Jump to content

User talk:Philg88/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Red is enough for WV

we need not for every country an own article for World Vision. A RED is enough 92.252.67.255 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that now - it would have helped if you'd made a similar comment to the one above on your edit before I reverted it. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
it's to much to have for each charity organisation own articles in all countries of the world. That's stupid 92.252.67.255 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There would be an article World Vision in Chile, World Vision in Bulgaria, and so on. ONE article for a charity organisation is enough ! 92.252.67.255 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree with you — that's why I rolled back my revert. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Screwed up trying to edit

I just received a message because I screwed up an attempted edit of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

I don't know how to bring this issue to someone's attention but the person listed on the right side of the page as the 'current pretender' is just a woman who runs her only little religious group/cult and thinks she is bringing back the ancient Egyptian religion. She is in no way the pretender to the Egyptian throne. Her reference is her own website which is listed in the footnotes.

I really think her name should be taken out. It's really the equivalent of anyone putting their name in as the pretender. 76.122.134.129 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I will undo my revert. Best, Philg88

Don't undo it

You can't put it back to what I did because I screwed up the edit. I must have taken too much out and screwed up the page. I was hoping to just bring the issue to your attention because I'm having too difficult of a time editing it myself. Maybe someone else needs to take a look at the issue and decide if the info I wrote about should be there or not. 76.122.134.129 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the infobox is fixed. I will have a quick look at the content now. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the information about the pretender per you original intention. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 02:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

whats up

why you delete my edit?

Because you added "HELLO Ricky Mtz WAS HERE LIONEL MESSI!!! :D" to the end of the Alligator snapping turtle article. This is vandalism If you continue to add nonsense to Wikipedia articles you will be blocked. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

yo

philg88 how do you respond so quickly!?!? Wicked!

70.124.0.91 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

El Salvador national football team season 2011

The season overview section is written out in lists which is not good for GA nominations (goal). If anyone could help me out make look more like 2010–11 FC Barcelona season or 2009–10 York City F.C. season. Thanks. Jaime070996 03:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm a bit busy with another major copyedit right now. I see you have also posted this request at the WP:GOCE requests page so don't worry, it will be taken care of in due course. Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Happy editing! Jaime070996 03:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Opium War

Thanks for the good words -- I'm trying to make these articles even handed, which is sometimes tricky! ch (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Andhra

I see that you took lead to wikify Andhra page. Please look into talk page (about topics Andhra definition, edit war, proposal) before wikifying it. There is a talk of merging pages or moving pages etc. I just want to give you heads up, so that your efforts will not go waste. I spent so much time on this page before it was replaced completely by another user(started edit war). Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up, much appreciated. I came across the article by accident and fixed up the lead because it looked bad. When I get a minute I will take a look at the talk page and contribute my two annas worth. Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 20:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kerry Katona

I think that i am right and you are wrong and also that i was extremely right in changing the article

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

this is the reason i give for your aggressiveness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.102.134 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is Kerry Katona and you changed the infobox to Kerry Hunter with no comment or reference. That is vandalism QED. What an earth the words of Martin Luther King have to do with this is beyond me. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Builder Broker

hello - I have read all of your articles for the start up pags, I have looked at every page and no where is this whle large industry represented. There is a need for this information to be placed into the enclopedia / wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole2H (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the article about spam, for that is what the article is. You are asking people to pay to join an organisation that is not notable and (aside from the organisation's own web site) unreferenced. Pray tell me, why on earth would that justify inclusion in Wikipedia? ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point and I totally agree, if that was what I was going to do, but I an assure you from being a editior with MOZ that is def not my intentions. I have justified the reasons on the Talk Page - reason for non deletion. The reference is about the industry as a whole, same as the reference and article about the estate agents, to which was my reference point. Please see the talk page for total references and justification on why this industry needs to be located into this. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole2H (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been retagged which will avoid speedy deletion and should give you time to knock it into shape. Good luck! ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Conversion of St Paul edit removed

