User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Benedict Anderson

Hello, Rothorpe - I was just reading the article Benedict Anderson (saw it listed on the Main page). I've made some copy-edits, but I just don't feel like reading more. I've gotten about halfway through Benedict Anderson#Imagined Communities if you feel like taking over. I came across one sentence that needs some fixing. Perhaps you can figure it out. It's the first sentence in that section:

• Anderson is best known for his 1983 book, Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, in which he examined how nationalism led to the creation of nations as the title imagined communities.

I feel that the last phrase, "as the title imagined communities", is not right. The easiest thing would be just to remove it. Another possibility is to leave a comment on the article's talk page. I'll leave this up to you. I've got to work on a TFA summary. Corinne (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, thanks. I've been bold. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Rothorpe as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. And a happy Zergvloov to you too! Rothorpe (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Rothorpe: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Many thanks, and happy everything to you too! Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Feliz Natal, Boas Festas! Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Lord of Misrule

I was just reading the article on Lord of Misrule, and I made a few copy-edits. I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) Right after the long block quotes, right after "Honest farmers", there is a short blockquote. It had been sandwiched together with the previous blockquote, but, since part of it is not a quote, I thought it ought to be separated from the previous quote. But now, there is no citation after it. I think it's the same source, but I'm not sure. Can you figure out what to put there?

If I understand rightly, I don't think there needs to be anything. It's understood that there was an interruption, which includes footnote 7, and then continued, which is also from Asterius, note number 6.

2) A little further down, there is another long paragraph that starts, "However, according to the anthropologist James Frazer". At the end of the paragraph, it looks like the source is simply put into parentheses. I don't think that's the right format for a reference, but I don't know how to fix it. Do you? Corinne (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have seen these in-text parenthetical references before, and I think they are regarded as acceptable, though I don't remember what differentiates them from ones that need to be footnoted (if I ever knew). Perhaps ask on the talk page? Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow. Corinne (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dennis Price, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Avengers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Rothorpe! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, same to you! Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

David Bohm

Hello, Rothorpe -- I've been reading and copy-editing the article on David Bohm. I think you'd find it interesting. I'm about half-way through the article. I wanted to ask you about the last sentence in the section David Bohm#Further interests:

• Of Bohm's view of the interconnectedness of mind and matter, at occasion summarized as "Even the electron is informed with a certain level of mind", Gardner said that Bohm "flirted with panpsychism".

I paused at "at occasion". Is that a phrase you've heard before? I've never heard it. In my experience, it is always "on occasion" (meaning occasionally, sometimes). If you say it's a common phrase, of course I'll leave it. Corinne (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No way, please do change it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few twiddles. Rothorpe (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I had forgotten to make that correction, so I'm glad you got to it. "On one occasion" is good. In the other edit, of course "a" was needed before "critique". In your edit summary you suggested "commented critically", I believe, as an alternative to "expressed a critique". While a verb is usually better than a verb plus a noun, I think the adverb "critically" hints at negative criticism unnecessarily. I think either "commented on" or "critiqued" would be all right, or maybe "expressed his views of/on". I think "expressed a critique" is wordy and needs to be replaced with something. Corinne (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

My line of thought expanded! I think 'critiqued' is normal as a verb nowadays (I used to think it a bit mannered) so I'd go with that. Rothorpe (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sol Invictus

In the caption of the second image in Sol Invictus, shouldn't "wellbeing" be changed to "well-being"? Corinne (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The hyphenated version is more readable, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I was just looking at the latest edit to this article [1]. While the previous version was not good, to me this sentence is overly wordy and does not make sense (even apart from the added information in parentheses). Can you figure out what ought to be said here? Corinne (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Among scholars who think that the birth of Jesus was put on 25 Dec, in order for it to be celebrated near the winter solstice (21 Dec), as opposed to the view that his conception and death both occurred on 25 Mar, some reject the idea that this choice..." No, I don't see a real contrast between the date of birth in the first part and that of death in the second. Is the 25 coincidence supposed to be significant? And the blockquote is only about Christmas. Is that how you see it? Rothorpe (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Oceanides

I was looking at the articles on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page, and I saw an article that didn't have many comments from reviewers, The Oceanides, so I decided to read it. I've only read part of it so far, maybe about half. It's quite well written, but I have come across two things I wanted to ask you about:

1) Toward the end of the first paragraph in the section The Oceanides#Final version is the following sentence:

• Although Sibelius was prone to revise his compositions, such effort was usually undertaken when preparing a piece for publication or after having heard it first performed in concert.

I'm wondering: shouldn't it be "was prone to revising"? "Although Sibelius was prone to revising his compositions..."

Yes. A touch of translationese here perhaps, and...

2) In the middle of the first paragraph in the section The Oceanides#Initial and intermediate versions is the following sentence:

• A trip to Berlin in January 1914 followed, and Sibelius' diary and correspondence indicate the Stoeckel commission was at the fore of his mind; an initial plan to set Rydberg's poem Fantasos and Sulamit subsequently was discarded.

Is "the fore of his mind" correct? I had never heard that before. I thought it was "at the forefront of his mind". Corinne (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

...here too; yes, do change both. Rothorpe (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

...It's a great piece, by the way. Rothorpe (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wallpaper group

I just came across an interesting article, Wallpaper group, in case you hadn't seen it. Corinne (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks, I'm fascinated by and ignorant of symmetry. Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms

Hello, Rothorpe -- I'm beginning a copy-edit of A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms, and I've got to ask you about something. Early in the lede, it says "a nearly-life-size peasant market scene". I know that's the way we say it, but I'm wondering whether the first hyphen, after "nearly", should be there. According to MOS:HYPHEN, point #3, fourth bulleted item, normally, ly-adverbs are not hyphenated "unless they form part of a compound", and "a slowly-but-surely strategy" is given as an example. Is "a nearly-life-size peasant market scene" the kind of compound they're referring to, or should it be written "a nearly life-size peasant market scene"? I'm inclining to the latter, but I'm not sure. Corinne (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, tricky. But 'slowly but-surely strategy' is obviously wrong, unlike 'nearly life-size', so I think this is an example of the kind the MOS is referring to that's better without the hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was an example where the hyphen would be used after "slowly". (You left the hyphen out when you typed it.) I'll have to go back and read that again. I decided to take the entire phrase out of the lead. In fact, I've done extensive edits to the article since I left this comment. I have another question for you, though. Here is the second sentence of the lead as it is now:

• A large painting, it depicts a peasant market scene, with an abundance of life-size meats and other foods.

Do you think it should be "life-sized meats"? I notice that the final "d" is often left off now in popular media, but shouldn't we be correct in WP articles? Corinne (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I deliberately left the hyphen out, yes, to show it was wrong: *slowly but-surely strategy. However, I'm changing my mind on the general point. I think 'nearly-life-size' should remain as a compound adjective modifying 'peasant market scene'. Otherwise it's 'nearly life-size peasant', which is not quite what is meant. Rothorpe (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do prefer 'life-sized'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks for explaining. Well, "nearly-life-size peasant market scene" is no longer there. If I put it back in, I'll remember to put the hyphen after "nearly". I'm glad you agree regarding "life-sized". Corinne (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Evelyn Underhill

I think I read this article on Evelyn Underhill once, but I'm reading it again. I want to ask you about a sentence. It's the last sentence of the first paragraph:

• The meaning of these experiences became a lifelong quest and a source of private angst, provoking her to research and write.

What do you think of the word "provoking"? I thought "inspiring" might be better. Then I thought, does the meaning of the experiences provoke or inspire to research and write, or do the experiences themselves provoke or inspire? I even wonder whether the meaning or the experiences were a source of private angst, but that's harder to decide. I'm wondering whether the whole sentence should be reconfigured. Any ideas? Corinne (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I like it as it is. 'Provoking' goes better next to 'angst'. I don't think you need worry about the agent of the quest ("find the meaning of the experiences"). Rothorpe (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Camaldolese

I had never heard of this group before, the Camaldolese. You'll see that I changed "ca." to "c.", but I don't know if I should have added a space before the en-dash between the two dates. Corinne (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine. Rothorpe (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it needs a space, so I added one. I saw a similar date range, with "c.", at Meister Eckhart. Corinne (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's nicely balanced now. Rothorpe (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Meister Eckhart

Dear Rothorpe -- I just spent about 40 minutes copy-editing Meister Eckhart. I thought nobody would be copy-editing it, so I didn't save a few edits at a time. Then, when I went to save, I saw edit conflict, and checked and saw that you had made one edit. I hope you don't mind that I saved all my edits, kind of overriding yours. It would have taken me another 40 minutes to re-do all my work. I'd be glad to re-do your edit now, if I can figure out what it is, or perhaps you wouldn't mind re-doing your edit. I hope you'll understand. Thanks. Corinne (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I found and fixed the spaces around the dashes. Did I fix all of them? Corinne (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course that's no problem at all. Relax! Happy New Year's Eve Eve! ... Ah, edit conflct, anyway, no problem, I'll redo my edit if necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hafspajen. Happy 2016 to you too! Rothorpe (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Wishing you a Happy, Healthy 2016!

– Corinne (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Corinne. Looking forward to further enjoyable editing with you. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hadrian

Thanks for answering my question at Cerme's talk page. I have another question for you. Is this heading formatted correctly?

Hadrian#Africa, Parthia and Anatolia ; Antinous (123-124)

I know there should be an en-dash between the years. I just saw that now. But besides that, should there be a semi-colon in a section heading? If so, should there be a space before it? Corinne (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the semi-colon, but there should be no espace à la française. Rothorpe (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that French punctuation style? Corinne (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, French has very odd punctuation (to go with the pronunciation?). Rothorpe (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hadrian 2

Hello, Rothorpe -- I have just about finished a through copy-edit of Hadrian. I have a question for you – not anything momentous, just a question of style:

In the second paragraph in the section Hadrian#Hadrian and Judea; Second Roman–Jewish War and Jewish persecution (132–136) is the following sentence:

• According to a midrashic tradition, he first showed himself sympathetic to the Jews, allegedly planning to have the city rebuilt and allowing the rebuilding of the Temple, but when told by Samaritans that it would be the cause for much sedition, he changed his mind.

In the last part of the sentence is the phrase, "the cause for much sedition", I was wondering about the preposition "for". I thought perhaps it should be "of", but I thought I'd ask you what you thought. To me, "the cause for" sounds a little odd (except in an expression like "a cause for concern"). Perhaps "the catalyst for", or some other word that goes with "for"? Or does "a cause for sedition" sound all right to you? Corinne (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I picked that bit out correctly as your cause for concern. 'Catalyst' is excellent, 'a catalyst for much sedition' sounds fine to me. Rothorpe (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you! How about if I leave out "much": "a catalyst for sedition"? Corinne (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, no need to overdo the sedition. Rothorpe (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Bailey Marquis

Rothorpe, what do you think of the many edits to Thomas Bailey Marquis made by an editor, ending with [2]? I think some are an improvement, but others take the color out of the prose and make it very dry and bare. Corinne (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your description. The edit summary 'tighten' for a change from 'though' to that overused word 'however'? Some are OK, but a fan of 'simple English', I fear. Rothorpe (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

In another article, I had changed some "although's" and "however's" to "though's", and they were changed back. When I raised the issue, I argued that "though" was perfectly acceptable and that it sped up the flow of the sentence and drew less attention to itself than "although". I was told that "though" is no longer used in British English, and that it was an Americanism! I deplore the lack of variety in WP prose. I only see "although" and "however". I never see "though" or "even though", and rarely see "nevertheless". Spinningspark what do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You're so right. 'Though' is often the ideal solution. Rothorpe (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad you agree. I will come to you the next time someone changes "though" (when it's just the right word -- of course not to be overused) back to "although". Now, regarding the dry bones editing, how much effort should we put into resisting it? Shall we discuss it with the editor? Change a few of those edits back? I'm all for conciseness, but not dry, colorless writing that is so spare that it's uninteresting. Corinne (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be wary of confronting the editor. Maybe there's a third way with some of those edits. But change back if need be. Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on the "though" issue, although I'm not inclined to start a fight over it personally. It is certainly not an Americanism, it sounds perfectly natural to my Britsh ear. If you feel strongly, you could revert and under the WP:BRD principle it is then for the other editor to argue a case. I think you have a more important point on the "dry" nature of some of those edits, that last one you linked is a prime example. It completely loses the flavour of Liberty thinking that even Marquis' most wild idea is worth investigating. This is all too common on Wikipedia—sacrificing meaning for the sake of standardisation. The FA criteria requiring "brilliant prose" has always made me laugh, no one will ever get brilliant prose past an FA review, they want dry boring prose.

