User talk:Corinne/Archive 17

Checkingfax, Rothorpe, and any tps's: I copy-edited Sleepy Hollow Country Club, and I posted questions and concerns on the article's requester's talk page, and the requester responded, and we worked out some changes. For one sentence, after coming to understand what was meant after being provided with a link to the source, I suggested a revision to a sentence. The requester, Ɱ, made a change that approaches what I had suggested (see the requester's talk page if you want to see what I suggested). However, upon looking at it, I'm now wondering whether it should be "in size" instead of "of a size". Which do you prefer? Corinne (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Corinne, So are we opting between:

At the north end of the house, situated farthest from the main entrance, and of a size larger than most houses, is the service wing, which contains the servant quarters.

and...

At the north end of the house, situated farthest from the main entrance, and larger in size than most houses, is the service wing, which contains the servant quarters.

The first way I understand it to mean the service wing is larger than a house.

The second way I understand it to mean the service wing is larger than it traditionally is within a house.

Hmmmm. Let me percolate on this. Maybe the sentence should start out with: The service wing is... Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

To me the meaning of both sentences is that the service wing is larger than a house. To get the meaning that it's larger than service wings are traditionally within a house, 'in' has to be added before 'most houses' in both examples:

At the north end of the house, situated farthest from the main entrance, and of a size larger than IN most houses, is the service wing, which contains the servant quarters.

and...

At the north end of the house, situated farthest from the main entrance, and larger in size than IN most houses, is the service wing, which contains the servant quarters.

Rothorpe (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for your replies. Before, I had it as "and larger than in most houses". Then the requester, M, pointed out to me that the source said differently, that the service wing was larger than most houses (i.e., huge), and M provided me with a link to the source, and, sure enough, M was right. That's when I changed it to "and of a size larger than most houses" because I thought it would be clearer than just "and larger than most houses". Now, I'm wondering whether "and of a size larger than most houses" should be changed to "and larger in size than most houses". Corinne (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Please see M's preference on his/her talk page. Corinne (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, Corinne: 'and of a size larger than most houses' is absolutely clear. Rothorpe (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Rothorpe. Are you saying that "and of a size larger than most houses" is better than either "and larger in size than most houses" or "and larger than most houses"? Corinne (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd give it the prize, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good. I see that the requester, M, prefers that wording also (see User talk:Ɱ#Sleepy Hollow Country Club, last comment on page), and that's the way it is now, so we'll leave it that way. Thanks again. Corinne (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I've just got to understand your edit summary here. It looks like you properly moved the punctuation to before the reference, but I don't see any wiki-link there. Corinne (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I do not understand your question but maybe this answers it. I took this, which was incorrect:

• ("sleepers' harbor" in Dutch^[1]);

And changed it to this, which is correct:

• ("sleepers' harbor" in Dutch);^[1]

I moved the ); from the end of the reference to the beginning of the reference to be proper. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. The Pali article has a couple of greater than signs in the Early western views section in this sentence:

Following this period, the language underwent a small degree of Sanskritisation (i.e., MIA bamhana > brahmana, tta > tva in some cases).

Is that by design? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I'm pretty sure it is by design, and that it means "[the] MIA (which stands for Middle Indo-Aryan; see Classification section) word bamhana became (in the process of Sanskritisation) brahmana, and [the MIA sound combination] tta became tva in some cases. I've seen a skinny horizontal arrow used in some articles, such as Morphological derivation, and while similar to the horizontal, right-facing carat, I think they may indicate something different. If you ever have questions about language or linguistics articles, the editor User:Florian Blaschke is very helpful and could perhaps explain this better. Corinne (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Thanks. I used to use less than and greater than signs a lot for text emails to bracket text or to show flow like ---> or >>>> Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Corinne is right – traditionally, in historical linguistics, "A > B" indicates that A has turned into B, and "B < A" indicates the opposite direction, that B originates from A. For example, "French eau < Latin aqua". Strictly speaking, this is only used correctly when the sound change is thought to be completely regular, but small deviations are usually tolerated. Sometimes even derivational steps that have obviously taken place are ignored, but that is sloppy usage. In that case, it is better to use "A → B" and "B ← A" respectively, or even better (unless the historical stage is identical, for example "Latin aquārius ← aqua") "A → B > C" (etc.), for example "Latin frāter "brother" → frātellus > Italian fratello" – it would be imprecise to claim that write "Latin frāter > Italian fratello", or "Latin sōl > French soleil". An alternative notation is "A >> B" and "B << A", though what exactly is meant by "A → B" or "A >> B" depends on the author.

This case is interesting, because Sanskritisation is not regular sound change, but instead the more or less conscious reversal of regular sound change – it's the equivalent of Latinising Italian pizza to **pīt(t)ia or similar, a word that never existed in Latin in antiquity. Personally, I would probably use "A >> B" here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I was just looking at edits in articles on my watchlist, and I saw your edits to Systema Naturae. I saw they were changed and then put back by another editor. I was looking at your edit summary here. I know you were using a kind of bot or editing software, I've got to ask you why you would change "a" to "an" before "Iohannes" in a Latin sentence? (I wouldn't change "a" to "an" before "Iohannes" even if it were English.) I'm not even sure "an" is a word in Latin. Corinne (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I would never do that purposefully. I am very careful to screen the suggestions of the tool (WP:AWB) but that particular edit was hidden from view and I overlooked it. The tool makes edits, then I screen them to make sure they are worth saving. This one got by me. The tool screened 10,000 articles, skipping most of them and I approved 247 pages of edits only. You may be pleased to know that the pages that you have contributed to only had about 2% requiring a fix, while other groups I have done mostly run about 5%. Most pages that need corrections only need a few corrections. I had one correction that was cemented when my finger bumped my mouse, but I quickly double checked and reverted that edit. I overruled the tool many times where it was unable to grasp the context of the situation. Question: There was one instance of an utilized and I changed it to a utilized. Are you OK with that? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks for explaining. Regarding your last question, yes, of course. I would never say or write "an utilized". (I'm assuming "utilized" is used as an adjective before a noun; otherwise there would be no need for "a" or "an", but I can't think what kind of phrase that would be: "a utilized what?"; a strange combination.) I was wondering why your checks (with the bot) seemed to be looking at so many articles I've worked on, but now I realize that you covered a lot of articles with the bot, and I'm only notified of the ones that are on my watchlist. Wow, approving 247 pages of edits! You've been doing a lot of work! Corinne (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corrine. The AWB tool is not a bot since bots run on their own, make decisions, and save their own edits. They plow Wikipedia at a high rate of speed and don't slow down. To run a bot your proposed edits have to be spot on. The edit suggestions by AWB are not spot on, so they are subject to manual approval, one by one. AWB processes for its typo-fix routine processes about 13 pages a minute on my home Wi-Fi but on public Wi-Fi it hits closer to 50 pages per minute. This allows me to review about one or two pages per minute. It is outstanding to me that it is only finding one to three suggestions per article, and only making suggestions on about 2 to 5% of the articles it processes. It is more than a spell check‍—‌somehow it know to change lead to led, and that is not a spell check issue. Most spell checkers are flawed because they do not check for misused words, only misspelled ones. AWB is pretty cool this way. The typo fix library is open to user editing too so new scenarios can be added. I actually had AWB make a list from your user-contribution list. Your watchlist is private to you. I thought it would be more fun to process a list from somebody I have a Wikifriendship with. Even though AWB is semi-automated, a lot of it is still rote work. Some of the edits are so puny they are hard to spot like adding a comma. The most common spelling error is changing native American to Native American. The most common suggestion is to add a comma after an opening word like Furthermore. AWB does not use a regular spell check library, it uses a finder called regex (regular expressions) where it looks for patterns that spellings should follow then suggest fixes based on that pattern. By the way, for the word that started out accom, and AWB wanted to change it to accomm, I could only find Latin examples using accomm and that is why I approved that portion of the edit. Getting back to this edit: accomodatvm → accommodatvm. The 2nd spelling has endless online search pages of RSs to support it, while the 1st version only has a few references and they are all circular references to other Wikis. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: After reverting my edit as shown above, the other editor at my request reinstated a small portion of my edits as can be seen here. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Very interesting. Thanks for explaining all this. Of course I don't mind at all that you checked the articles I've been working on. Regarding the word "accommodatvm", I know that the Romans used V instead of U, but I didn't know there was a lower-case equivalent. I thought it was only in upper-case. So that's something new to me. Could you tell me what "AWB" stands for? Also, I wanted to talk with you about something to do with punctuation. I noticed that some editors, and I think it is primarily British English speakers, consistently add a period after an initial phrase with "in" and a year, such as:

• In 1910,....

I don't think a comma is needed there so I routinely remove it. I think it unnecessarily slows down the flow of the sentence, native speakers would not necessarily pause after the year, and it is not needed to ensure clarity. I would put a comma there if the next phrase were a parenthetical phrase, like:

• In 1910, after graduating from college, Tom Jones....

and I would usually put a comma if the phrase were anything longer than "in" and a year. Do you generally add a comma after "In + year"? If so, why? Corinne (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. No I would not put a comma after a year like that. I am with you on this. As for AWB I thought I linked to it; it is the WP:AutoWikiBrowser. They should call it SAWB because it is only semi-automated. In the WP:Tip of the day department we recently used it to make some code additions to the 366 tip templates less tedious. It is still tedious, even with AWB, to verify and approve 366 tips in a row. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry Corrine, I am really sorry. Here it is an article and a painting that probably will go though ... That modern thing made it almost, sorry that I was not online to support. The article is major crap (YET) Les Grandes Baigneuses (Renoir)Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hafspajen That's okay. Which article is "major crap (YET)" -- The Blue Kitchen? I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you, and now I just saw your latest comment (and images) on your talk page. Is it happening again? If so, I'm so sorry. I don't know much about computers, but I've heard that Macs are less vulnerable to viruses and maybe also hacking than PCs. Have you thought about getting a Mac? Also, have you reported this to the higher-ups at WP? Corinne (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Hi all, just wanted to pop in and myth-bust why Macs are seen as superior in security; they have a smaller user-base. This means that there are less targets for a particular malware to "catch" and break in, making it less lucrative and less efficient than attacking the larger user-base of Windows though this is quickly reversing as more people use Macs. In terms of actual vulnerability of the raw OSs, Windows is stronger than Mac because of the years of attacks Windows has faced and had to defend against. For the best security though, go Linux. Linux has an even smaller user-base than Macs do, and it is the system both Windows and Mac are based off originally and has better security capability. Of course it helps a lot more to just be aware of where you are going (online), what you connect to (networks, etc.) and what you download (files, clickable links, webpages, pretty much anything online) as you could have a 1990's OS with no security counter-measures and still be able to avoid malware just by not clicking on or downloading malware (unknowingly of course) and not using "vulnerable" public hotspots.

However (after reading Hafspajen's talkpage) you may want to just rebuild your computer from the OS up/down, but do so while the computer is removed from any networks (WiFi/Ethernet/Dial-up/whatever else exists) so that the hacker can't actually do anything to stop you. Or buy a new computer and sell the old one (just don't mention the "unofficial user"/hacker). Cheers and hope the hacker hacks off, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Corinne. Does the lead of this article strike you as good English? Rothorpe (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Grammatically, perhaps it would pass muster, but it is not worded in the most elegant way. I can think of a few ways to improve the prose. But I'm concerned about one editor who has been editing the article whose user name matches the lead figure in the group. If it is, by any chance, the same person, isn't that a case of Conflict of Interest? Checkingfax, what do you think? Corinne (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first; actually, he's their manager. It's been dealt with on the talk pages, and he hasn't reverted (see recent article history if you're interested). As for the English, yes, it could do with some sprucing, but there's one AmE thing I am still getting used to that I would automatically change if the article were about a British group. Any idea what I'm thinking of? Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's probably in the second sentence, since of the two sentences, it is the most poorly written:

• Best known for their successful million-selling recording "Peppermint Twist" (1961), the group was started by Joey Dee.

(a) "Best known for" should probably be just "Known for", unless it is clear beyond a doubt that the group was well known for many things, and this is just the highlight of them all (and I've never heard of them, but that doesn't mean anything since I don't follow popular music of any kind);

(b) "million-selling recording" is the most awful construction;

(c) "Best known for their....the group....