Was simply pointing out that actually it is probably more correct to talk of Paul as called rather than converted (in line with an essay by Stendahl and Paul's own language about the event- was about to work out citation but added the edit without as I have never done a wikipedia edit before and was unsure how) the information is legitimate and in line with scholarly thought so not sure why removed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.177.217 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It was reverted because the title of the article is Conversion of Paul the Apostle and the lead section should match the title. If you can get concensus on the article's talk page then by all means move it to "Calling of Paul the Apostle". ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Re-verted

This template was added to User;Blue Square Thing as the page in question contained rubbish and should be speedey deleted or looked at by a administrater. (Sidessneck (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)0

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. User pages do not usually qualify for speedy deletion and as far as I can see User:Blue Square Thing does not contain rubbish. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 01:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenfield Reservoir (Hainan)

Am I close with the name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get "Greenfield" from? It's the Songtao Reervoir according to official sources. Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources seem to say that. This one seems most credible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that site calls it the "Songtao Reservoir Irrigation Area" whereas "Songtao Reservoir" is more concise. This is a similar issue to the one regarding cave names, i.e. use pinyin whenever possible. "松涛" doesn't mean "greenfield" anyway, it translates roughly as "Rolling wave" but that's an arbitary translation by me and hence irrelevent. My preference is for "Songtao Resrvoir". BTW, did you get my email about the map with the airport symbol? Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. I will move the page to Songtao Reservoir, and happily. I wasn't happy with Greenfield because of the dab "(Hainan)" at the end. Should I completely remove mention of Greenfield from the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine idea. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 08:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New Hainan map (redux)

I got the symbols. That looks better. Yours has colour and background. How would you feel about me sending you the image with the airport symbols in place, needing only the addition of the missing cities? I can send you the dots and you place them? If you're too busy, I will give it a shot.

You mentioned the black lettering being too hard to see. I cannot find a single map anywhere with lettering that's not black. We might have to lump that one. Other than that, I just realized that the map source can provide roads. I might start over. No biggie, it was a learning experience. What sayeth thee? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, send it - can you do so in Photoshop format? Is it layered? I will also redo the roads in Adobe Illustrator so that they look more "map like" i.e. with different coloured edges which is not possible in Photoshop or GIMP unless you have the patience of a saint—looking in the mirror I see no halo. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 08:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this If you click map on the right, you can get the roads. Suitable?
No. The image is just a bmp.
What I need is someone to walk me through the process of making a map by tracing another. I have GIMP. I can make a layer and trace stuff. Then I can save the layer in some xclsx whatever gimp format that saves the layers. I can then clumsily fit the layer onto a new alpha in WPPaint (don't laugh). That's basically all I can figure out. I have trouble with a couple of things:
  • Moving the layer around over the new alpha and adjusting its size.
  • Adding a layer and making it somewhat transparent so I can trace elements of the alpha underneath.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, mapsforfree is having trouble displaying topo colour format (like the one in the article) at closeup zoom. It's not the firewall here. It's them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For tracing purposes you will need to learn to use the "pen" tool which takes a bit of practice to get the hang of. As for layers, you can adjust the opacity in the layers panel. I would really recommend that you get hold of a copy of Photoshop. There are a billion tutorials for it out there.

As you say, there is a problem with maps for free right now so I can't get what I need. Do you have the original bare topo map that I could work from? Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Philg88. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it thanks, there's a fair lick of work to do on the map so it will be a few days in the making. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting

I'm sure your copyediting is done with the best of intentions, but I think you need to become more familiar with the manual of style and keep an eye out for changing the meaning of what is written. Also, some changes at Castles in Great Britain and Ireland seem unnecessarily invasive without improving what is written. I think it is important to respect a writer's style; just because they have written something in a different way to how someone else might does not necessarily mean one needs to change as each may be equally valid. This ties in to allowing the writer's voice to come through the article. I've undone some of the changes you've made, and will provide a few examples of the reasoning behind my reversion.