This conversation would be better moved to the article talk page SpinningSpark 09:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Spinningspark, for your thoughts. I will move this to the article's talk page if Rothorpe concurs. I just want to clarify that my comment about the replacing of "though" with "although" was with regard to a different article. Corinne (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, do move it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Passenger pigeon

Rothorpe, I have just started reading Passenger pigeon in order to copy-edit the article in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. In the second paragraph of the lead is the following sentence:

• The female was 38 to 40 cm (14.9 to 15.7 in), and was duller and more brown than the male overall.

Do you notice "duller and more brown"? I always thought "brown" was a "short adjective": brown - browner - brownest. I looked it up in Wiktionary and found that either "browner" or "more brown" is correct. Don't you think "browner" sounds better: "duller and browner"? What do you think? Corinne (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't all one-syllable adjectives have -er forms? Anyway, browner is less dull! Rothorpe (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to "browner". Some one-syllable adjectives follow the long adjective pattern: fun - more fun - the most fun is the only one I can think of at this moment. Corinne (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a noun used adjectivally, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean "brown"? That's a noun? I thought all colors were adjectives. I guess it could be a noun, too: I'm selecting a brown for the sofa. Corinne (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I meant 'fun', in your example. Rothorpe (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Corinne (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for James Last

An article that you have been involved in editing—James Last —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Maestroso simplo (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secondary Technical School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripartite system. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hordern

Hi Rothorpe, thoughts and a punctuation/grammar check would be most welcome. I completed it a few hours ago and have only just moved it over to main space. Hope you're well! Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Very nice, beautiful use of pictures.

Thanks very much. Because of the recentness of the subject, I have fought against copyright, so there are images I want to use, but can't. One being Lear, which I'm working on. Cassianto^Talk 08:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Ever Green a straight play? As it's a musical. Well, you will be more familiar with these classifications than I am. Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are of course right. My mistake, now fixed. Cassianto^Talk 08:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you check "reliable and workman like Lear"? "Workmanlike" should be one word there.

Source checked and you were correct. Now fixed. Cassianto^Talk 12:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the way Hordern never read up on his roles, and ignored literary critics. That's the style! Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, now that's what I call talent! Cassianto^Talk 08:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One of my favorite actors! I look forward to reading the article. Corinne (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's good to know. If I have missed anything out Corinne, please do let me know. Cassianto^Talk 08:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What's better, a serial comma or a serial semi-colon and colon? "The play was cursed with bad luck: Evans fell ill and was replaced halfway through by an understudy who omitted to learn her lines; Harrison frequently upset the cast which resulted in reduced morale; and when Evans did return, she walked off stage and left the play after seeing a number of empty seats in the front row" or instead of the semi's, commas? Or am a worrying about nothing? Cassianto^Talk 15:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As you have it here, that's exactly right. Rothorpe (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Blimey, I might actually be learning something after 35 years! Cassianto^Talk 16:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto I agree with Rothorpe. It looks good. Instead of "omitted to learn her lines", would you consider "neglected to learn her lines"? Corinne (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course, I don't see a problem with that, thanks Corinne! Cassianto^Talk 16:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Excellent work and a delightful read Cassianto. One suggestion - in the sub-section labeled "Paradise Postponed and You Never Can Tell" it isn't until the fourth paragraph that PP is mentioned and the fifth for YNCT - you might move that header down and create another one for the preceding three paragraphs. If you are happy with the way it is then please ignore this. When I was very young I got Hordern mixed up with Frank Middlemass. A fun mistake. Wonderful actors both I have wondered if they ever appeared onstage together. Thanks for all you work on the article C. MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you MarnetteD, you are too kind. There is a peer review happening here. Would you mind if I moved this helpful suggestion across? Any more comments would be welcome there, if you have the time? Cassianto^Talk 16:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to move my suggestion there Cassianto. I will also be happy to take a look later today and add any other thoughts I might have. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Bristol

I'm just beginning a copy-edit of Bristol. In the lead is a sentence that begins:

• Its prosperity linked with the sea since its earliest days, Bristol was the base for the early voyages of exploration to the New World

I don't care for "linked with". It doesn't sound right to me. I'm wondering whether one of these would sound better:

• Its prosperity linked to the sea

• Its prosperity tied to the sea

or some other phrase. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Both are fine. I also thought of 'dependent on', but that's perhaps a little heavy. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In the section Bristol#19th century, last paragraph, is a sentence beginning:

• In the early 19th century, the romantic medieval gothic style appeared, partially as a backlash against the symmetry of Palladianism

I'm wondering whether "backlash" isn't too strong a word for that spot, and whether "reaction" would be better. Corinne (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, better. Rothorpe (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Partially as a reaction against the symmetry of Palladianism"? Does "reaction against" sound all right? I suppose "reaction to the symmetry" would not be right. Perhaps "as a rejection of the symmetry of Palladianism"? Which of these do you prefer? Corinne (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

'Reaction against' I've often seen; I think it's milder than 'rejection of', more of a behaviour than an opinion or decision, so that's the criterion I'd use there. Rothorpe (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I'll leave it as it is now, then. Corinne (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of hypothetical Solar System objects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

American Beauty

Just curious as to why you think that me expanding the lead was "not an improvement and was too long". As far as I'm concerned the lead was too short and not long enough. If you look at any featured album's lead, you'll find that it is longer than the American Beauty lead. I highly doubt if you ask anyone else that they said I made the lead worse than what it was.... Disc Wheel (T + C) 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Are Dylan and CSNY mentioned on the sleeve? I think not. Such critical comment/speculation is for the body of the article where it can be sourced. If other leads are similarly bloated they need pruning too. But I noticed it because it needed a copyedit. Rothorpe (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are talking about. However, if you thought the lead needed a copyedit, you wouldn't just remove all the alterations I made to the section. I don't really see any copy edit that you did, unless you are referring to where you added a word with one edit and then removed it in the next edit not even a minute later. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw the copyedit it needed, but decided to revert instead. So the copyedit was never made. Can't you see it? Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan

Hello, Rothorpe -- I've been reading the article on John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (I had never heard of him before), and I came across a sentence that might need some work. It is the fourth sentence in the section John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan#Gambling. I think it might be worth trying to figure out how to reduce the number of "how's". Feel free to work on it; I've got to get to an article I agreed to copy-edit almost a week ago. Corinne (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Lord Lucan, yes, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found a typo – a preposition – in the last paragraph in the "Gambling" section; if you find it and agree, feel free to fix it. Corinne (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing 'talked of' to 'said that' would eliminate a 'how'. I don't see a typo in the last paragraph, though. Rothorpe (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• He drove Hicks-Beach home for about 8:00 pm, not in his Mercedes-Benz, but in "an old, dark and scruffy Ford", possibly the Ford Corsair he borrowed from Michael Stoop several weeks earlier.

– Corinne (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 'for' is wrong there. Now I'll have another look. I would prefer a past perfect verb, too but (sigh) seems I'm an old fogey. Rothorpe (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I missed it somehow. Rothorpe (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed. Rothorpe (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer past perfect there, too. I often see this, past tense instead of past perfect. I usually change it, but it seems the past perfect is slowly disappearing. Corinne (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Now 'at about 8:00 pm' has been changed back to 'for about 8:00'. That's an odd usage of 'for', don't you think? What does it mean, 'arriving at approximately/before'? Rothorpe (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked in the revision history and couldn't find that edit. Can you either provide a diff or tell me the name of the editor who made that edit? I made two comments on the talk page of Firebrace. Corinne (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't remember how to do diffs if I ever knew. But it's the change made by PoD at 19:48, reverting mine that I mentioned at 19:06 above. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered something else; that editor added "he", explaining in an edit summary that because a comma preceded "then", it was necessary. To be certain, I looked up "then" and found that it is never a conjunction; it's usually an adverb. Therefore, I should think that it does not indicate the beginning of a new clause, comma or no comma, and that a pronoun is not necessary. If you agree, I will add that to my list at the editor's talk page. Corinne (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

For the moment I can't find this, but I'll go through all the changes and let you know. Rothorpe (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And then I stumbled serendipitously upon it! I agree with you, no need for the pronoun. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Parrot of Doom#John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, his/her response to my first item. Do you agree? Also, while you're there, take a stroll through the schoolyard in the two sections below that. Corinne (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen all that. Depressing, isn't it? And, no, I don't agree that the use of for in that phrase is acceptable, as you point out with your comment about 'rendezvous'. You could put in a request for comment, if you feel it's worth it. I'll support you all the way. I'm going to put my opinion there anyway, but I haven't decided exactly what to say yet. Rothorpe (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it needs to be a formal Request for Comment or should we just bring it up on the article's talk page? Corinne (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the article's talk page of course. I'd forgotten we hadn't been there yet. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Dravidian languages

Which editor do you think is right? Should there be "and" before "Bhutan" – because it's the last one in a list of countries before proceeding to another (overseas) group of nations – or is "and" not necessary? See this edit to Dravidian languages. Corinne (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't resist dealing with that straight away - must be the frustration elsewhere. Hope you agree. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In the edit summary, I would have said that the "and" before "Bhutan" is necessary because it's the end of a list of countries before a separate group of overseas countries is listed. I wonder, though, about the use of "as well as", plus the two "and's"; seems a bit much for one sentence. Corinne (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think it ambles along nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I guess you're right. Corinne (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And so of course it's been reverted... Rothorpe (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Now it's back the way you left it. Corinne (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. Rothorpe (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Les Grandes Baigneuses (Renoir)

Rothorpe, isn't the phrase "[name of painting] is held by [name of museum]" correct, and common? See this edit to Les Grandes Baigneuses (Renoir) with an edit summary suggesting "is held by" is not English. Also, the editor removed "scene"; I guess that's all right, but the editor left "a". The other phrase that doesn't make sense has been discussed, and I will point the editor to that discussion. Corinne (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that 'held by' is fine. Rothorpe (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ...

Oh, good. What about the wording of the other edit ("depicts a scene")? Do you think "a scene" is unnecessary? Corinne (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's still there. The editor just removed the wikilink. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind that. What's the other phrase? I can't find it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor made two edits at the same time (not counting the addition of a hidden question). I'm referring to the second one, removing "scene". Corinne (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you see my answer above? 'A scene' is still there. Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't read what you wrote above carefully. I've been doing a lot of editing, jumping from article to article, and I guess I'm getting tired. You're right, of course. I got distracted by the "delta" view at the top of the revision history page. I'm more used to looking at the revision history with the two columns, and I can clearly see what was added or removed. I had better get rid of that view. I saw the orange around the square brackets and thought the entire word had been removed, but it was just the brackets that were removed. Thanks. Corinne (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right, no problem. Not sure what you mean by 'delta view', though; for me there's the history view (list) and the two-column view. Anyway, I'm off, 't'amanhã. Rothorpe (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

When you are looking at the two-column view, right above the two columns is a small triangle (that's why I call it the "delta" view). If you click on it, it opens another way to view the changes made by edits. The two-column view doesn't disappear; it remains below it. I notice that if you click the triangle once, it will appear all the time. If you don't want to see it, you just have to click the triangle once and it will go away. Corinne (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "I Like It Like That", "On a Night Like This", &c., questions in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nic Case

Hello, Rothorpe -- I need your help coming up with the best word or phrase in Nic Case, which I've just begun editing. Near the beginning of the article it says he "came into attention" with a particular event. I know that's not the best wording, but at this moment I can't think of the right word or phrase to use. I think it means he gained his first measure of fame with this event, but I know that's a bit stilted/old-fashioned, so I don't want to use that. He "gained fame"? "Came to the world's attention"? "Gained attention in the sport" (i.e., that particular sport)? "Drew attention"? There must be a phrase that's just not coming to mind. What do you suggest? Corinne (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Since his first significant achievement was to break a world record, do we need to say anything at all? I'd simply remove it: 'In 2006 at the inaugural "World's Fastest RC Car Challenge" event organized by Radio Control Car Action, he posted a speed of 134.4 mph (216.3 km/h), surpassing the world record held by...' No need to ask what brought him attention. Rothorpe (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Good idea. Thank you. Corinne (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Persoonia terminalis

Hello, Rothorpe – Would you take a look at the series of edits made by Ceoil to Persoonia terminalis ending with this edit. I had copy-edited this article a while ago, and Cas Liber seemed satisfied with my work, and Dank approved my summary for the main page, which incorporated some of the article. I looked at these edits carefully, and while I would agree that a few of them are an improvement, others I feel are not. I've had disagreements in the past with Ceoil, and I don't want to get into any arguments (and of course it is not that important). I'd just like to know what you think. Corinne (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You think a few are good? Rothorpe (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Corinne (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Casliber Just in case you didn't see Rothorpe's reply. I'll leave it up to you. Corinne (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, now a bot has promoted it to featured article, good grief. Rothorpe (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Good grief" because a bot promoted an article, or "good grief" because the article was promoted with those edits?  – Corinne (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The latter. Presumably it is otherwise deserved. Rothorpe (talk) 02:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with one of your edits and have reinstated it. I'd normally say "are found" rather than "have been found" as in biological articles "found" in present passive tense = "occurs" etc. I have no strong opinion on whether northwest is one or two words. And I think links in captions could be an either/or thing too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I understand "are found". I don't think any of these changes are improvements.  – Corinne (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I missed those. Am trying to juggle a bunch of things.....let me look (again).... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)#Requested move 12 February 2016

I invite you to improve consensus of ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MGM Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

West Virginia

Which is right? See this edit to West Virginia. I'm always suspicious when I see an edit summary saying "Fixed grammar" when the edit is made from a smartphone. I've found it is often not about grammar at all. I think, with the commas, it means something different from the version without the commas. I don't think "To the north, and, slightly, [to the] east" is the same as "To the north, and slightly east", do you? Or do you think the commas are unnecessary?  – Corinne (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the commas intensify 'slightly' and are necessary. 'Fixed grammar', yes, always a giveaway. Rothorpe (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Now one of the commas has been put back, definitely not right. It's got to be either two commas or no commas, right? See this edit. I'll leave it to you to decide what, if anything, to do. While you're there, see previous edits (read the long added paragraph later deleted) by a different IP just before this one.  – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

An admirer of Donald Trump by the sound of it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Mithraic mysteries

"To hold a...following?" [3] in Mithraic mysteries.  – Corinne (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In chains? How about 'retains a following'? Rothorpe (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think "retain(s)" goes better with a person. Let's see, what's the best way to express it?