First referring to them in the plural, and then in the singular, but I thought British English speakers were not so bothered by that, using the plural verb with collective nouns: the group were... So, which one was it that bothered you the most? Corinne (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the one: the singular/plural mix-up would not occur in BrE because, as you say, we always use the plural for this kind of thing. Just as 'the group were' sounds odd to you, so 'Starliters was' sounds odd to me. I'm a little surprised you don't like 'million-selling recording': I'm afraid that's par for the course; and as for 'best known for', I'm always changing 'better known as' to just 'known as'---this is similarly wordy, and rather presumptuous to boot. But the singular musicians was why I asked---thanks for answering! Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe So you would say, toward the end of this sentence, "the group were started by Joey Dee"? That sounds so odd to me. We would never use the plural verb with "the group". I can understand a wish to use the plural with "the Starliters" because it's a plural noun (but Americans would say "the Starliters was formed" anyway), but not with "group". I wonder when that change occurred. It's interesting because it reflects a different way of thinking about it. Corinne (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, yes. While I agree 'the group were formed' looks absurd in isolation, after a few instances of 'the Starliters were ... they were ...', it just sounds natural. If you're a BrE speaker, that is. It's symmetrical: The group were, the Starliters was, same difference. Two Wikipedia first sentences, found without any effort: The Platters was an American vocal group, Pink Floyd were an English rock band, both equally illogical if you think about it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne and Rothorpe. Are you folks following this discussion thread? Cheers! PS: In 9 years why does such a prominent musical group only rank two references? {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder. Rothorpe (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I wanted to remember the format for the quote that you put on Baffle gab1978's talk page, so I put it at the upper right of this page. Can you look at it and see if I formatted it correctly for this page? I'd rather not see the gray shading under the lines of text, if possible (same for the lines of green text above it). Also, do I need that "dummy ref"? I put the "small" template just because I didn't want the quote to take up a lot of space. Finally, could the ref style at the end of the quote vary? I think sometimes it says ref = name of ref and other times it shows something different, doesn't it? Corinne (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Corinne, we use <ref name=Reference1>Reference</ref> to define a reference so it can be used multiple times in an article to reduce the amount of space taken up. To call a reference thus defined, we use <ref name=Reference1 /> to call the reference where needed. This adds an instance to the citation in the References section; you'll see an appropriate letter(s) for subsequent uses. It's best to define the reference at its first use, but it's not necessary since it will work anywhere in the article body provided it's defined and called correctly. I hope that's useful. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. This is a partial reply.

1- The quote used a named reference that had been previously or subsequently been used in the article. If you give a reference a name then you can repeat that named reference within the article just by adding a self-closing named reference. Normally, a reference looks like this:
<ref>http://some.random.website.name.here.com</ref> (notice the reference is complete and has an opening ref tag and a closing ref tag. The /ref is what closes the HTML tag.

OK, if we wanted to reuse that reference we would instead at some use of the reference in the page (it does not have to be the first use) give the reference a name like this:
<ref name="random website">http://some.random.website.name.here.com</ref> and then any time we want to reuse the reference within the page all we have to do is add the named reference only like this: <ref name="random website" /> (note the forward slash to "close" the tag). Some people do it like this: <ref name="random website"></ref>, but that is crufty and usually somebody edits those out.

Note: Putting the reference name in quote marks is only required if the reference name you pick has spaces in it, but it is a good habit to get in to for any named reference in case somebody else comes along, changes the name to one with spaces, and does not know the rule about adding quote marks to names with spaces.

Do an edit source on this article: Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy and you will notice that all references are named, and then put in a List Defined References section at the bottom of the article. For some reason the primary author there used underscores instead of quote marks, but that is an aside.

2- By using a named ref in the example on Baffle gab1978's (hah, I put the genitive inside the wikilink) without including the full reference that the named ref hangs on, BG's talk page would have been put in to a special maintenance category for pages with reference errors. So, to preempt that error I added a full dummy ref but I wanted to make it obvious to you that it was a dummy ref so it did not get copied anyplace it did not belong.

3- The reference box below the example is created by the template {{reflist-talk}}. This ensures that the reference only shows up in that thread. Otherwise the reference will move down BG's Talk page as new threads are added‍—‌the example reference will show up at the bottom of the newest section.

It is good to put a reflist-talk template in any reply you make on talk pages that includes references. Otherwise your reference will just keep moving down the page and that can get tricky with long talk pages and fast moving talk pages. If you notice references out of place on a talk page you can usually do a view-source of the entire page, find the reference, and then refactor that reply by adding the template to put the reference back in the right bucket.

4- Whatever way the reference is created in the original quote, you can just leave it the same. You don't really have to touch anything in the quote you are changing. You just need to delete some code cruft outside of the references; cruft germane to the previously used quote template.

5- To get rid of the gray shading and boxes, simply remove the <code>...</code> HTML tags. Those are just used as highlights. I am going to modify the text a bit for your description and you can change it back or modify it if you do not agree or to make it more understandable, since it is a note to self.

6- You might be interested in the template: {{talkquote}} (vs. {{talk quote}} as the talkquote version puts a nice snappy vertical green line next to the quote instead of using green letters. Try it on a preview or in your sandbox sometime. Maybe I answered your questions after all. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Checkingfax, for this information. I really appreciate it. I've been learning a lot. I like the look of the green text. It stands out, but in a non-distracting way. If it were easy and acceptable (for talk pages), I would use all sorts of colors for emphasis. Thank you for the changes you made to my list of useful items, above. Regarding the one about non-adjacent edits, should I add that the larger (higher) number (from the older newer version/edit) should always be placed first and the small (lower) number (from the more recent older edit) second? Will the number for the older version/edit always appear in the URL as prev&oldid=? If not, and I see two numbers in the URL, which one do I pick to represent the older version/edit? Corinne (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. You can change text color in talk replies anytime you want to highlight a word, phrase, or paragraph. There are at least 140 named colors (where you don't have to use special hex-numbers)‍—‌such as DodgerBlue, Orange, Yellow, DeepPink, etc. Check out how I used a named color to format the goldenrod text in this reply. The template format is like this: {{color|color name|text to colorize}}.

Where you put the number in the Diff template decides whether the pages goes in the left or right column of the Diff. Do one backward and you will see that you can put an older page on the right and a newer page on the left. I mean right/left for Diff viewing, not right/left within the Diff template. The older page version will always be the lowest number. I have trouble figuring those out sometimes unless I use a calculator Read the doc page on the template and see if it tells you which one is always the oldest. I do not recall. I think it is oldid= Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hafspajen This what? Do you mean is this what I was asking about? Not exactly, but pretty close, and thank you for the images. I was referring to the quality in the two paintings – the one by Krouthén and the one by Weysenhoff – in which the color is pretty close to natural colors but slightly unreal, slightly garish, so that the image lies somewhere on the border between realistic and not realistic. I searched for an article that would describe this kind of painting.

• Yes, same unreal colours... Hafspajen (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The closest I could come was Post-Impressionism, where I found these two that have a similar quality to the other two:

But you're the art expert. Do you see what I mean? The Krouthén and Weysenhoff paintings are both fairly realistic portrayals of a scene in nature, but the colors make them modern, and I just wondered if there were a particular word to describe that combination. Corinne (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely non-realistic colours. Hafspajen (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This could be FP, if anyone dares nominate it... ......Hafspajen (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this. It's beautiful. I will nominate it. Let me first just read up on it and/or the artist a little. It's been so long since I've nominated an image that I hope I remember how to do it. Corinne (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hafspajen I had just started to read the article about Ludvig Karsten when I came across this sentence, the last sentence in the first paragraph:

• Karsten was known for his bohemian lifestyle and pending temper.