  • You changed "Although a small number of castles had been built in England in the 1050s" to "Although a small number of similar structures were built in England during the 1050s". This implied that the structures built in England in this period were not castles. As the section Anglo-Saxon fortifications says, there were indeed castles so this change altered the meaning of the sentence, whether it was intentional or not.
  • You changed "During the 12th century, the Normans began to build more castles in stone" to "During the 12th century, the Normans built more castles of stone". The change from imperfect tense to perfect meant that the bit about more stone castles suddenly became restricted to the 12th century when it was actually the beginning of a process of building predominantly in stone that went on for centuries.
  • Here you added an endash into a word. Hyphens (-) rather than dashes (–) are used for prefixes, homographs, and compound modifiers per WP:HYPHEN.
  • You changed "Second World War" to "World War II"; "Second World War" is more common in British English and per WP:ENGVAR should be preferred in an article of this kind.
  • "Who's" is a contraction of "who is" or "who has" [1], the word you were looking for is "whose" [2].

These are only a sample of the problems. Many of your changes were an improvement, fixing typos dabing links etc, but I'd encourage you to in future be more circumspect in your copyediting. Nev1 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Since you consider my copyediting sub-standard I will proceed no further on the article. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Any chance you might reconsider this copyedit Phil? I have known Nev1 for over three years through the Greater Manchester and MilHist projects, as well as other areas, and would say that I believe his intentions here are nothing more than trying to help get a good copyedit and to ask for more leniency when it comes to individual writing styles and particular variations.
Obviously I do not want to tread on any toes or open wounds and if there is not an intent to continue, or a reply by tomorrow morning, I will take over the article copyedit later by tomorrow mid-day. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no problem with you taking over the copyedit. I had hardly begun it before I received Nev1's message and I felt it was a little bit harsh, as I've had nothing but compliments for my other copyedits. Please see my comment on the article talk page. At 15,000 words I think it's too long for WP:GA. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I did make a comment on the whole issue of article length, especially the 2.5 page long bibliography! If you feel there is no way to find common ground on the copy0edit then I will of course be happy to take the task on. If you decide that you want to try again, then no worries as I am going off for something to eat before a couple-of-hours-long copy-edit on Corruption in India which may be a little bit of a headache lol. That should mean I would be ready to start on the castles article around 01:00 UTC if you are still reluctant :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in the middle of copyediting Clint Eastwood right now which will probably take the rest of the day (6:00 am here now) so enjoy your food and enjoy the castles! Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid is partly correct about in that I am asking for some flexibility in allowing for individual style; some of the alterations seemed not to improve or degrade what was written, but just change it for the sake of change. But, far more important was the issue of changing the meaning of what is written. I gave a couple of examples above, but could give more. If you're unsure as to what is meant, then by all means ask but some of the changes were concerning. Not all of them were problematic, I just highlighted some of the ones that were. It's not a judgement on all of Philg88's copyediting, just what I saw in relation to this article. Maybe he was having a bad day; hell, I had to copy edit my own message here. My intention was to encourage Philg88 to be more cautious. IMO Hchc2009 is quite a good writer, and most of the copy editing that needs to be done to their articles are to ensure they conform with WP:MOS and to watch out for typos, missing words and the like. What's needed is a scalpel rather than a hammer.
The issue of length is a separate issue and not what I came here about. Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair points Nev, maybe a bad day and a clash of styles. Now, where did I put that scalpel :) ► Philg88 ◄ talk 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that adding external links to the fashion blog topic (including the blogs mentioned in the wikipedia article) would be beneficial to the information content of the page. Some people might have wanted an easy link to said fashion blogs, and were not easily provided with them. -- Yet the change was reverted. Am I mistaken by this reasoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.166.189 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't revert the edit but had I seen it I would have. Please takes a look at the Wikipedia guideline on external links. None of the links you added meet the requirement and were hence reverted. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 21:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philg88/Archive_10&oldid=425960794"