The sect/religion/movement continues to:

• have a following
• attract adherents
• retain a following

The sect/religion/movement:

• retains a following

I don't know. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

'Mithraism retains a minor following today', I was thinking of, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

English language

Hello, Rothorpe -- I was just looking at an edit to the talk page of the article on English language at Talk:English language#Strange phrasing in second sentence.

1) I wonder whether you agree with the IP or with the editor who said the sentence was all right. Doesn't it sound a little odd? "It is an official language of"? I figure "an" is used to avoid saying "the official language", since some countries have more than one official language, but I would prefer "in" to "of" after that. What do you think?

2) After that, I looked at the first paragraph, and I wonder whether you like the second sentence of the lead:

It is an official language of almost 60 sovereign states, the most commonly spoken language in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand, and a widely spoken language in countries in the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia.

I think it is a combination of a little wordy and too heavy on the adverb + past participle + noun construction. I think the third phrase would be better as a separate sentence, re-worded as:

• It is also widely spoken in the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia, or

• It is also widely spoken in some areas of the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia.

 – Corinne (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

By all means change them, but I think either way is fine. 'Official languge of' strikes me as more formal than 'official language in', but both are good. Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How about this?

• English is either the official language or an official language in 60 sovereign states. It is the most commonly spoken language in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand, and it is widely spoken in some areas of the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia.

 – Corinne (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now let's see what happens when I change it.  – Corinne (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Can Dündar does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! IagoQnsi (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If I had to make an edit summary for every edit I made, I would never contribute to Wikipedia. Essentially, when I click on "m" for "minor", it means I have added a comma or removed one, or put in a better word, or something else that wikignomes do. For such edits, comparing the respective versions is the best way to see what I have done. Be assured I always write in an edit summary when there is something that needs saying. Rothorpe (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw that your last 50 edits all lacked summaries, and failed to notice that they were all that miniscule. Apologies for the template. -IagoQnsi (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• FYI. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

What do you think of these edits to Leonardo da Vinci?  – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing for editing's sake. Great body of work, Mr Leonardo! Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think it read fine as it was.  – Corinne (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Old edits and new edits

Your account was once listed as one of the top editors at Jane Austen. Might you still have interest in this field? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the note. I've made a few more changes... Rothorpe (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Those were nice edits. The previous top editor of that article has passed away and was also the author of another separate article here titled Reception history of Jane Austen which is nicely written. It seems she never got around to completing the Jane Austen article after finishing the other one. I think there is a straightforward way to finish the improvements on Jane Austen and then I asked if you might still have an interest? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. So what are you proposing? Rothorpe (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that you have both articles, my own thought was that it would be nice to get the Jane Austen article up to the same level of quality as its Reception history companion article. It seems like it could be within reach if its text were re-examined with a careful reading and some of its passages tightened for clarify of wording and brevity. The Reception history article is currently a cut above the Jane Austen article at this particular moment, and it would be nice if the two articles could be brought into closer parity in terms of their literary quality as related articles. Any thoughts of whether this can be done in a practical sense and perhaps on where the best places to start would be? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, User:Wadewitz (Adrianne Wadewitz), I remember when she died. Well, I'm just a copy-editor really. No grand ideas. I'll continue perusing on a regular basis (that's how I read articles, from J to A via Z and W), and check any changes that are made. That way they gradually improve. OK? Rothorpe (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Coropuna

Hello, Rothorpe -- Which is correct, "comprised" or "composed"? Or is some other word better? See this edit to Coropuna.  – Corinne (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Composed". User:Giraffedata's excellent essay is accessible from the edit summary in case you missed it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

copyediting
... you were recipient no. 70 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, precious Gerda. Rothorpe (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's In the News

First, let me wish you a Happy Easter.

Happy Easter!

Now, I've got to ask you something about today's "In the News" item on the Main page about Oxford and Cambridge rowing. I was astonished to see the plural form of the the verb after both: "Cambridge win" and "Oxford win". I had never seen that before. Why are they considered plural? In the U.S., a university is always singular: "Syracuse [University] wins", "Colgate wins", etc. How are they considered plural?  – Corinne (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they're sports teams in this context. Similarly, 'Earth beat Mars at cricket'. Contrast 'Oxford is an old university.' Happy Easter to you too! Rothorpe (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

PS Thanks for the nice picture. Goes well with the agreeable weather here. Happy Easter Monday! Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh...Sports teams. No wonder I didn't know that.  – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also: The DEF are making new programmes (whoever they may be). Rothorpe (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Corinne I am surprised this hasn't made its annual trip to WP:ERRORS! An interesting article is English plurals which provides some other examples with reasoning as to this curious approach in British English. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe, what's "DEF"? The Rambling Man Thanks for your comment. I guess I don't understand your first statement. Are you saying that on a regular basis editors make comments at ERRORS talk, or make changes to the article WP:ERRORS, because they think the plural form is an error? I think if I edited sports articles I would have seen this construction more often.  – Corinne (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Successors to the ABC, before themselves being supplanted by the GHI. Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You got me again, Rothorpe. I had forgotten about your wry humor. I was looking for something to link "wry humor" to, but couldn't find anything. I did, however, stumble across this article: Humor styles. I find a certain humor in the tag at the top of the article.  – Corinne (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so graciously. You mean the 'unbalanced' tag? Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Didn't that strike you as funny, considering the subject matter?  – Corinne (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, attempts at describing humour being so often rather plodding. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was actually thinking that a lot of comedy (which, I guess, is technically different from humor) comes from comedians seeming to be slightly unbalanced.  – Corinne (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one expects a dangerously wacky article. Perhaps it's time to remove the tag. Rothorpe (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted

Hi Rothorpe: A recent edit you performed here has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be or not to be multi-lingual

Your User page suggests that you might know Portuguese as well as English. It made me think that you might me multi-lingual and that you might know Spanish and French as well. I am thinking of a possible expansion to Austen based on international responses to her writings if you might have access to any of these other languages. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can have a go at translating from those languages. I suggest you paste here anything you want. Not too much at a time, please, I am old and slow! On the other hand, if I remember rightly, there are people who actually offer translation services on their user pages, if you want a lot done. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice indication. My inquiry was actually very specific. In looking at the different pages for the major novels of Austen I noticed that they were generally still somewhat rudimentary often at the "C"-class level. However, the Emma (novel) page had a pleasant surprise when I noticed that this "C"-class article was linked to an FA article on Emma in French Wikipedia. The French love Austen and I thought to ask if you might like the French article for this novel, should you have a chance to glance at it. Its too big to do alone, but if I could offer to do the bottom half of the article then maybe you might have a sufficiently high opinion of the top half of it to join in a possible translation (50%-50%). First questions first, however, and do you think the Emma article from France worthwhile approaching in the first place. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's very impressive, as one would expect. Indeed, already in the first paragraph, there is a word, narquoise, that I don't recall seeing before. I have no desire to go back to school, where I was required to do weekly translations both to and from French (not to mention Latin and Greek); that was before I went to France and actually learnt a bit of the language. Rothorpe (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the somewhat jocular translation into English [4] of the French Emma article into, well, English words, and you can find narquoise translated. If neither you nor I are up to this big article alone, then should it be passed on to the translation user pages you mention above. Worthwhile? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate at its surreal best. 'Mocking', yes, I almost suggested 'snarquy'. There's a category page for translators, I think. Then we could watch as someone else sets about the hard work. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my short note to the week-end close of reviving the late Wadewitz plan for getting the Austen Biography article to FA status [5], in order for it to match the companion FA article on the Austen Legacy at Reception history of Jane Austen. Any thoughts? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:As Long as You Love Me

I invite you to discuss the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

• Op-ed: Should prison inmates be permitted to edit Wikipedia?

• News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board

• In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death

• Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology

• Gallery: A history lesson

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

• News and notes: Lunar project; steering group formed to search for next executive director

• Op-ed: Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails

• Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot

• Traffic report: Two for the price of one

• Featured content: The double-sized edition

• Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Fame (Irene Cara song)

Hello, Rothorpe -- I was just looking at the most recent Wikipedia:Today's Article for Improvement, Fame (Irene Cara song). I noticed "rereleased" in the last paragraph of the lead. I think the spelling looks odd, and the "rerel" at the beginning confusing. What do you think about adding a hyphen, so it is "re-released"? Is there a preferred spelling among devotees of popular music?  – Corinne (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've certainly seen it before, but equally certainly I prefer it with the hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

• News and notes: Wikimedia Switzerland's board and paid-editing firm; passing of Ed Dravecky

• In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps

• Traffic report: Purple

• Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks

• Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request

• Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

University of Cambridge

Hello, Rothorpe! - What do you think of this edit to University of Cambridge? Would you have added the comma? Is this an American English/British English difference? I always thought that a comma was not needed when the subject is the same for both verb phrases. I find that extra comma irritating.  – Corinne (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite so, a comma for editing's sake. I'll leave to you the pleasure of removing it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think "are...jointly referred to" is wrong. It might suggest two people simultaneously referring to the two schools. I think it should be either "are...referred to jointly" or just "are...referred to". What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem with moving 'jointly'; I think it would be less intuitive with it removed. But it's a phrase I've often seen here, and it doesn't bother me. 'Are together referred to' is another possibility. Rothorpe (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Incipit

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of this edit to Incipit? Since we rarely use pairs of single quotation marks, except for a quote within a quote, I don't know if there is a significant difference between them and double quotation marks. I don't understand the reason for singling out this word for single quotation marks when double quotation marks are used all around it. Can you shed some light on this for me?  – Corinne (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no difference in meaning, so it's a good, consistent edit. Rothorpe (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Tony Cozier

And thanks for your good work on the article. I still have a couple more topics that I want to add. One is his parties at his beach house on the rest days of Barbados Tests (back when they had rest days), which seem to have been legendary given that almost all the obits seem to have mentioned them. The other is the WICB falling out with him over his criticism of them for mismanaging WI cricket in recent years. JH (talk page) 18:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, the article does need expanding. I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tony Cozier

On 13 May 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Cozier, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Pete Best

Why was the quote I inserted, by Paul McCartney exactly as he stated it word for word in his "Wingspan" documentary, regarding Pete Best's sacking from the Bestles, deleted from the article? I inserted the quote because the previous sentence simply stated that "Paul McCartney finally stated in his Wingspan documentary in May 2001, that the sacking of Pete Best had nothing to do with his ability as a drummer" and I want readers to know, word for word, exactly what McCartney said. I also believe the quote gives great insight into McCartney's thinking regarding not just Best but, generally, all of the musicians in his various bands -- Beatles, Wings, etc. True, the quote in the sentences immediately following this is largely a restatement of the quote in question, but I believe with a subject as controversial as Best's sacking from the Beatles that any direct quotes on the topic, from anybody directly involved in the sacking, that explain or illuminate in any way their reason or reasons for the sacking, are welcome. If it is simply a matter of sourcing the quote, which was transcribed directly from the DVD version of the "Wingspan" documentary, let me know what to do to correct that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.209.66 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Many apologies. It seems I threw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a very good quote. I've reverted to the version before that edit. Rothorpe (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Alans

Hello, Rothorpe - I wonder what you think of this edit to Alans.  – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not good. There was a malapropism in the previous version, though, compromised for comprised. I'll fix if you like. Newcomers, though, might be an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make any edits you wish. Thanks for your reply.  – Corinne (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, hope you like. Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you put some of it back. I don't like the wrd "tiny", though. I prefer "a small group", "a small minority", or just "a minority".  – Corinne (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, by all means change it. I just put it back because it was there before and I wanted to make as little difference as possible. Rothorpe (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure

that both The Tremeloes and The Who (see Twist and Shout) have "The" as part of their name, hence it needs to be capitalized. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I had reverted it before I was alerted to this. Anyway, please see the Manual of Style, linked from my user page. Thanks for the message. Rothorpe (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just posting this when we had a conflict (the timing kind) "However, upon more sober reflection (of twelve minutes or so) I think I am going to change it back." Carptrash (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe this problem arose because of bands like the Buzzcocks, who, in the face of actual usage, want people to refer to them without 'the'; and the Ramones, who liked to bill themselves without the 'the', while still calling thenselves the Ramones. But usage wins: pop groups cannot legislate how we use our language. Rothorpe (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is just as well. Imagine if we all had to talk like Bob Dylan? Carptrash (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Hello, Rothorpe -- I was looking at the article United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, and I had just started to read it when I came across something I've got to ask you about. The first sentence contains the following phrase:

• to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Union.