I don't think "pending" is the right word. This was probably translated from an article in another language. Do you think you could find the original word in the source and think of a better word? Corinne (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Oslo was established as a municipality called Christiania on 1 January 1838, 178 years ago today. Corinne (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• From Norwegian, of course. Will Try... Hafspajen (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• No, nothing there - not in Norwegian, no idea what they mean. Hafspajen (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask {{U|Oceanh}} what they meant, who created the article. Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) O.K. Hafspajen Well, thanks for looking. Later in the article it describes his temper. I think we could say he had a "quick temper". I was just looking at Danish artist articles (I'm looking for a bright red painting to balance the blue Karsten painting for the top of my talk page), and I saw in Julius Exner that all the captions are in Danish. Corinne (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oceanh I've been told that you created the article on Ludvig Karsten. Please see the last few exchanges just above. The last sentence of the first paragraph in the article is:

• Karsten was known for his bohemian lifestyle and pending temper.

I don't think the word "pending" is right here. Can you check the source and figure out a better word? Perhaps "a quick temper" would work. Corinne (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

.

• Could be this part: Karsten var beryktet for sitt temperament og sitt forhold til alkohol, og allerede 1917 ble Misse til “Skils-Misse”. Kunstnerisk ble det etter hvert også mye “dagen derpå”. It is from the Norwegian refs.

He was drinking, was temperamental and had a nervous temperament. Hafspajen (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on Oceanh's talk page. Corinne (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Confirming who launched the article: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludvig_Karsten&action=info

You can always find this information by going to a page, then clicking on the 'Page information' link in the 'Tools' link section on the lefthand margin of each article page. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you! Hafspajen In the Karsten article, in the gallery, I translated a caption. It looked like "Blue stool", so I translated it "Blue stool", but the picture shows a chair. Does "stol" mean "chair"? Corinne (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "stol" (Norwegian) mean "chair" (English) Oceanh (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the interest in the article about Ludvig Karsten. The statements about Karsten's temper is taken from Messel's biography of Karsten, a book which I have at my home. (I am currently on a holiday abroad, but might check the wording in that book when I return back home; if I can still find it; the article was written five years ago, and some of my books are hiding in piles of large boxes). Karsten could become violent at times; in the article I have mentioned one particular episode, a fight with Nils Collett Vogt, which resulted in reprisals from the circle of Norwegian artists residing in Paris. I agree with you that "a quick temper" is probably better than "pending temper". Also note that there is a separate article on the painting The Blue Kitchen. (I noticed that Commons now has a picture of this painting of much better quality than the one originally used in that article). Oceanh (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oceanh Thanks for your reply. I guess I'll go ahead and change it to "a quick temper" (if you haven't already). When you get home, and if you can find the book, if you find that it should be a different word or phrase, go ahead and change it. I saw that you had linked "The Blue Kitchen" in the caption of the article to a small article about the painting. I looked at it and wondered why the image of the painting was different. I like the one in the Karsten article better. I've just nominated this image for featured picture. Hafspajen I see Crisco 1492 added his support. Can you tell me if it is appropriate to "thank" each person who supports the nomination? Corinne (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hafspajen What happened? The nomination wasn't approved due to not enough votes. Do you think it had anything to do with my comment that at the time I made the nomination there was only one article linked to the image? Or do you think it had to do with the image itself, or to the time of year it is now? Corinne (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hafspajen Where are you? Are you all right? I miss seeing you around here. See Drcrazy's comment below re computers. Corinne (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at the articles Jonas Åkerlund (politician) and Emil Källström that I have created. Any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

BabbaQ I'd be happy to look at them. I'm just curious why you don't submit requests at the GOCE Requests page. I'm not working on any article just now, so if you post one of them, I'll accept the assignment right away; then later you can submit the other one. Corinne (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BabbaQ ? Corinne (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I didn't get a reply from BabbaQ, so I'm going to go ahead and read and copy-edit these two articles. I just started reading the first one, and I was puzzled by the term "Sweden Democrats". I realize it's a translation from Swedish, but it sounds odd in English. I entered the phrase in the search bar, and it led to an article Sweden Democrats. In the first line, it gives "Sweden Democrats", with "Swedish Democrats" as an alternative. Would you leave it as "Sweden Democrats" or change it to "Swedish Democrats"? Corinne (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As an American, Swedish sounds smoother to me, don't you know, huh? (that's how my Swedish friend's dad ended every question or statement, don't you know, huh?). I did not call him my Sweden friend. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

BabbaQ Pinging you again. I've finished going through the Jonas article. I've left a few "clarification needed" tags with hidden notes to you. Let me know if you need help finding a word or formulating a sentence. I think I may have messed up a reference or two if you want to check that. Corinne (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax and BabbaQ - I just looked at the Emil Källström article and I thought, good-looking guy, then I saw that he is 66 years old. I thought, that photo must have been taken quite a while ago, and then I saw it had been taken just two years ago! I can hardly believe that is a photo of a 64-year-old man. Are you sure that's a photo of Emil Källström, and, if so, are you sure it was taken only in 2013? Corinne (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Upon looking again at the article, I see in the first line it says he was born in 1987. That makes more sense. So what's with the date of birth in the infobox? Corinne (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I'm sorry -- I got "edit conflict" and wanted to get my revised sentence in before I forgot what I had written; I didn't even look at what was there. Then I saw your edit. I was about to put it back in just as you had written it when I thought of a more concise way to say it; hope you approve; if not, we can put your version back in. Corinne (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I realized that BabbaQ must have put Jonas Akerlund's date of birth in the infobox for Kallstrom, so I fixed Kallstrom's date of birth in the infobox. Corinne (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax (Did you see my apology just above? Hope you're not mad at me.) In the Jonas Åkerlund article, it says at the beginning that he was a "vice party leader". I'm wondering whether it would be all right just to say he was "a party leader". (It's not saying he was "the party leader".) Later on, it explains that he was a vice party leader. Or, if not "a party leader", perhaps "a member of the party leadership"? I just think "a vice party leader" sounds odd at the very beginning of an article. Also, toward the end of the article, what do you think of changing "towards" to "toward"? Is there one that you prefer there? Rothorpe, I'd like to know what you think about that, also. Corinne (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it just that 'toward' is American and 'towards' British? I agree about banishing the vice. Rothorpe (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Oh, I didn't know that. I was wondering why I kept seeing "towards" instead of "toward". We user "towards" sometimes, but not as often as "toward". Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Corinne, @Rothorpe and BabbaQ: I apologize for the haste of my addition to the lead of Emil Källström. I was not able to proof it because I was on my way out the door, but I knew at least it needed one more comma. In retrospect, I think my edit is TMI for the lead and that it belongs in the body instead. Go for it, Corinne. Please move it down the page. As for towards, I used to spell it that way that but my spell check kept calling me out so I switched to toward when I remembered to. However, I am aghast at how many common words are not on the Firefox spellcheck database so now I cannot rely on it to coach me 100%. Other spellcheckers called me out on towards also. Now that I have read this, and since I used towards my whole life until recently, I feel vindicated to go back to using towards at my option. I pegged Emil at closer to 40. Interesting that he is only 28. Surprised too or maybe I missed it that there is not a bio page for him on the Riksdag site. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For anyone watching and interested: I was just reading the beginning of the article on Orpheus, and I got to the end of the Orpheus#Background section. The last two sentences in the fourth paragraph of that section are:

• Orpheus had a brother named Linus, who went to Thebes and became a Theban. He is claimed by Aristophanes and Horace to have taught cannibals to subsist on fruit, and to have made lions and tigers obedient to him. Horace believed, however, that Orpheus had only introduced order and civilization to savages.

