining whether something can appear as TFA, the quality scale has absolutely no impact on anything any more.) ‑ Iridescent14:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Iridescent Oh. I hadn't seen that style of referencing on WP. I agree that it looks horrible. Considering that this article needed a lot of work, perhaps no one cares at this point which style is used. Can we change it over to one of the other styles? If so, I would need help; I don't know much about referencing. If not, I guess I have to put back in what I took out in one of my first edits yesterday (which would be right where those pages numbers are). – Corinne (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64, and of course Iridescent. I looked at Actuary, then went back to look at what I had removed in this edit. I'm not an expert regarding references, but it seems to me that what I removed did not look anything like the references in Actuary. I had changed this:
Channing, however, has been described as a "romantic racist" in "Black Abolitionism: A Quest for Human Dignity" by Beverly Eileen Mitchell (133–38).
to this:
Channing has, however, been described as a "romantic racist" by Beverly Eileen Mitchell (133–38).
I left the pages numbers in because I didn't know what to do with them and didn't want to lose them in the revision history, and because I intended to ask for help. That is the only title I removed. Also, I do not see any parenthetical referencing in this article. So, if this article is using one of the more usual referencing styles, (a) do you agree the title does not belong in the text of the article? and (b) can someone help put the author, title, publisher, and page numbers in the right format? Maybe I'll learn something about references from this. – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne. Apologies for the delay in getting to this. I have fixed it up with this edit to create a footnote and to reintroduce some of the metadata. In the next edit I removed the extra full stop I introduced. Let me know what you think, and of course if you think it should be in double quote marks, go for it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
A bit of help with a new editor
Hi! I saw you were a coordinator on the guild of copyeditors and that you have ESL experience on your user page. Would you mind chiming in on my talk page for The Truth of Muhammad. A new editor is taking issues with some of edits I made to his prose to make it readable. The article is at AfD now, but the claim is that it is an Arabic concept that doesn't have many English-language sources. I !voted delete at the AfD, but want to try to make it look as good as possible so the author has a shot of explaining why they think it should be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
TonyBallioni I looked at the article, the recent revision history, and the exchange on your talk page. I think you made valiant efforts both in your edits and in your replies on your talk page, and your desire to help the editor avoid having the article deleted is commendable. I'm pretty good at figuring out what non-native speakers of English are trying to say, but in this case – partly because I know nothing about the subject matter and partly because the editor's command of English is weak – I cannot figure it out. If I worked on the article, trying to form grammatical sentences that made sense, I would be merely guessing. I am always happy to work with someone who needs some help formulating ideas, but in this case I think the editor's command of English is so weak, and the editor's attitude is such that working together to improve the prose would be a difficult task, at least for me. Perhaps an editor with greater knowledge of the subject matter would have more success. I could search for someone who could help, but this editor also could do that. If you see another article being written or worked on by a non-native speaker of English and you think I might be able to help, please do not hesitate to ask me. – Corinne (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Florian Blaschke -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Leopard, and I was puzzled by the material in the new version. I was wondering if you could explain to me what IPAc is, and why the sounds are separated by pipes. Those are not syllables, so how does the separation with pipes help someone with pronunciation? – Corinne (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The pipes in the template separate phonemes, not syllables. When the reader hovers over the sounds with a mouse cursor, separate tooltips are shown for each (for the benefit of readers not acquainted with IPA). See {{IPAc-en}}. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, after several attempts I had made, I was unable to persuade your friend Florian Blaschke to come to the talk page to discuss. I generally find the talk page a much better method of communication than doing so via edit summary. I created a new section at the bottom of the talk page specifically to discuss the introduction section. Additionally, after the edits by your friend Florian Blaschke, I changed my edit style and I made quite detailed use of edit summaries to explain each and every single copy edit improvement I had made to the introduction section. I did these individually one-by-one so as to better explain myself to your friend Florian Blaschke and to others. I had hoped that this method would allow us all to more easily discuss each copy edit improvement individually. Maybe you can come to the talk page and perhaps discuss ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, I am glad to have your interest and I would be happy to discuss with you on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, that would be difficult to do if you and Florian Blaschke continue to ignore me. Could we please discuss at the article's talk page? Sagecandor (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, could you please at least acknowledge that your revert undid content changes and not just copy editing at [3] and [4] that I had done? Perhaps that was an oversight on your part? Maybe instead of the revert you used, you could have copy edited yourself in a new pass of copy editing to the introduction section instead of reverting? Sagecandor (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
In the grand scheme of things, the copy editing part should really be no big deal. Sorry if I blew it out of proportion. Thanks for your interest and I sincerely hope in the future we can engage in a more active, polite, and fruitful give and take discussion.
Ssven2 Congratulations! That's quite an achievement. Welcome back! I'd be glad to copy-edit your article, but as you can see, there are quite a few articles in line before yours, and I don't think it would be fair to accept a recently posted request before taking care of some of the others first. When your articles gets closer to the top of the line, or queue, I'll keep an eye out for it. – Corinne (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
EEng I was just skimming your talk page for the first time in a while, and enjoying all the wit. I thought you might enjoy the edit summary for this edit. Is that normal language for repairing a dead link, or is this an unusual way to say it? I hadn't seen anything like this edit summary before, and I thought it was funny. – Corinne (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!
Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!
September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).
October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.
November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.
Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.
Hawkeye7 What do you think about this edit to Richard Feynman? The editor characterizes M. G-M's comments about R.F. as a "personal attack", but if it is factual, and relevant, shouldn't it stay in the article? Have you been reviewing all the other edits by the same editor? I thought the article was in pretty good shape a few months ago. – Corinne (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Claude Lorrain, Landscape with Apollo Guarding the Herds of Admetus and Mercury Stealing Them (1645)
Blue and white porcelain jar with plum and bamboo design, Joseon dynasty, Korea, 15th century
Jacobus van Looy (1890–95): Café, Franz-Hals-Museum, Haarlem, the Netherlands
Sèvres sucrier (sugar pot) and cover, Bouret shape – c. 1770
Jichang Garden in Wuxi, China (1506–1521)
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