I was struck by the use of "of" after "membership". I would think it should be "in":

• to gauge support for the country's continued membership in the European Union.

but I thought it might be a British English usage, so I thought I'd better ask you before changing it. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting! 'Membership of the EU' is the standard usage, so there's another transatlantic difference. Rothorpe (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. Would you also say "membership of a club"?  – Corinne (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Of an orchestra, team, party, any grouping, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, we would say, "He's a member of a club, orchestra, team, etc.", but "They're discussing what membership in a club, orchestra, team, etc., means".  – Corinne (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no telling with prepositions. Rothorpe (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment regarding Austen

My request for copy edits and GOCE review attention may or may not get some response for Jane Austen during the coming weeks and I was wondering if you could look in from time to time. I plan to be away for much of the coming month and possibly your interest in Austen could help. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Will do, she's back on my list. Rothorpe (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And I did a copyedit today. Rothorpe (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just returned for a few days and shall then be departing for most of July. That was really nicely edited by you at Jane Austen last week. Josh has thought that it might be nice to add an image of Austen as it appeared in the 19th century and I added two images to the Talk page there. If you have a preference for one image or the other of the two I have added on the Talk page there, then maybe you could add it (them) to the article. I think the article looks in better shape than it was in a month or two ago. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked the edits. The Bentley portrait is just a version of Cassandra's modified for Victorian taste, so I wouldn't include it. Cassandra's other one, the back view, is attractive, though it could be anybody. Now I'll go and read the talk page... Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Order of adjectives

You might be interested in this: User talk:Drmies#Grammar again. I left a comment. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've never learnt any rules about the order of adjectives. I instinctively chose 'Malayalam-language Indian thriller film'. The other way round perhaps pairs the nationalities confusingly. Indian Malayalam could be a regional variant, say---or a delicious curry. But the Germanic accretion is not to everyone's taste. Your solution is very elegant. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I also chose 'Malayalam-language Indian thriller film" but couldn't define why. Upon looking at the versions again today, and reading Softlavender's comment, I realized what you also noticed, that 'Indian Malayalam-language thrill film" could suggest a regional variant, as if there were other varieties of the Malayalam language. The original poster (Cyphoidbomb) seems to have reasons for including all the adjectives in one sentence.  – Corinne (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for yours. Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheetah

Hello, Rothorpe -- I'm in the middle of copy-editing the article on the Cheetah. The first sentence in the section Cheetah#Characteristics is:

• The cheetah is a big cat with several distinctive features – a slender body, deep chest, spotted pelage, a small rounded head, black tear-like streaks on the face, long thin legs and a long spotted tail.

I'm tempted to remove the "a" before "small rounded head", but I thought I'd ask you what you thought. I notice the article also appears before "long spotted tail". Any thoughts?  – Corinne (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought it read very well. The article breaks up the rhythm nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

John Scotus Eriugena

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of these edits to John Scotus Eriugena? Look at the edits first.

All good. Rothorpe (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Some editors seem to want to get rid of all "there is/there are" constructions in WP articles. I think overuse of the construction is not good, but occasional judicious use is all right. While I think the word "the" before "Saint-Denis" was merely an error, I'm not sure whether the new wording is better or not. Regarding the second change, I think putting the time phrase first was better. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the 'the' was deliberate, to match another 'the' preceding 'Dionysius'. But better without. But yes, I think perhaps you are right about the time phrase. So, after all, I vote for sophistication over simplification. Rothorpe (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Rothorpe -- I'm wondering whether it would make the sentence sound better if the verb "circulate" were changed from:

• a figure whose writings were not circulated in the West in the early ninth century

to:

(a) a figure whose writings had not circulated in the West in the early ninth century

or:

(b) a figure whose writings were not yet being circulated in the West in the early ninth century.

On another issue, I just saw your edit changing "John" to "Johannes" in the first line of the article to match the IPA pronunciation given. I agreed that was a logical thing to do, but now the name at the beginning of the article is different from the title of the article. I wondered if you had seen the now-closed discussion on the article's talk page. I found it a little difficult to figure out. A proposal was made to move, or change, the article's title to "John Scotus Eriugena" from "Johannes Scotus Eriugena". There is a little discussion, but not much, and then it was closed, but apparently the article title was changed to "John Scotus Eriugena". Maybe those who approved the change simply did not notice that the IPA gives the pronunciation for "Johannes", or maybe the article should start "John Scotus Eriugena", followed by something like "also Johannes Scotus Eriugena" and then the IPA guide. Maybe we should ask someone about this.  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't bothered by the discrepancy as I've seen other articles like that, but I've put the John name in now, as I agree that's better, and I've now read the talk page as well. The other matter you raise I'll look into tomorrow. Bye for now! Rothorpe (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 'yet' is helpful, so I'll go with your third suggestion there. Rothorpe (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Astronomica (Manilius)

Hello, Rothorpe -- I'm in the middle of copy-editing Astronomica (Manilius) (so please wait a few more minutes to edit; I'm almost finished). Near the beginning of the article, I already deleted "extant" before "Latin author". To me, and looking at definitions of extant, the word means still existing today. Since no Latin author can still be existing today, I thought it was not the right word to use. I thought of "contemporary", but I also thought that there could be Latin authors who were not contemporary that could have (but didn't) quote from Manilius, so I didn't put "contemporary". Just a bit after that, I saw "ancient Latin authors".

Now I'm near the end of the article, at Astronomica (Manilius)#Reception, and I see "extant Latin authors" again. Is it possible that "extant" is used to mean "currently existing writings by Latin authors"? That is, writings by ancient Latin authors that have survived? To me, that would be "extant works", not "extant authors". What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe I've heard e.g. Ovid descibed as an extant author. The immortals! Rothorpe (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess that would mean that any Latin author of whom works still exist is an extant author. I guess that suggests, indirectly, all the other Latin authors whose works have disappeared are not extant. If that is what is meant, I can understand it, but I still think it's a little weird. In neither the Wiktionary entry for "extant" nor the Merriam-Webster entry is there any definition that would cover this use. Gen. Quon, shall I put "extant" back in, in that sentence near the beginning of the article?  – Corinne (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's rather specialised, but the more I think about it the more I recall 'extant author' as being an entirely regular usage. Rothorpe (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Then what's a non-extant author?  – Corinne (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe is correct in that is a somewhat specialized usage of the word. An extant author is one whose works (or at least good chunks thereof) are still preserved. Ovid is an extant author because most of his important works are preserved and can still be read. The emperor Claudius, I would argue, is an example of a non-extant author; we know that he wrote quite a few books, but none of them survive.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gen. Quon. Yes, we can regard 'extant author' as shorthand for 'author [some/most of] whose works are extant'. Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

My thanks, also, Gen. Quon. Of course I now understand this usage of extant. However, as Checkingfax has pointed out, a large percentage of Wikipedia's readers are aged – what is it, Checkingfax? – aged 10 to 17? The word "extant" is usually used to mean "still existing" – as in a species of animal or plant, or an actual physical copy of a written work. I wonder if this other meaning is perhaps too academic for our general Wikipedia readers, at least without an explanation of what it means right in the article.  – Corinne (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I doubt if extant is in the vocabulary of the main portion of our readers. Yes, 25% of our editors and readers are between 10 and 17.

In its simplest form, extant means existing.

I consider extant to be a 5-dollar word; best to use something more mainstream, in my humble opinion. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Existing is fine with me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If "extant authors" is the usual term, we should keep to it; it's not as if "existing authors" is any more self-explanatory. I agree with Corinne's suggestion of an explanation at first use. Rothorpe (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, until I removed it, it was in the second paragraph of the lede. How about something like this?

• Not much is known about Manilius. He was not quoted by any other extant Latin author (that is, a Latin author whose works exist today), but it is believed that the Astronomica was read by many, including Lucan, Petronius, Titus Calpurnius Siculus, Tertullian, Claudian, and Julius Firmicus Maternus.

(I struck out "other" before "extant Latin author". Do we really have to include Manilius himself as an author who would quote him? If we assume that Manilius would not quote himself, then I don't think "other" is needed.

 – Corinne (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that reads very well. Rothorpe (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski

I have this article on my watch list, so I was just looking at the latest edit to Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski, and, while I would normally add "on" before a date, I wonder if the version without "on" is common British usage. Or is "He was born X" reserved for a name that is different from the name the person used later in life? Would you use "on" here? If so, of course the edit should stand. If not, well, what do you suggest?  – Corinne (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious. British usage always has on (with the date, not before a birth name); I've noticed its omission only in American contexts. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: 'He was born 1.1.11' sounds to me American; I would put 'he was born on 1.1.11'. 'He was born Joseph Bloggs', no preposition; the use of 'as' here I don't recall seeing outside WP. Rothorpe (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would use "on", also, for date of birth.  – Corinne (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Mohammad Mofatteh

Hello, Rothorpe -- I just finished copy-editing Mohammad Mofatteh. The first sentence of the section Mohammad Mofatteh#Early education is:

• He was born into a priestly family.

I know "priestly" is an adjective, similar to friendly, princely, etc. So, grammatically the word is all right, but I'm wondering if this is the best wording and whether it would be better expressed differently, perhaps:

• He was born into a family of religious scholars.

What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. 'Priestly' sounds too much like an indicator of moral value. Much better to spell it out. Rothorpe (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made the change.  – Corinne (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

West Virginia

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of this edit to West Virginia?  – Corinne (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne, long time no see!

It's a dreadful edit, redolent of advertising. A look at the user's list of contributions explains why. Judging from the first page, it's a WP:single-purpose account. Rothorpe (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Your nice edits

Those were nice edits on Jane Austen in the last month. At this time, the article is now nominated for assessment and perhaps you can join the discussion as time allows. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Chhinnamasta: Wikipedia:Peer review/Chhinnamasta/archive1

Hi Rothorpe.. I hope you are doing well ... It is been a long time since you helped Ahalya's journey to a FA. The article Chinnamasta was recently expanded for a potential FAC. Like Ahalya, Chinnamasta will benefit from reviewers, who are unfamiliar with Hinduism so that we can know if a non-Hindu understands the article. Chinnamasta is a self-decapitated Hindu goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Far out! Thanks, I've put her on my watchlist and will keep up with revisions. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rothorpe. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Greco-Roman mysteries

Hello, Rothorpe! -- I need your opinion regarding this edit to Greco-Roman mysteries. The editor changed this:

• Christianity was seen as objectionable by the Roman establishment not on grounds of its tenets or practices, but because early Christians chose to consider their faith as precluding the participation in the imperial cult, which was seen as subversive by the Roman establishment.

to:

• Christianity was seen as objectionable by the Roman establishment not on grounds of its tenets or practices, but because early Christians chose to consider their faith as precluding the participation in the imperial cult, causing them to be seen as subversive by the Roman establishment.

While I agree that it is important to have the antecedent of a relative pronoun ("which") clear, I'm not sure this is the best fix. Also, wouldn't you agree that although "which" often efers to (and replaces) a single noun, sometimes it can refer to (and modify) an entire clause, which I think is the case here.

(a) Do you think it was clear enough (before the edit) that "which" referred to the entire clause that precedes it ("early Christians chose to consider their faith as precluding the participation in the imperial cult" – which could be made more concise)?

(b) If not, and you support a re-wording, do you think "causing them to be seen as subversive by the Roman establishment" is the best possible re-wording? I was thinking that the sentence starts out with "Christianity was seen as objectionable", so the topic of the sentence is Christianity, not Christians. Also, that last clause in a certain sense repeats "Christianity was seen as objectionable", so I'm not sure it is even necessary.

I'm wondering if the entire sentence should be re-arranged, something like:

• The Roman establishment found Christianity objectionable, and even subversive, not on grounds of its tenets or practices but because early Christians saw their faith as precluding participation in the imperial cult.