(a) I wonder whether the first sentence is misplaced. The paragraph seems to be about things Orpheus did for, or gave to, mankind, and this sentence doesn't seem to fit with the other sentences. In fact, I'm not even sure why the sentence is there at all. Would you recommend taking it out, moving it to the end of the paragraph, or moving it to another location in the article?

(b) I assume, though I'm not sure, that the initial "He" at the beginning of the next sentence refers to Orpheus, not his brother. Whether or not the sentence about Linus is removed, I think "He" ought to be changed to "Orpheus".

(c) In edit mode, one can read a quote from Strabo. In the middle of the quote there seems to be some repetition; is that the way Strabo wrote it?

(d) The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is:

• As an archetype of the inspired singer, Orpheus is one of the most significant figures in the reception of classical mythology in Western culture, portrayed or alluded to in countless forms of art and popular culture including poetry, film, opera, music, and painting.

Are any of the five things listed at the end of the sentence considered "popular culture"? Corinne (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe No one has responded; did you see this? Can you take a look at these things? Corinne (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, much film and music can be classified as popular culture... Rothorpe (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the Linus sentence needs moving. Rothorpe (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the bit about Strabo (footnote 19) has been translated twice. So I agree with all your points; let me know if you want me to help you work on them. Rothorpe (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Thanks for your replies, and yes, thanks! Go ahead and work on these things; I'll work on something else. Corinne (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax and Rothorpe I was just reading the article on Hecuba, and I came across a phrase that puzzled me. It's the phrase "fae prison" in the last item in the article before the "Notes" section. I searched for anything on "fae" on WP, got to a disambiguation page, and the only thing that seemed remotely connected was the article Fairy, but I didn't see anything about a prison. Do you think it is really supposed to say "fae person"? Or is a "fae prison" a little tiny prison for fae people, i.e., fairies? Corinne (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow the link to Lost Girl and you'll see it does mean fairy. Now I'll have another look at Orpheus, about which I had indeed forgotten. Rothorpe (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. This Google search (wrapped in quotes) returns many results mentioning "fae prison" in regards to Lost Girl however I do not find the phrase actually used on the Wikipedia Lost Girl article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I updated the FAE DAB page to show a couple of new definitions of FAE and constructed per MOS:DAB guidelines. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:TAFI:NOM. Corinne (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See "Chthonic": WP:TAFI:NOM. Corinne (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax and Rothorpe User:Florian Blaschke told me about the article on the Dunning–Kruger effect. Have you seen that article? It's interesting. I wanted to ask you about a sentence in the section Dunning–Kruger effect#Supporting studies:

• Daniel Ames and Lara Kammrath extended this work to sensitivity to others and subject perception of how sensitive they were.

The last part of the sentence didn't sound right. Do you think it should be "and subjects' perception of how sensitive they were"? Or maybe move subjects' to earlier in the sentence?

• ...extended this work to subjects' sensitivity to others and their perception of how sensitive they were.

But who is "they", in "they were"?

Checkingfax, why can't I get an en-dash to appear in the line for the new subject heading? When I click on the en-dash that's below the edit window, the en-dash appears in the large editing window. Corinne (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it for you (in the large window). I'll now have another go at getting my head around your other query. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I can look at the article later but I agree changing it up will be good. Defining 'they' is key.

The focus for that edit window character inserter always goes to the last point you edited in the article. I hate that and therefore use the {{endash}} template instead. For spaced endash I use the {{snds}} template. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you, thank you. Well, if I'm only typing a heading, the last thing I typed was the first word, such as "Dunning" in this case, so why would the en-dash end up in the large edit window? You've got me convinced to start using the templates, so I've added the two you just gave me to my list of useful things at the upper right of this page. You may have given me others, but I'm too tired to look for them. If you have a chance, can you add any others you use (for dashes) to my list? Also, both of you, Checkingfax and Rothorpe, did you see my questions at "Orpheus" a few sections up? No one has replied. Corinne (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea what kind of machine you are using, but on a Mac keyboard Alt+- gives an en-dash, and Alt+Shift+- gives an em-dash. Very practical! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just tried Alt+Shift+ (by mistake) on my PC using Firefox and it closed this edit window and opened a new edit window starting a new section. That could be handy for something . I tried Alt+Shift+- and got nothing. Rats.

Dear Corinne and Florian Blaschke, Annoyingly, the focus of the insertion point for the Wikiipedia character inserter stays in the last point you edited in the body of the page, even if the last place you have clicked is in the Title or Edit summary fields. Gets me every time. Now, what I do if I want something in the Title or Edit summary, is to click at the top left of the body, go back down to the inserter, click on the character, then go copy and paste it from the body to the Title or Edit summary field. My fear is to lose the character and have a stray floating around in an article in an inappropriate place; not so worried if it is a Talk page reply. The annoying part to me is these inserted characters are usually the last thing I do in an edit session, so if I lose track of the inserted character I might have to cancel my entire edit session. Ugh. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Oh, my gosh. That is such a roundabout way of inserting a character! Can't we suggest somewhere that this be fixed? By the way, I use the "Find" function (click on three parallel horizontal lines in upper right-hand corner of window) often. It works in either regular space or in edit mode. It helps me find things and saves a lot of time looking. I think you might be able to search for an en-dash just by putting an en-dash in the "Find" search bar. I can't remember if I've tried that or not. Corinne (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. The problem is I have to be able to insert an endash or such in the find box to find the lost endash. LOL. In those cases, what I do is to put my insertion point top/left of body of page, insert the lost character, copy it, paste to find box, and then find it and delete it or move it. Aggravating, because in the case of endash articles can have a ton of them. This normally happens to me when I try to insert a '→' with the character inserter into the Edit summary field, but the → disappears in to the ether of the article body, and I cannot always recall the last point of the article that I edited. Also the → looks really puny in the edit mode (but gets larger in the Preview mode) and is nearly imperceptible on a quick eyeball scan of the edit window. Yes, the coders would help us if they could make the inserter focus point be the last place we clicked our mouse pointer. As an aside, to reach search, I use Ctrl+f, a habit I got into from the DOS days. I use Ctrl f, c, v, z, and x mostly. Very quick. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks. Corinne (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 I was just reading the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Grant Still, and since I don't know enough about photography, I was unable to form an opinion. However, I was wondering if you could explain a few things to me so that I will understand this and future discussions better. (I'll refrain from offering an opinion about photos unless I feel I can say something worthwhile.)