Any ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning. Tuck 'subversive' in after 'objectionable', yes indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made the change.  – Corinne (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the cover art

Sincere apologies, Rothorpe, if you recently stumbled upon any ancient ethnic traditional footwear. I found your usual politeness and friendly advice a terrible shock. I would have emailed you, but I always like to appear terribly elusive, of course. Are there any articles I can help out on for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "My name is not worth knowing, it's enough to know I'm just a willing slave to something free".

It's just an elusion! Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Uguisu no fun

I came across this sentence near the beginning of the History section of the article on Uguisu no fun:

• Then, during the Edo period (AD 1603–1868), the Japanese expanded its use by using it as a beauty treatment.

Can you think of any way to avoid the appearance of two forms of "use" in the same sentence? Perhaps substituting "introducing" or "adopting" for "using"? Any other ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Tricky. Or 'by employing', perhaps. Or '...additionally, they used it as...', perhaps combining the sentences. Rothorpe (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it is really necessary to say "expanded its use"? How about just skipping it and saying:

• Then, during the Edo period (AD 1603–1868), the Japanese began using it as a beauty treatment.

?  – Corinne (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I was toying with that, yes. But maybe it's informative? Rothorpe (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oran fatwa

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of these edits to Oran fatwa?  – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Another case of EFES, I fear. Suggest you do your usual polite revert. Rothorpe (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't. Look at his/her user page. If anything, I would invite him/her to go over each edit, discussing each one, but s/he may not be interested in doing that.  – Corinne (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

She (1st user box) is clearly unlazy & may be amenable to that. Rothorpe (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your last reply until today. I looked again and saw that this editor had reviewed the article on August 22 – see Talk:Oran fatwa/GA1 where she made some good points. Then I looked at the revision history of the article and realized that a lot of work had been done to the article since I copy-edited it in February, so I guess it was ready for another copy-edit. (I never like "these" used as a pronoun in the middle of a sentence, though.)  – Corinne (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've put it on my list. (I agree: should be 'they'.) Rothorpe (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your welcoming message. The Spanish wiki has its problems (some articles are outdated, others are incomplete, and so on) and that is probably why enWiki has become my primary Wikipedia in spite of my Spanish origin and I am beginning to feel comfortable enough to edit at enWiki. I must confess that I feel bitten by Johnuniq in his last message and I need to think very carefully what to reply to his last message in the article talk page. I cannot read his 'total BLP fail' as anything different to 'leave me alone, get one thousand edits in English and then I will consider if I will let you back.' This is perhaps one of the most controversial edits I have ever made and I understand that the article is heavily watched. I see in your user page that you studied at Cambridge. I have been a member (well, a visitor member) of the Oxford Mathematical Institute, which is a place I love ever since despite the Oxonian weather. Thank you again, for making enWiki a better place to read. Don't worry to leave a reply in my talk page, wether en or es. Sam10rc (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, and many thanks for this. Well, you've been very busy and I hope you have got satisfaction. The BLP rules are there for obvious reasons. I am going to break them again. Following the disappearance I had several conversations with Portuguese who thought that the verdict should be guilty, and here you are, another Iberian (if I understand correctly) with the same suspicions. Perhaps it comes down to body language, a straghtforward cultural difference between the Latins and the Brits. I don't buy the lie-detector-style analysis. It did seem unnecessary to insist on 'false', but perhaps just for stylistic reasons.

By the way, you need a line-space to get a paragraph break. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. We have a difficult task to deal with. Many strange things have happened in Spanish criminal cases (cf. José Bretón faked the disappearance of his son and daughter, killed them with medicines and then burnt their bodies) and my nature leads me not to trust anyone, not even the police, without evidence in support. Moreover, I have the feeling that the British newspapers have tended to overprotect the family and the rest of the English-written media have dealed too few attention. Unluckily, we cannot foundate an edit only on personal suspicions but there are many loose ends that could help in our purpose of a more neutral article. Sam10rc (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like special pleading, and not very good style, to put 'false' in there. But when was legalese ever good style? Rothorpe (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to find some English-written references supporting any of my proposed editions but I found nothing excluding blogs that at some points come across with theories like that Martians built the pyramids so this could probably not count as reliable source. I ask from the lack of expertise in this wiki: is it usual for foreign references to be discredited? I can't understand why a top quality newspaper is not acceptable here just because it's written in Spanish. To be honest, I am about to leave these stubborn editors alone with their 'protected article' and contribute to enWiki where others don't change the rules every time they lose.

By the way, did you see the anonymous comment on top of the thread? It has been reverted and I understand that it uses a non-wiki language but I like the points raised. You can find it here Sam10rc (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Gilbert stuff

Ta, myte. I'll be adding a lot of Gilbert stuff in the days to come, I expect. Will advise you about the major ones.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

St. Nicholas Hotel (New York City)

Hi, Rothorpe -- A few days ago I copy-edited St. Nicholas Hotel (New York City). I recall changing "was reposed" to "reposed" in this edit (toward the end). Now I'm just following later edits. I notice in this edit, the verb repose is used in a different manner. I don't think this is a correct use of the verb, but before I say anything to the editor, I thought I'd check with you to see if there is some meaning of repose with which I am not familiar.  – Corinne (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I looked into this and then forgot all about it. I don't think 'repose' is correct there, no. I'll see if I can suggest something better. Rothorpe (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, removing 'on' suggests the user doesn't know the meaning of the word, but keep it and it still sounds unnecessarily flowery. Pianos don't repose, or sit or lie or chill out. On the second floor there was... may be dull, but I can't think of an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's OK now; hope you like. Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all your changes are good. I agree with you about the word repose. I think sometimes sit/sits can be used for something boxy or wide, like "a little figurine sits on the windowsill", but I think your wording is fine.  – Corinne (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes...indeed, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sami language

C in CE and BCE stands for "common". So CE is acronym for Common Era. Similarly BCE stands for Before Common Era. That is the current usage in American schools. AD and BC are outdated for the reason I mentioned in my edits. In that sense my changes are neither annoying nor unnecessary. Thanks. Telugujoshi 20:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia itself check the page CE. Thanks. Telugujoshi 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telugujoshi (talk • contribs)

Thanks for reminding me that BCE doesn't actually mean Before the Christian Era; the fact that it looks as if it does, and just adds another letter to BC, is a further annoyance. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed

Hello R. I hope that you are well. Would you please take a look at this wording. Three of us have removed the word "over" but another editor thinks its use is proper. It seems clunky in the sentence to me but if I am wrong about that I would be happy to put it back in. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)...it does indeed look odd. Perhaps what looks more out of place is the obvious POV in terms of the "poor mother" descriptor. Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, with both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a double take over this. At first, I wrote here, yes, of course, leave it out, but the more I thought about it the less convinced I was, and ended up looking in the Oxford dictionary. It divides the entry into two: intransitive, specifying 'over' as the preposition, and transitive - including 'rule despotically' in each definition. So it agrees with both sides. The Oxford Advanced Learners was much the same. Of course you could change to another verb with 'over'. As for 'poor mother', it's not real life, and I think Dickens would OK it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks R. Your knowledge and research skills are an asset to WikiP. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You are very kind. I've just remembered I also have a Collins: when intransitive, often followed by 'over', it says. So that's that, or not as the case may be. Enjoy your weekend too. Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Kasich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal Church. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Araucaria araucana

Hello, Rothorpe -- I know you have some interest in popular music, so I wonder if you would take a look at this and the edit just previous to it. Since I know nothing about this group, I cannot judge the merits of either edit, but I noticed that in the second of the two edits, the editor removed the indefinite article "a" at the beginning of the album title, leaving a link in which the two halves of the piped link are the same. If the edit is correct, then the part after the pipe can be removed. I thought perhaps you were in a better position to review the edits than I am.  – Corinne (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC) I don't know why my link to the edit (the "diff") is leading to the first of the two edits rather than the second; I don't know what I've done wrong. Redrose64, can you tell me?  – Corinne (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Ben Needham Comment

The reason I delinked was during my rewriting of the article I noticed that the Crosby quote is unreferenced, doesn't appear to be reported in RS, and appears to have been added by a SPA/potential COI editor. I hadn't got around to completing the rewrite, but I will deal with it today. Keri (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, do carry on. Rothorpe (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I'd better mention it because I didn't want to create the impression I was edit warring over an otherwise trivial issue. Keri (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, the edit that clinched it for me that this was Crosby was this one: "I looked closely at this case and even had DNA sample from a foreign police force sent to me, but South Yorkshire Police never asked me for these samples." I had come across this article yesterday while collating news sources. Keri (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Solent

Hello, Rothorpe -- I'm about to start copy-editing Portsmouth, but I'm reading Battle of the Solent out of curiosity. The last sentence of the third paragraph in the lead is the following:

• The French invasion force which had landed at the Isle of Wight were defeated, and forced to retreat, by a local militia in the Battle of Bonchurch.

I know words like orchestra and committee are often used in a plural sense in British English, but I didn't know "force", as in "invasion force", can be used in a plural sense. The plural verb "were", in "were defeated", jumped out at me (we would use "was"). Does this sound right to you? Is "force" another one of those words?  – Corinne (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It jumped out at me too. Definitely singular. Rothorpe (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your edit to Portsmouth removing the schwa from the pronunciation guide. I was thinking about why someone would place both a backwards "c" (the symbol for a particular "o" vowel sound) and a schwa (representing, as you know, the unstressed vowel sound), and I was thinking that it was a misguided effort to get the sliding diphthong with fairly strong "r": Po-erts-muth, the way some Americans might pronounce it. Other than that, I guess it was simply added in error.  – Corinne (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected that was an American pronunciation, but I wasn't bothered because it's not really the standard one. Thanks for confirming. Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I've got to ask you something else about the Portsmouth article before I start. I've asked a coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors about whether a comma is needed after initial prepositional phrases of time: In 1994, In June 1994, etc., and I was told that the comma is optional but the article should be consistent. As I've probably told you, I don't think a comma is needed in most cases, but since this article is about a city in England, I want to ask you whether the comma is usual and accepted in England or whether it varies and is up to the individual writer.  – Corinne (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did tell me, and to be honest that was probably the first time I had thought about it. I think I would normally put a comma; I can't say more than that. Rothorpe (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K.  – Corinne (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

London Victoria station

Hello, Rothorpe -- I clicked on a link to London Victoria station in the Portsmouth#Transportation and communications section of the Portsmouth article because I was puzzled by the lower-case "s" in "station". In the U.S., it would be capitalized (as in "Grand Central Station"). I see the article title has "station" in lower-case, but toward the end of the first paragraph I see Victoria Coach Station, with "station" capitalized both here and in the article title. I also see "Victoria Station" in the History section, in the heading for Section 1.2.1., in the first paragraph (but not the second) of the section London Victoria station#The Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway, in the caption to an image in London Victoria station#The Brighton station, in the caption to another image, in the list in London Victoria station#Accidents and incidents, and twice in London Victoria station#The station in fiction, with "Victoria station" here and there in the middle of the article. Obviously, there is some inconsistency here. I didn't read the article, so I don't know if the station had different names at different times. What do you recommend?  – Corinne (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not normal to capitalise 'station' after the name, no. The Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway is the name of a railway, so that's different. So I'd go for lower case for Charing Cross station etc. Let's link that one and see... Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Portsmouth

It looks like I'm going to have other questions for you about British usage, so I guess I'll start a new section, if you don't mind.

Of course not! Rothorpe (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

1) The first sentence of the last paragraph in the lead is:

• Portsmouth F.C. is the city's professional association football club and play their home games at Fratton Park.

To my American ears, this sentence sounds wrong, but if "club" is one of those words that are plural in British English, then I guess the plural verb "play" is all right. But even if the verb is correct, do you like the construction of the sentence as a whole?

• Portsmouth F.C. is the...club and play...

or would you support changing the last verb phrase into a participial phrase?

• Portsmouth F.C. is the...club, playing their home games at Fratton Park.

I think the switch from singular to plural would be OK if there were a 'they' before the 'play', though that would surely sound just as odd to you. Your suggested versions sound less natural, I have to say.

You don't like participial phrases tacked onto the end of a sentence? Ever? Or just in this sentence?  – Corinne (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No, just in that instance. Perhaps a semicolon: ...; they play...

I think I'll just leave it as it is.  – Corinne (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

2) The last sentence of that paragraph has the word "enrols". Is that British English spelling? Americans would spell it "enrolls".  – Corinne (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, like fulfil(l), for example. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm saving each thing I type as a separate edit so that you will be able to find it. Now I have a new question:

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the section Portsmouth#Culture is the following:

• Portsmouth hosts yearly remembrances of the D-Day landings to which veterans from Allied and Commonwealth nations travel to attend.

Do you like the sound of this sentence? Does it bother your ear to have "to which...to attend"? Do you think the sentence would sound better if it were simpler?

• Portsmouth hosts yearly remembrances of the D-Day landings, which veterans from Allied and Commonwealth nations attend.

Or do you think it's all right as it is?  – Corinne (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Your version is much better. Rothorpe (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I'll make the change.  – Corinne (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second-to-last paragraph in Portsmouth#Transportation and communications is the following:

• Portsmouth Airport, an airport with grass runway, was in operation from 1932 to 1973.

I paused at "with grass runway". Is "runway" considered an uncountable noun in British English? In the U.S., we would say "with a grass runway", "runway" being a countable noun. I will await your reply before adding the article "a".  – Corinne (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please do add the 'a'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I will. Thank you.  – Corinne (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[See question just above, also.] In the first paragraph of the section Portsmouth#Media, I see the words "roll out" (noun). I always thought it was either a hyphenated word ("roll-out") or one word ("rollout"), so I looked in Wiktionary, and I found all three spellings, with none of them labeled Chiefly U.S. or Chiefly British Eng. So, which do you think is the most common British English spelling?  – Corinne (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a hyphen (2, in fact). Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[See two questions just above.] Several times throughout this article I have seen "South East England", with "South" and "East" capitalized, and not hyphenated (but other times I've seen "south-east England" or "in the south-east". (In the U.S., these latter ones would be "southeast U.S." and "in the southeast".) I suppose the capitalized version parallels "in the Midwest" and "in the Northeast", referring to regions, in the U.S., but I don't understand why "South East" would not be hyphenated. I'm a little puzzled as to why it is capitalized, too, but I'll leave that alone.  – Corinne (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I confess to being perpetually puzzled by these uses. In another context (I think) I decided that capitals removed the need for hyphens. Here, the capitals may be a residue from the regional railways that existed before British Railways united them. Sorry to be hazy here. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Rothorpe, that I had to override your edit just now. I was in the middle of copy-editing (did you see the "GOCE in use" template at the top of the article?) and had made a number of small edits that would be tedious to find again. I see you added the hyphen in "UK wide" – I had already added it in the edits I was making – and in "roll out", with which I agree entirely. Thank you. I hope you understand. I went back and re-added that hyphen in "roll out". (When I saw the edit conflict notice, I did not know it was you with whom I was having an edit conflict.)  – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. GOCE in use, I never notice things like that, hi, ho! Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Caracalla

I'd like to ask you about two different things in Caracalla:

1) One is a recent edit to the article: [6], in which the editor changed "housing" to "including". I don't know the building, but "housing" has more to do with the arrangement of parts within a building than "including" does. Also, I noticed that the entire sentence was added (see the edit just previous to this one) without sourcing. The change from "housing" to "including" may be an attempt at paraphrasing a direct quote. What do you recommend here?

Yes, and as it's the same editor we should respect that. Perhaps just put a after it?

2) I asked a similar question about wording in response to another recent edit at User talk:Mr rnddude#Caracalla 2, but have received no reply. It is possible that my comment was too long and the editor had no interest in the finer points of wording a sentence. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding that, too. You can respond here or there, whichever you think is best. I only asked that editor because I thought he might have some background in the subject matter. (I think I should have learned by now to come to you first when it's a matter of wording.)  – Corinne (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's very well argued and I agree entirely. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Oh, and perhaps such a long comment would have been better placed on the article's talk page. Spreads the load, and you can always send me there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC) :Or come to me first, of course! Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Operation Dragoon

Now, I'm really confused. Among my many copy-edits to Operation Dragoon, I may have changed "were" to "was". I thought "majority" was a singular noun. AustralianRupert has changed it from "was" to "were". Is "majority" one of those words that can be either singular or plural? Or is it singular in American English and plural in British English? (No criticism of you, A.R. I'm just trying to learn something from my English expert.)  – Corinne (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 'majority' usually has a plural noun in BrE. Singular tends to suggest numbers. (The majority are happy. The majority [e.g. in the election] was six.) Rothorpe (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I've got to look into this to see what is really prevalent in Amer. Eng.  – Corinne (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen

I was sorry to read of Leonard Cohen's passing. I liked his music. I'm reading the article now, and I came across a sentence I wanted to ask you about. It's the second-to-last sentence in Leonard Cohen#Early life:

• After moving out of Westmount, Cohen purchased a place in the previous working-class neighbourhood of Montreal's Little Portugal on Saint-Laurent Boulevard where he read his poetry at various surrounding clubs.

I paused at "previous". Shouldn't it be either "previously" or "once"?  – Corinne (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it should. Yes, RIP. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

African American Vernacular English

Hello, Rothorpe -- I was just skimming today's featured article, African American Vernacular English, and in the first line of the African American Vernacular English#Overview section I saw "language-forms". Since when is that a hyphenated word? Do you think it merits hyphenation?  – Corinne (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Corinne. No, I'd treat that as a normal case of adjective before noun. (That's my first typing on the new computer. So far so good.) Rothorpe (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Latitudinarian

What do you think of this edit to Latitudinarian?  – Corinne (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

'Ascribed' would mean they said it, wouldn't it? So the change would be correct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Petroglyph

I was just looking at the latest edits to Petroglyph, and I saw this edit. Shouldn't a plural form be there? I looked at the beginning of the article on Stele, and I see that there is a Greek plural and a Latin plural. I don't know which is better. Any ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be plural, but I don't know which form is best understood. You could revert, with a suitable summary. Rothorpe (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rothorpe. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

William Ellery Channing

Hello, Rothorpe -- I have spent quite some time copy-editing William Ellery Channing. I am still looking at the first sentence in the fourth paragraph in William Ellery Channing#As theologian. It was not the only long sentence, but all I've succeeded in doing with this one is revising it so it reads better than it did. I'm still wondering whether the sentence is too long and, if so, how to break it up so that it still flows well. Can you take a look and tell me what you think?  – Corinne (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Corinne. Switching back to my old desktop (computer problems, very boring), I see I missed this. Many apologies. Yes, I do think that sentence is very long and clumsy. Are you still interested in improving it? Rothorpe (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Footnote the digression on the church, perhaps. Rothorpe (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and suggestion. I've been busy, too. I re-read the sentence earlier, but I didn't know how to make a footnote. Now I see that both you and Checkingfax have been working on it, and it is much improved. Checkingfax must have read a comment I made on my talk page about the reference and fixed it. I think I'll leave it the way it is now.  – Corinne (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you changed 'reference' to 'footnote' there, as I use them interchangeably. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Canteloube

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of this edit to Joseph Canteloube? Is the addition of "who is" an improvement? Go ahead and revert if you think not.  – Corinne (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne---indeed, reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Rothorpe: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks---same to you! Rothorpe (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

formatting problem of a minor nature at one of my articles

Hi Ro, Hope that you (and I) will have the strength of character to survive the upcoming Holidays, which, now seem to stretch on interminably! At the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anything_for_a_Quiet_Life_(short_stories)&action=edit&section=1 I am finding it impossible to get the footnote number to line up right behind the end of the Blockquote, the way one of my other ones does so correctly. Baffling! Perhaps you can fix it? If so, many thanks and all the best!Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There was one "blockquote" too many, as you'll see. Happy Horrordays! Rothorpe (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, HOW could I have not seen that! Grrrrrrrrrr! I'll have to remember that Horrordays, hadn't heard it before, hehe! Ta, myte! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

De nada. Now here's a puzzle: I've just been reading the Huffington Post, which I'm new to, the obituary of Zsa Zsa Gabor. It ends with a correction: "A previous version of this article stated that Gabor spent three days in prison for driving without a valid license. She spent three days in jail." There is a difference? Rothorpe (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Jail is the local municipal lock-up, where you go when first arrested, or when convicted for minor crimes that don't warrant too much time behind bars. "Prison" is for more serious offenders, and for longer periods. For instance, there are jails all over New York City (I forget their actual names) but Sing-Sing, up the river, is a "prison". All this may be different from Blighty. Where you have "gaols", hehe, as in Reading.... (Zsa-Zsa probably spent three days in the Beverly Hills jail, NOT three days in San Quentin Prison just across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, where they put the BAD people....)Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, that's about how I imagined it, as in the Westerns when the bad guys (or good guys) are first locked up, but I'd never seen the words actually contrasted before. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A good analogy. Think of a jail as being the brig on a ship and a prison as being Pentonville.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A lead story in today's local paper mentioned the two words in one sentence. So here's how I THINK it shapes up: in the 50 states you have city and county JAILS. Mostly for misdemeanors and people CHARGED with crimes. Then you have STATE prisons, for felonies and other serious crimes. On the FEDERAL level you have a bunch of PRISONS -- and, I imagine, jails here and there to hold people ACCUSED of Federal crimes. If convicted, they go off to prison. There could be exceptions to all of this, but I doubt if there are very many....Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In BrE they're just synonyms, I think. I had a look in CZ, but nothing there. Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless you or *I* wrote a learned article about it. I'll defer to YOU, hehe! Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Rothorpe! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, and the same to you. Rothorpe (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Rothorpe! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, and the same to you. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Luís de Camões

I was just reading the article on Luís de Camões. I was curious to learn more about Os Lusíadas, so I clicked on the link and began reading that article. When I got to the excerpts in the section Os Lusíadas#The eclogue of the Island of Love, I paused at a line in the English translation, and I wanted to ask you about it. Here they are:

Impossible things do not do,
Who wanted always could: and numbered
You will be amongst the famous heroes
And in this Isle of Venus received.

(«Impossibilidades não façais,
Que quem quis sempre pôde: e numerados
Sereis entre os heróis esclarecidos
E nesta Ilha de Vénus recebidos.»).

I'm wondering whether the second line of the stanza should read

"He who wanted, always could: and numbered..."

instead of just "Who wanted". While you're there, you might want to check the other lines. You'll be able to tell if they are good translations.  – Corinne (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence. I'll have a proper look tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Eva's just been in to have a look. Yes, it should be 'he who wanted'; the rest is fine. Rothorpe (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Nikita Khrushchev page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on 'fix' produces no changes in the preview, so I'll ignore this for now. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernard Lee

I just read the article Bernard Lee (after reading the exchanges about an infobox in the revision history of the article's talk page – and I have no opinion either way about that) and I wanted to ask you about a sentence in the lead:

• Lee's film career spanned 1934 to 1979, though he had appeared on stage from the age of six.

I thought the first part of the sentence would read better with "the years" before "1934 to 1979". I had never heard "spanned" go directly into the years like that. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite so, it's normal to put 'the years' in. ...Ah, yes, the Great Infobox War, Episode 94. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll tell you what does exercise me, though. Have a look at Hurricane (Bob Dylan song) if you're so minded. Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White

In an effort to be helpful (several days after copy-editing the article), I did a little searching to find the right verb for the editor who is working on William Pūnohu White. See Talk:William Pūnohu White#Created. I just wanted to know, is it "made Knight Commander..." or "made a Knight Commander"? If it's the latter, I would add "a" and correct my post. Other than that, do you have any suggestions regarding the best way to express what the editor wants to say? You might have to read the article to find out exactly what is needed. It's been a few days, so I don't remember the context.  – Corinne (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say 'He was made Knight Commander'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Henri-Edmond Cross

What do you think of this edit to Henri-Edmond Cross? Be sure to read the sentence that precedes it. A painting by this artist is today's featured picture on the main page, so this article will get a lot of readers.  – Corinne (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think the editor read the preceding sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nemegtomaia

Yesterday, I completed a copy-edit (in response to a request made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests) of Nemegtomaia. Today, I see two sets of edits, this and a subsequent set. In the first set, I had left the structure of the sentences as it was, "That many oviraptorids....indicates...." and "That the third finger is reduced in size is...". This editor apparently does not like that construction, and changed them to the more common structure. However, in the first one, the editor introduced another instance of "indicating", which is in the first sentence of the paragraph (which probably needs a comma before "indicating", but that's another issue). I thought varied sentence structure makes for more interesting reading. Is the structure with a noun clause at the beginning ("That.....indicates", "That....is probably...") not acceptable in encyclopedia articles? What do you think about the editor's changes to the sentence structure?

No, it wasn't desirable to change the constructions beginning with 'that'.

Also, is "the" necessary before "Choice of nesting area"? I saw that and did not add "the".

Better with 'the', I'd say.