1) What does it mean to restore an image? I thought "restore" meant to put something back as close as possible to the condition in which it once was. In this case, how can Adam Cuerden put this image back to the way it once was? Is he just going by what Carl Van Vechten's other photos look like generally, with the slightly yellow tint, or is there more to it than that?

2) Is the yellow tint of Van Vechten's other photos a result of the way the photos were developed or a result of "yellowing with age"? If it is the result of the way the photos were developed, was it a conscious choice on Van Vechten's part or was it due to the materials used at the time? Corinne (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Restore" in this case is to use digital means (such as Photoshop or GIMP) to remove damage to a digitized photograph and bring it as close to the original as possible. The question of yellowing is not in and of itself one of restoration, but an attempt to address issues with the LOC scan. Certain scanners automatically adjust white balances and contrast levels upon scanning. Mine does that, so I've had to turn off that function to ensure greater fidelity; some places don't. I'm not saying for sure the LOC has this issue, but there have been (mostly minor) issues with color fidelity in the past. Adam is well versed in photography from this period, and I would assume that he relied on this experience when adjusting the warmth of the scan. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. Can you tell me what "LOC" stands for? I didn't see it on the disambiguation page for LOC. Corinne (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Library of Congress. That's where a lot of the American history images Adam (and me, sometimes) restores come from — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) I updated the LOC DAB page a bit for the Library of Congress to indicate it is the official library of our Congress and the de facto national library as well. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. You mentioned the ability to use colors with text. Here is one way using the <mark> tag:
<mark>Highlight some text</mark> will render like this: Highlight some text
Using this tag: <mark style="background:lightgreen">Highlight some text</mark> will render like this:
Highlight some text

You can use that color chart of 500 named colors to change the colors or you can use hex numbers to specify colors. Without the style attribute it will always highlight in yellow only. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dank I finished February 10, 2016. I got it down to 1159 characters. After I finished, I purged the summary, but when I looked at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2016, it didn't reflect the changes I had made. Why is that? Corinne (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought about moving "have been developed" to earlier in the sentence but I thought maybe I shouldn't since it separates the clause ("that...") from its subject ("cultivars"), but I guess it sounds all right. Corinne (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dank I finished February 12, 2016. It's at 1156 characters. Corinne (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dank All your edits are good ones (of course). I'm wondering about something, though, with regard to this re-wording. (Please don't be upset with me; I'm happy to be persuaded I'm wrong.)

Your new sentence is undoubtedly more concise. I'm just wondering whether the phrase "subject to predation and parasites" may be a circumstance that has always been true for the Alpine chough. It's not clear whether it is a cause of the recent decline in local populations. The new wording suggests that it is; I don't know if it makes a difference or not. I also saw at least one more reason for the decline in local populations in the first sentence of the last paragraph in Alpine chough#Status:

• Choughs can be locally threatened by the accumulation of pesticides and heavy metals in the mountain soils, heavy rain, shooting and other human disturbances...

particularly contamination of the environment with pesticides and heavy metals, i.e., pollution. If that pollution is only a result of changes in agricultural practices, then it's covered already in the summary. If not, and the pollution comes partly from, say, industry, then perhaps it could be added as another factor. Corinne (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit you're linking has to do with "readability", that is, the question of how much information readers will have to hold on to and juggle around before they understand the meaning of the sentence. I took advantage of the fact that, since some isolated populations are suffering from predation and disease, and since all birds suffer from those things to some extent, the reader will be able to figure out that the non-isolated populations suffer from those things too ... I don't have to spell that out in a separate clause. I want to keep the reader focused on the main point of the sentence, which is the potential threat to some populations. I think you're right about the pesticides; they're covered by agricultural practices. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Why don't either of the two summaries, February 10 and February 12, appear at WP:TFAA in the versions we've shortened and revised? Corinne (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I don't know if you've been following what's been going on with this user: User:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, but if you haven't, I thought you might be interested in the latest comments. See User talk:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν. The first section is just the latest in a long series of edits and blocks; the editor keeps blanking his/her talk page, but it's all there in the revision history. This block pretty much seems to be the end of it, though. After you read that section, then look at the next section, "Conclusion". It turns out that the editor was purposely doing all that as part of a (very) non-scientific "experiment" (you'll see s/he even admits two glaring flaws), while claiming to be a professor of mathematics. Some editors flatly don't believe any of it. In the process, over the past few weeks, s/he has irritated quite a few editors and taken up a lot of people's time. It's really rather outrageous, I think. Corinne (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Corinne. Wow! 8 sockpuppets and 1 puppetmaster! Nutter alert! Thank you for that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Corinne: this concerning your (and another editor's) recent copy edit on the Hadrian article. The most pressing issue, for me, concerns the paragraph on Hadrian & Turbo.Follows a partial copy of your talkpage:

" In the third paragraph in Hadrian#Purpose, the second sentence did not make sense. I made an intelligent guess and re-worded it to "Hadrian made recourse to...Turbo" (i.e., turned to Turbo for his help, used Turbo to accomplish something). If this is not correct, please let me know and the sentence can be changed. However, if I worded the sentence correctly, there is a bit of a problem with the cohesion of the rest of the paragraph. The subsequent sentences tell who Turbo was. Then we read that Turbo was "not competent to keep check on the Senate" (I think it should be "keep a check on the Senate", i.e., keep tabs on the Senate, keep the senators in line, but I'm going to ask someone about this. Rothorpe should it be "keep check on the Senate" or "keep a check on the Senate"?), then you explain why, and then you mention the secret police. Besides the fact that you made no connection between the statements about the secret police and what precedes it, you don't say anything about why Hadrian "made recourse to...Turbo" or whether Turbo succeeded in accomplishing anything, so the reader may wonder why you mentioned him".