Regarding the next set of edits, what do you think about the use of semi-colons instead of commas? Are the semi-colons better than commas? Personally, I don't like using semi-colons unless the clauses are somewhat long.  – Corinne (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semicolons are fine where there are commas to contrast them with, but there the commas have already finished, so no semicolons are necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rothorpe, for your opinions. I'm going to notify FunkMonk, who requested the copy-edit to begin with. FunkMonk, I'll leave it up to you whether you want to change some things back to the way they were before the edits mentioned above. See Rothorpe's responses to my questions. If you agree with Rothorpe and want me to change them back, let me know.  – Corinne (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, as long as the meaning of the sentences are not altered. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ascend

Hello, Rothorpe - I've just started to copy-edit Coloman, King of Hungary, and I came across "ascended the throne" in the lead. I am a little puzzled. I would have thought it should be "ascended to the throne" if a date is given for the event. I looked up "ascend" in Merriam-Webster on-line. See [7]. If it's "ascended to the throne", it would be Definition 2a. of the intransitive verb, as in "ascended to power". If it's "ascended the throne", it would be Definition 2 of the transitive verb. But if it's Definition 2 of the transitive verb, it means "occupy", and a person could be said to occupy a throne on any day of his or her reign, so "ascended the throne" would mean "occupied the throne". (Does that mean on any day of the reign, or is the phrase "ascended the throne" only used to refer to ascending on the first day of the reign?) On the day the person takes the oath and moves into the position, he or she is actually moving up in status, so it would be more like Definition 2a. of the transitive verb: "ascended to the throne". See also the example sentence, "John Adams ascended to the presidency in 1797." If that is correct, then would "ascended to the throne" be all right for the sentence in the article I'm working on? To me, "ascended to the throne" makes more sense, but I don't want to go against common usage. What would you use there? Pls. don't edit the article just yet since I'm in the middle of editing.  – Corinne (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Many apologies, Corinne. Perhaps I saw this a week ago, and it was very late and I put it off but forgot to look here the next day; perhaps I missed it altogether. Anyway, FWIW, I'm used to 'ascended the throne', meaning 'began to reign' from the history books I read as a child. Again, apologies. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, problem. Thank you!  – Corinne (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I just checked, and all the instances of the verb construction are written without "to": "ascended the throne". I think it's interesting, though, that all the instances of the noun construction have the "to": "ascension to the throne".  – Corinne (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course a preposition is essential, but one might have expected 'of' instead. Rothorpe (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Martin Schulz

hello. your lead-tag was well-placed in jun 2016, but has long-since been addressed. the para now seems stable and coherent, so the tag now sits awkwardly. it would be good if you removed it and replaced it with the standard living biog advisory, or clarified what is still problematic. thanks. Protozoon (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed. I didn't see it because I had scrapped my too-huge watchlist. I'll leave you to put the replacement tag in. Thanks for advising. Rothorpe (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Anastylosis

Hello, Rothorpe - I was just looking at the latest edit to Anastylosis, and since I hadn't read the article in a while, I skimmed it. I came across a word that I believe may not be the right word, but I thought I'd ask you. It is "incorrigible". It appears in the first bulleted item in the Anastylosis#Criticism section. I know the original meaning from Latin is un-correctable, but the word generally has a connotation that refers to a person's behavior. I looked it up on Merriam-Webster on-line, and I see that the first two definitions refer to behavior. The third definition gives two synonyms, one of which is "unalterable", which is close to the intended meaning. I wonder whether you think that is close enough to the intended meaning that the connotations referring to behavior can be ignored, or whether another word, such as irremediable, irreparable, or irreversible, would be better.  – Corinne (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one thinks of naughty children. But I like a word to have a wide use, so I wouldn't alter it. A matter of taste, I suppose. Or a philosophical question: how important are connotations? Rothorpe (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We don't want to lose the less common meanings of words. That's a good question. However, since the first synonym in the third definition for "incorrigible" is "unalterable", you could argue that no renovation is unalterable. Are we to assume that "incorrigible" here means "uncorrectable", which is not a word in English, or "incapable of being corrected"? I wonder what the OED has for "incorrigible".  – Corinne (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, uncorrectable rather than unalterable. My Oxford has: (Of person or habit) incurably bad or depraved; not readily improved. Very conservative, those Oxonians. Rothorpe (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rothorpe. I notice, however, that the Oxford definition starts "Of person or habit". I wonder if it has a definition that refers to structures. In this article, "incorrigible" is used to refer to a renovation of an ancient building. I think a word should be used that is normally used, or would be more appropriate to use, to describe a poor renovation that is incapable of being corrected. That's why I preferred "irreparable", or "incapable of being corrected".  – Corinne (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Cádiz

Hello, Rothorpe - In Cádiz, do you like the placement of the time phrase here or at the end of the sentence (the way it was)? Or doesn't it matter?  – Corinne (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a slight improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Circa

Hello, Rothorpe - I see you've been tinkering with your user page. I like the change you made regarding "circa". Do you really want it to say "and will continue to do", or did you mean to write, "and will continue to do so"? Also, you might want to add that there are several "circa" templates that editors can use to supply an explanation of "c" for readers who may not be familiar with the abbreviation. You could supply the link to the list of templates at Template:Circa. It is, of course, entirely up to you. It's just a suggestion. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, must encourage good habits. And I removed "so" in a moment of confusion. Many thanks, Corinne. Rothorpe (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Don (2006 Hindi film)

Hello, Rothorpe - I've just started copy-editing Don (2006 Hindi film) in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I need to ask you something. Right near the beginning, it has (after the pipe in a link) "the titular criminal", in "the titular criminal's look-alike". I'm wondering what you think of "titular criminal". I should have thought "the titular character" would be better writing, and then explain later that he is a criminal. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

'Titular character' is certainly a more familiar phrase, but where would you put the 'criminal' bit? Rothorpe (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Rothorpe (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Look prior to leaping

Re: this edit [8]. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Brian Houghton Hodgson

Hello, Rothorpe! - I just came across an article that is quite interesting but badly in need of a copy-edit. It is Brian Houghton Hodgson. If you one day find yourself with nothing to do, you might like to copy-edit the article as you read it. It is full of small errors and could use some punctuation. If you don't want to do it, I'll get to it eventually, but if I keep copy-editing articles I come across, I'll never finish the ones I've started at the Guild of Copy Editors. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll make a start now. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hi Rothorpe , Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards from Amsterdam, Amin (Talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yum yum, that's very kind, thank you. Regards from Esposende, Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Violet Brown, 19th century

You undid an edit of mine that explained something that will obviously be highly confusing to many readers. Please do not undo it again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.213.137 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you reverted it again. Please stop doing this. Your edits are unhelpful, and it is exactly this kind of tiresome reversion of beneficial edits that pisses people off and discourages contributions. Thank you. 86.190.213.137 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to explain 19th century. So there is no need for an explanation. However, there is a way of putting in a hidden note if you really think that is necessary. I tried, but have forgotten the code. Thanks for using the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, your edit is incorrect, "considered" it ain't. So please remove it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I am confused why you removed the Michel Corbold entry which is a notable character. I.e Alternative Spirituality Island of the Dawn etc.. etc. All the non Wiki links are on the page you removed. If you want non Wiki sources, then simply change the references rather than simply deleting the wiki link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.208.248 (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it. If you'd used a comma, I wouldn't've noticed. Rothorpe (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe that Michel Corbold should be included. Another wiki editor removed them. Michel Corbold (aka Michael Freedman) is a Spiritual Teacher is a noted person in New Zealand and disciple of Maharishi. He is recognized in NZ for his contribution to alternative spirituality and also to TM. Where he continued Maharishi's work and was instrumental to teaching/providing TM to over 10,000 people in NZ. (i need to find the reference for this) IMO One should not judge nor compare to pop stars like the Beatles etc.. of international fame. Rather should include persons whom were disciples of Maharishi whom continued the TM meditation and spiritual work. Corbold was a major figure in New Zealand alternative spirituality. He died in 1996. Unlike the Beatles who did things for publicly stunts, he worked quietly and it is difficult to find out information. That he was a disciple of Yogi, can be Australian newspaper links (previously provided but removed by censorship of wiki editor). Corbold has a section of Prof Ellwood research book Islands of the Dawn, alternative spirituality in NZ; and is also within Prof Donovan's Beliefs practices in New Zealand (Massey University study) and also Michael Howards' Modern Wicca and is mentioned in other publications such as New Zealand Listener etc. He founded the TM Research Foundation and TM Society in NZ (see Companies Office of NZ records), these with the cooperation of Professors from the University of Auckland School of Medicine' was well known among medical practitioners in this country for the TM course which helped over 10,000 person in this small country. Can the same be said for the Beatles ! All this information is available publicly. Persons included on this page, should not have to compare with pops tars like the Beatles or the Beach Boys but be measured by there contribution to TM. It is like saying someone famous in Fiji won't get a mention, because they are not super pop music stars. That is not what encylopedic content is about. What should be the measure is, what verifiable disciples of Yogi have made an international or national influence in terms of Yogi teachings and meditation methods. Notable characters are those that continued Maharishi's work nationally should be included in this page, so long as it can be verified. Very few persons can compare to the Beatles pop group and they are not even spiritual teachers. Other than Ravi Shankar who can you tell has any real spiritual legacy to Yogi and continued his work as a true master to disciple. Michael Corbold is one such person. I ask the authorities here at Wiki to include Michel Corbold in this page. Faithfully Lenny (jeandecabalis@aim.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.208.248 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I suggest you choose a name and, if he really is as notable as you say, write an article on him yourself. It would be a good idea to draft it in your userspace first. Welcome to Wikipedia. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact the Society of the Guardians article already has a section devoted to him, under his other name. Rothorpe (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Rothorpe for your recommendation. However I don't have the skills to do this, as tried in the past and made a mess of things. The web-page you mention has various issues that need fixing. There is also the conflict of interest issue, as he was my old teacher and friend. In terms of TM his meditation correspondence course was recommended by the Australian Heart Disease presentation manual (1980's i think) but without access to old copies of this I cannot qualify a reference. It would need someone in Australia to check out previous issues. I only mention to you as a matter of interest and for any future researcher. = Lenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.208.248 (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Australia in Eurovision

The convention is to put the , before the ""

BernardZ (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There is more than one convention. Please see Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Or, more succinctly, MOS:LQ. Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

2.0 film controversy

A few editors keep insisting that this film (2.0 (film))is the most expensive in Asia refusing to accept any evidence. Gave a massive list of evidence but still refuses, do not know if they are just patriotic. Could you look at the Talk page and make any neccessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisdeBourbon (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know... User:Corinne, could you look into this, please? Rothorpe (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, either. I see the discussion at Talk:2.0 (film)#Part two: Dispute about "most expensive film in Asia" and the various edits in the revision history of the article. Perhaps Capankajsmilyo can help sort this out.  – Corinne (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

German Peasants' War

Hello, Rothorpe - Do you think the commas are needed here in German Peasants' War?  – Corinne (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, but I do think they make it more readable. Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Hello, Rothorpe - I'm now resuming copy-editing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. I'm nearly finished. In the section Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Affiliated organisations, I see the past participle "deputed". I figured it meant "deputized", but I had never seen it before, so I looked depute up in Wiktionary and found that it is a verb: to depute. Would you leave it as it is or change it to "deputized" or "deputised"? Have you ever heard "depute/deputed" used?  – Corinne (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I have, but it matches meaning nº3 exactly, so I reckon it's fine. Who knows, in India it might be quite common. Rothorpe (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, very true. I'm surprised to see you using "I reckon", which is very common in certain parts of the U.S. – I would say south and southwest. Is that also common in British English?  – Corinne (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I reckon so, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Taung Child

Hello, Rothorpe - An IP editor has made quite a few edits to Taung Child. I didn't look at all of the edits but I saw enough to make me wonder whether a wholesale revert might be advisable. There are a few small edits that are good, but overall, I don't think they represent an improvement. What do you think? I thought I'd leave it up to you to decide what to do. I hate to discourage a new editor to WP, but... I see three possible approaches:

(a) Leave everything as it is now;
(b) revert everything back to the way it was before; or
(c) take the time to go through every poor edit and explain why it is not an improvement, and change it back.  – Corinne (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your description. (a) is, as they say, not an option. (c) would be too much work for me, though presumably not for you, but you sound understandably unkeen. So it looks like (b) with a kindly edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

How can the edit summary accompanying a wholesale revert of so many edits ever be seen as kind? What would you write? Something like, "It was better before", or "It was fine as it was"?  – Corinne (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you want to say, then yes. But I was thinking of something like: 'Please reinstate these edits a few at a time so we can discuss them on the talk page.' Rothorpe (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

I'm almost finished copy-editing the article Balfour Declaration. I noticed that, for the most part, following the initial use of the phrase "Balfour Declaration", "declaration" is capitalized. I changed one or two from lower-case to capital for consistency, but I'm still wondering whether it really should be capitalized (after first mention). What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Funny, I've been thinking about exactly this question recently. I conclude perhaps that to keep capitalizing (should I adopt Oxford spelling? I've always had a soft spot for Zs) after the adjectival bit has been left behind is perhaps rather old-fashioned, and I'd be inclined to drop the capital immediately. I suspect no-one would object. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the capital "d" is not necessary. See User talk:Oncenawhile#Balfour Declaration GOCE Copy-Edit, Item 5. In addition to asking you, I thought since the lead coordinator of the GOCE, Miniapolis, was there anyway to answer my other question, I might as well ask him/her about the "d" in "declaration". Let's see if you two agree. Feel free to chime in on any of the other questions I posed there.  – Corinne (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with myself, see history.) It must be the one at the bottom. I'll have a look tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the link. It is "Oncenawhile", not "Onceinawhile". There is another editor who selected the user name "Onceinawhile", and I believe the editor "Oncenawhile" requested that editor to change their user name. I think you'll be able to find my posts now if you use the link above.  – Corinne (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there was also he lowercase 'e' of 'Copy-edit' that I spotted and corrected with my last edit, so that now it takes me to the exact place. So did you ask Miniapolis about the D? Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I didn't see this until today. Yes, Miniapolis did not see a reason to capitalize "declaration" throughout the article. I see a lot of editing has been taking place at that article, but I haven't been following it.  – Corinne (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Mafic

Hello, Rothorpe - I wonder what you think of this edit to Mafic. I looked compare up in the unabridged on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary, and it says "with" or "to" can be used with compare, and the various examples show some with "with" and some with "to". I was trying to see if there was a pattern of "with" being used in certain constructions and "to" with others, but I couldn't see any. Are "with" and "to" equally interchangeable to you? I might use "with" with "when compared with" (but also "to"), but would probably use "to" with "in comparison to". Is "in comparison with" perhaps British English? (I would also remove two commas there, after "viscosity" and after "lava". What do you think?)  – Corinne (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I also now see these edits to Paleolithic diet.

I've done a little searching on-line and have found these links:

Oxford Dictionaries
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
Jakub Marian
There is something in the Chicago Manual of Style, but I don't have a subscription so can't access it.

Sb2001 I know we have disagreed in the past about other things, but I thought I'd include you in this discussion. I don't know if the use of "to" vs. "with" is an Amer. Eng. vs. Brit. Eng. difference, or the usage is changing over time, or if "to" is more appropriate for some constructions and "with" for others. Obviously, judging from your two edits, "with" sounds better to you. In the Mafic edit, I prefer "to". In the Paleolithic diet, I agree that "with" sounds better, but I would even change "as compared" to "when compared".  – Corinne (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a proper look at this tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

'Compared to' and 'compared with' are not interchangeable. No, it is not an AE v BE thing, although it is more common to see rogue appearances of 'compared to' in the US than the UK.

'Compared to' means that they are the same, or possess similar qualities, upon which you are commenting.

'Compared with' means that there is a contrast. Here, for example, the article suggests that one thing has a lower viscosity than another. Therefore, you need to say 'compared with'.

You could remove the comma after 'viscosity', but not the second 'lava', as a new clause is being introduced.

What is up to you is whether you go for 'in comparison with' or 'compared with'.

'As compared' and 'when compared' are just based on the context. Use whichever seems right at the time. I would agree that the PD article should say 'when' – I will change that. Update: I have just removed the 'as' as it does not need to be their, neither does 'when'.

–Sb2001 ^{talk page} 13:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Mithraism

Hello, Rothorpe - What do you think of this edit to Mithraism and the accompanying edit summary? I've seen this objection to "centered around" before, but I have to say that the expression is common in the U.S.  – Corinne (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, pedantic nonsense. Do revert. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Hello, Rothorpe - I've kept Macedonia (ancient kingdom) on my watch list since I copy-edited it a while ago, and occasionally look at more recent edits. I just made two small edits. Just before those, Ian Rose made several edits. I agree that "however" was overused and Ian was right to remove them; I know "in addition to" can sound heavy or clunky, but I think occasional use is all right, and I wouldn't remove all of them in favor of "as well as", which then becomes overused, but I'm not going to argue with that. I'm just puzzled by the change from "different from" to "different to". Maybe it is correct, but I have to say that "different to" is hardly ever used in American English; it is used so little that I'm not even sure what it means, or how it differs from "different from" (I cringe when I hear "different than", but it is increasingly being used). Could you or Ian, or both, enlighten me as to the difference between "different from" and "different to"?  – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I did leave a couple of "addition" variations I think, as I tend to agree with you that almost any expression can be overused. I also agree that "different from" is more common in AmEng, and wouldn't object to it being changed back. Thank you for correcting my typo as well... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

When I was a child in London in the fifties, we were taught that 'different to' (which we all used) was wrong and one should say 'different from'. 'Different than' seems to me a neologism from America. Coming soon: 'different of', different at', different beside'... Rothorpe (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In 75 years of semi-speakin' 'Murkin English, I have NEVER in my life heard of "different to". "Different from", yes. "Different than", yes. "Different from" is definitely preferred. Just checked the NYT Manual of Style. It says "You can seldom go wrong with Different From. And you will mostly go wrong with Different Than." So says the Good Gray Lady. (People ALWAYS say "INdifferent to", but that is completely different, I would say.") Hayford Peirce (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps you should get out more... ;-) On WP alone you can find many instances of "different to" -- clearly not in AmEng usage though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Using "ain't" a lot don't mean that it's right. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal

Hello, Rothorpe - I've just begun copy-editing West Bengal. I am still working on the lead. I removed a hyphen in "fourth-most populous state"; it didn't look right. I figured it should either be "fourth-most-populous state" or "fourth most populous state", and I opted for no hyphens. Do you concur? But then a little further down I see "the seventh-largest city in India". How do I justify leaving out all hyphens in the first phrase and including the hyphen in this second phrase? Would you leave the hyphen in "seventh-largest" or remove it?

I'm pro-hyphens for consistency and readability in all these cases.

So, for the first phrase, you would recommend "fourth-most-populous state"?  – Corinne (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, a little later in the lead, I came across "the British East India Company cemented their hold on the region". Is a company ordinarily considered plural in British English? I know about "government", "orchestra", and "committee"; is "company" one of those types of nouns? In US English, we would always say "cemented its hold on the region", but since the article is written in Indian English, which is pretty close to British English, I thought I'd check with you.  – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a company too can be plural in BrE. As you suggest, any noun of that kind can.

Also, does this sound right (also in lead): "The main ethnic group are the Bengalis"? In US English, "the main group" would always be singular, and, instead of "The main ethnic group is the Bengalis", which doesn't sound right, I'd probably write, "the Bengalis are the main ethnic group". What do you prefer?  – Corinne (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It does sound right, but I agree, that'd be a good change. Rothorpe (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf

Hello, Rothorpe – I was wondering what you thought of this edit to Dire wolf, and the edit summary, by Piledhigheranddeeper. Is "concluded" that much better than "found"? I copy-edited this article in March and in the weeks following that, and now it is a featured article. I consciously used different verbs after "A study..." to introduce variety. I just did a search in the article itself for the word "study" and looked at the verbs that follow it, and I see "found", "concluded", "showed", "shows", "yielded evidence that", etc. Is "[improving] diction" a valid reason to change "found" to "concluded"? Or, if it is ever a valid reason, was it necessary?  – Corinne (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No, 'found' sounds to me better in that sentence, more direct. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

William Harris Do you concur with Rothorpe? If so, would one of you change it? I don't want to get into an edit war with Piledhigheranddeeper.  – Corinne (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. Corinne, I understand that "found" is more direct, yet I am not fussed about "concluded" either. I have found that scientists often speak of what we know from the past as "concluded", because it is based on a set of assumptions and we do not know something for a fact. I would advise letting this one go; it certainly isn't worth edit warring over, especially after the recent dire wolf "incident". (For this article, those types of "opportunities" will no doubt make themselves available later!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

'Found' does have an unwelcome legal ring to it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the reluctance to get into an edit war, and I thought it might be useful to explain my reasoning (although I have to wonder why nobody simply asked for it). As a scientist of some experience, I have come to see that "found" refers to the raw observations of a study: the tooth lengths, or the masses of tunicates from different locations. A "conclusion" is what one builds on the raw data to reach: that the bite strength was 30% greater than in the modern-day specimens, or that warmer water results in smaller body size. I realize it's a semantic issue, but that's the semantic size of it. Keep up the good work. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very clear. Thank you. Rothorpe (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Phrygians

Hello, Rothorpe – I was just looking at the latest edits to Phrygians. I keep reading the last one and can't figure out why the editor would have removed "and"; unless my eyes are deceiving me (it's late, so that's possible), the removal of "and" made the sentence ungrammatical, so I was planning to undo that edit, but then I was looking at the edit just before it in which the editor changed "which" to "whom". Normally, I would agree that we use "whom" for people, and "which" for things, but in this case, I'm wondering whether "which" sounds all right. What do you think? Revert both edits, or just the last one?  – Corinne (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think 'whom' is preferable, but I'd certainly revert the last one. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Athena

Hello, Rothorpe – I went to the article on Athena to look at the latest edits, and instead of looking at the latest edits, I started reading the article. I wanted to ask you about a few things in the lead, mostly stylistic questions:

1) I remember you reminding me that "likely" is really an adjective even though it is sometimes used as an adverb (probably mostly in the U.S.). Since then, I have become more aware of how the word is used when I see it. In the second paragraph of the lead is the following sentence:

• Athena likely takes her name from the city of Athens, of which she was the patron.

It seems "likely" is used as an adverb here. What do you think of this usage? Would you leave it as is or re-word the sentence to something like:

(a) Athena probably takes her name from the city of Athens,... or

(b) It is likely that Athena takes her name from the city of Athens, or

(c) something else?

(a) fits best to my BrEars. Rothorpe (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai I see you changed it to (a) in this edit. There is no need to apologize. I am an American, too, and though I had learned at some point that "likely" was only an adjective, I had also heard it used as an adverb so often that I had forgotten that, and Rothorpe reminded me of it when I first started editing on Wikipedia.  – Corinne (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

2) Toward the end of the Athena#Etymology paragraph is the following sentence:

• The relationship of Athena to her city seems to have been a similar one.

It seems to me that this sentence is superfluous, or at least repetitive. I think the relationship has already been pointed out earlier in the paragraph, specifically this sentence:

• Testimonies from different cities in ancient Greece attest that similar city goddesses were worshipped in other cities and, like Athena, took their names from the cities where they were worshipped.

and possibly also the first sentence of the paragraph where the relationship of the name of the city to the name of the sisterhood is explained. What do you think?

Yes, not needed. Rothorpe (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

3) Toward the end of the Athena#Etymology section is the following sentence:

• For example, in Mycenae there was a goddess called Mykene, whose sisterhood was known as Mykenai, whereas at Thebes an analogous deity was called Thebe, and the city was known under the plural form Thebai (or Thebes, in English, where the ‘s’ is the plural formation).

I wonder what you think of the use of "whereas" here. To my ear, not only does it sound a bit legalistic, it suggests a contrast, and I don't see much of a contrast here. In fact, the rest of the sentence is about an "analogous deity", which is pretty close to a "similar deity". Perhaps "and" would work instead of "whereas", or "while". What do you think? Perhaps I should ping Katolophyromai, who has been working on this article. Katolophyromai, Rothorpe and I often discuss questions of style in the prose of articles. Your opinions are welcome.  – Corinne (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of 'while'. Rothorpe (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Corinne. I received your ping. I have now addressed all of the complaints you have listed here except for the last one. I am planning to conduct a great deal of work improving the article Athena in the near future and I hope to eventually bring it up to GA status. I have previously worked on the articles ancient Greek literature, Inanna, and Enlil, which have all been put up for GA nomination and are currently awaiting review. I am also currently working on the article Ishtar, which is not ready yet, but which I am planning to nominate soon. I really appreciate your criticism. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I don't know if you know about the Guild of Copy Editors, but if you ever want an article copy-edited by a member of the Guild, you can leave a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. The list has gotten a little long, so you might have to wait for a few weeks for your article to move up the queue. I should add that I still look forward to reading Rothorpe's opinions.  – Corinne (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

johnnie ray had a son ... the more you know.

did you know johnnie had a son born in 1956 this boy had 2 fathers, lover of johnnie ray,kept secret for many years also some family members know of his existence, some articles have been written but he has kept himself low key for so many years, at the age of 60 years old many friends family members of johnnies have embraced him, him name was lary, at this point, he lives in las vegas, and is the biological of johnnie ray, alot of the information is not correct. if you would like to contact him about any of the information regarding you editing of these articles, please leave your message here so we may correspond, 162.246.117.233 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Time

Hello, Rothorpe – I know that when a time is used as an adjective – a two-hour-long movie – the phrase should be hyphenated, but I have forgotten whether we hyphenate the phrase when we are just giving an amount of time: two and a half hours, or two-and-a-half hours. I thought it was the former, but I'm not sure.  – Corinne (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Fills me with doubt! But the hyphens are surely unnecessary. Compare: a two-and-a-half-hour talk. Rothorpe (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC) (Oh, you said that!)

So, unnecessary when just giving an amount of time. Thank you!  – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Gnosticism

Hello, Rothorpe – I wonder if you would mind offering your thoughts regarding wording at Talk:Gnosticism#Neoplatonic influences and Talk:Gnosticism#Neoplatonic influences 2? I probably should have asked you here first.  – Corinne (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)