Well, what I meant was the following: actually, during his travels, Hadrian had need of someone to keep the Senate _in_ check (i.e., to keep it under control), as any senator could at any time arrange to have himself hailed as emperor. But then , without the possibility of a formal trial if and when necessary, it was impossible to keep the Senate in check. Problem is that Turbo, as Pretorian Prefect and an equestrian (in this case, a clerk, a bureaucrat and not a magistrate, a politician) had no formal authority to start a formal proceeding against a senator. Of course, as always during the Roman Empire, Hadrian could deal with a pressing issue informally - i.e., order an execution after a "secret" trial - but that would be seem as disrespectful- and that was the reason why Hadrian's dealings with the Senate were so bad, because of the killing of four former consuls at the beginning of the reign. What the sources imply is that Hadrian left Turbo to administer Rome during his absence - mostly routine, as well as keeping general law and order - and at the same time employed the secret police to snoop on the Senate in order to react personally in case of need - i.e. to hasten towards Rome and deal with the matter on the spot. That's it.Cerme (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cerme Thank you for the explanations. I just re-read that section, and I guess it's clear enough. I wonder if you think, in this sentence, "Nonetheless, he was not competent to keep the Senate in check, as Hadrian forbade equestrians to try cases against senators", that the word "qualified" would be better than "competent": "he was not qualified to keep the Senate in check". "Not competent" sounds like he was inept. "Not qualified" goes with "as Hadrian forbade equestrians to try cases..." Also, regarding the last sentence of the paragraph, I guess "people of high social standing" is close enough to "senators" that it connects the use of the secret police to the ideas that precede this sentence in the paragraph. Corinne (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Cerme About three weeks ago I left a question on Hertz1888's talk page. I have still not received a response, so I'm going to copy it here. Perhaps you or someone else can answer my question.

Copied from Hertz1888's talk page:

In the second paragraph in the section Hadrian#In Rabbinic literature is the following sentence:

• When queried by his soldiers as to why he did this, Hadrian responded with a dual verse from the book of Isaiah in praise of the nation of Israel: "So says God the redeemer of Israel to the downtrodden soul to the (made) repulsive nation, kings will view and stand."

I wondered what "a dual verse" meant. In what sense is it dual? Does it mean two adjacent verses, or is it dual in the sense that it conveys two meanings? Do you think the phrase "a dual verse" is clear enough for the average WP reader? Also, do you think the quote is the best possible translation, with those two phrases beginning "to" in succession? Corinne (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think these are questions whose answers are obvious and thus not worth replying to? Corinne (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that in "dual verse", what is meant is a couplet. In the quote from Isaiah, that would be something like "So says God the redeemer [...]to the downtrodden soul:/To the repulsive nation, kings will[....] . In the context given, it's of course an irony- and a very cruel one to boot. The episode is almost certainly mythology, as it's highly improbable that a staunch Hellenist like Hadrian would even knew Hebrew Scripture, but what matters is that we have a set of two verses expressing a complete thought Cerme (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy editing on Bristol. I happened to look at your userpage and noticed the the image of Great Bow Bridge over the Parrett, as it is fairly local to me. The caption says it is in Langford but it is in Langport.— Rod ^talk 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Rod Oh, thank you. I'll correct that. I got the image from the River Parrett article when I copy-edited it quite a while ago. I don't know if you've noticed the discussion in a section above this about the Bristol article. Last night, after I put the "GOCE in use" template at the top of the article, I had trouble making an edit. I've since left comments in two places (you'll see where). I've started editing the article now (I keep getting distracted by reading linked articles and other comments). Corinne (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I was just looking at the article on Cetacea, and I saw the tags at the top of the article. The article appears to be pretty substantial, but I can't really judge if the the tags are justified or not, If they are, do you think this article is worth being nominated at WP:TAFI? If you do think so, what can I say other than mention the tags? Corinne (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. If you embellish the language of the first banner tag you will have most of your TAFI hook. That banner mentions references and copy editing. Then there are the other section tags calling out the lack of references in a few sections. Plus, there are misplaced images that cause text to be between a corridor of images. And, a broken reference, some dead links, plus the article is only in 3 categories which seems weak for such a long article. Some of the TAFI participants are shooting down any long articles or anything rated C or above, so that rules out a lot of articles. They want stub or start class only. If we get one down vote then it takes two up votes to overcome it. I say go for it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I almost forgot: There is also at least one deprecated shaded pull quote box that can be converted to plain blockquote style using your favorite method. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax In response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I am copy-editing Murder of Teresa De Simone for BabbaQ. I have completed about two-thirds of the article and am taking a break from it until tomorrow. However, I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) I noticed that the twenty-four hour clock, or military time, is used. Since it makes no sense to most American readers, I decided to put regular time, with "a.m." and "p.m." (can't remember if the periods are all right) after them, in parentheses. In some cases, just to make it clear, I added just "a.m." after a morning time. However, I'm thinking that maybe the addition of the a.m./p.m. times in parentheses looks a little cluttered, and I wonder whether it would be all right to change the military time to regular time (with the a.m./p.m., or am/pm).

2) I changed the old "blockquote" template to the quote template once, and a pull quote to a regular quote once. At the end of the quote in the section Murder of Teresa De Simone#Arrest of Sean Hodgson I notice that there is a long dash before "Appeal 10". I don't know how to get rid of that, and I'm not sure I got the reference (attribution) right. Can you check this for me? Thank you! Corinne (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I shall answer #2 now and then go off and study #1. I have added some whitespace to the two quotes to section them out for easier editing in the text window. The reader will not see the whitespace.

A reference is not the attribution. An attribution is who said the quote‍—‌who the quote is attributed to, its source, or both.

Many quotes lack a reference. If a reference is needed, just pile it on to the end of the quote with no space or pipe between the quote and the associated reference.

Same for an attribution: No reference is usually required, but if one is just pile it on to the end of the attribution with no space or pipe between the end of the attribution and the reference.

In the problem quote, you put a pipe after the quote, but before the reference. This chunks up the quote and adds an attribution section, with the only thing being attributed being the reference. Since the reference is super-scripted to the dash it looks exceptionally odd. That is an em dash or quote dash before the reference. Just remove that unneeded pipe and the reference will jump up and hang on the quote. Do not put a space between the terminal punctuation mark of the quote and reference. Everything will then be hunky dory.

Right now the quote basically looks like this (edited for brevity):

{{quote|...he was a "compulsive liar".|<ref group=Appeal name=para12>Paragraph 12</ref>}}

See the extra pipe after liar".

Edit it out; save your edit; poof.

If the quote had an attribution it would be be in text, not wrapped in a ref tag. The attribution, like the quote itself, may or may not have a reference or two hanging on it.

Adding that 2nd pipe creates a line break, an extra indent beyond the indent of the blockquote, inserts an em dash (or quote dash), and then hangs the attribution on a hair space after the em dash (or quote dash). So when you added that 2nd unneeded pipe it invoked that part of the template coding. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I think it would be cleaner to convert all instances of 24 h to 12 h time. Be sure to put a.m. for anything less than 12:00 and p.m. for anything above 12:00. Midnight is 0:00. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: This might interest you, but it is a bit of a long read to find a nugget of wisdom: Talk:12-hour clock. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Doubling back on this one. You just need to remove the 2nd pipe in that quote to make the quote render properly. Right now the 2nd pipe makes the quote template think you want the reference to be an attribution section in the quote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you for reminding me about this. I had forgotten all about it. I got distracted by editing Bristol, and reading all sorts of linked articles along the way. Now I've got to go back to this article and fix the time. I removed the pipe. Why do many of the superscript references say "Appeal 10", "Appeal 11", etc.? What's wrong with just a number? Corinne (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. They are using a technique called ref group where you clump refs into groups and then you can even name them within the groups (like the one following): <ref group=Appeal name=para14/></nowiki>. Appeal is the group name, and para14 is the ref name within that ref group. Then when the Appeal group is used it starts that ref with the name Appeal then appends a number to in it in the order it is used, just like regular references do, and then it gives a tool tip to the reference too. I have never had a use for it yet. Instead of calling the group Appeal they could have called the group a or A and then the references would be shorter. I found Appeal to be rather top heavy, especially when it is also appended with the actual reference number that corresponds to the references' order of use. Clear as mud? Check this out: {{ref group}} for a programmers doc on what it is supposed to do. You can edit the doc to make it more user friendly. Just be sure you edit the doc and not the template. The doc edit link is further down the page and clearly labeled. Be sure you don't edit the "sandbox" version of the doc, or you're just wasting your time. LOL. The template itself may be totally locked to editing, but the docs never are. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Oopsie, here is the 411 on group refs: Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you. I don't think I'll ever be adding refs to articles, but it's good to know some things. Regarding ref groups, I don't know if you have ever looked at Phineas Gage. EEng used an interesting ref system. There were long discussions, starting with about Archive 6 or 7 (if not before), as to whether it was not too complicated. I participated briefly until I realized the editor was not being persuaded to change the ref system and it was getting too much over my head. Corinne (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you guys for helping with the c/e on this article. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I thought you might have fun giving Persoonia terminalis a quick once over. It is in F.A. review now. It was the five-millionth article on the English Wikipedia. It went live as a very small Stub at midnight on November 1, posted by Casliber in Australia. I happened to be up when it went live so I jumped in with some edits as did some others. By day seven we got it up to G.A. status, and on December 16 it went DYK in the primo spot (with an image). So, it's been a fun ride. Casliber is a DYK, G.A., F.A. beast. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I hope I will be able to save this edit. Since yesterday I haven't been able to save a single edit. When I click on "Edit source", at first the edit window looks normal, but very quickly it turns into a narrow band that stretches from the far left of my screen to the far right, and the menu at the left and the Wiki-markup at the bottom appear through, or under, the edit window. I can type, but when I go to save I get the box that says "Do you want to leave/stay on this page?" So I can't even leave a message at Village Pump technical to ask for help. I've asked two editors via e-mail for help, and have gotten several suggestions, which I've tried. Nothing worked. So I just downloaded Firefox and logged on from Firefox. (I was using Chrome.) So, let's see if I can save this message. Thanks for letting me kow about Persoonia terminalis. I almost e-mailed you to ask for help. Corinne (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yay! It worked! I can edit again. So what happened? It happened right after my edits to my talk page where I added the "Done" template in the "Bristol" section and then I highlighted two comments I had just made for Rod. When I saw that you had already worked on that sentence in the Arts section, I highlighted my two comments, clicked on the "S" for strikethrough, and saved. That's when it happened. I undid that edit to see if it would solve the problem, but it didn't. So this seems to be something connected to Chrome. Corinne (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Browsers can be funny things with idiosyncracies on different computers. On two of mine, firefox is fast and chrome slow, but on my main one the reverse is true.....but on that computer chrome crashes with one particular wiki page only. Weird....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber Thank you for your comment. I have noticed that when I click "Save" after I've made an edit, Firefox is slightly slower than Chrome was. There is one thing I like about Firefox, though, and that is that there are more options with smaller intervals for choosing the percentage to increase the screen resolution. I've had two problems with Chrome just in the last two days. See Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)#Having trouble making edits. See Checkingfax's comment in particular. Corinne (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I got to this article from a link in the Bristol article. As usual, I made a few copy-edits as I read it. I have a question for you:

The last sentence in the Africa section is:

• Both examples feature large flakes, approximately 10–20 cm in diameter, and have been dated between 284 and 509 thousand years ago.

I wondered whether "284 and 509 thousand" is the correct way to express a number. (You'll see that I changed a hyphen or en-dash that was between 284 and 509 to the word "and", but I don't recall seeing large numbers expressed like that on WP.

I think the moving graphic image is quite interesting. I'm wondering if it would be clearer if a sentence were added to the caption saying which part became the actual cutting or scraping tool. Corinne (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Don't know if you saw this. I've pinged or mentioned you in several sections here. Corinne (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I left my faster computer over the hill yesterday and am on a dog slow computer. Paint dries faster than web pages reload on this 'ol thang. I would be more comfortable with 284-thousand to 509-thousand years ago, or 284,000 to 509,000 years ago. I am not a date ndasher either. I shall look at the graphic in a minute. Maybe don't need the hyphens; don't know. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I agree adding a sentence explaining that the lithic flakes are the part of the image that become the cutting and scraping tools would be helpful for clarity.

I made some edits to the lead.

Also, I am wondering about a part of this sentence:

The 15- and 10-foot terraces again were classified first as Egyptian Mousterian, but later as developed Lavalloisean.

Is the hyphen supposed to hang freely on the 15- like that? What does that sentence mean? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Sorry I didn't get to replying to your question unti now. (I couldn't edit yesterday.) Yes, that is correct, for the first of two (or more) adjectives (or numbers used as adjectives) (that is, adjectives that would normally be hyphenated) modifying one noun. I'm wondering, though, why 15 is given before 10. Corinne (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Good question about 15- before 10-. Change it at your discretion. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I've just been reading the article on Steep Holm. In the section Steep Holm#World wars is the following sentence:

• The armament included Mark VII 6 breech-loading guns taken from World War I naval vessels which had been scrapped, and Lewis guns against air attack.

I could see in edit mode that something was wrong with the text formatting. I think there are some italics that don't really need to be there. I figured maybe it should be 6" not 6' ', but I wasn't sure. Can you take a look at it? Corinne (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Yes, the 6 had unbalanced italic wiki markup which is not a good thing, especially when it was supposed to be a double quote mark (to denote inches), but for MoS and for harmony I eventually bootstrapped my way to making it 6-inch. My bootstrapping edit attempts start here. Good catch on the unbalanced italic wiki markup.

Somehow the bullet point sentence above still bothers me as it implies (even with my edit) that maybe the Lewis guns were from the scrapped vessels too? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thanks! I saw what you did, and I realize you were making it consistent with what was right before it, but I noticed that in the section Steep Holm#World wars, in the middle of the first paragraph, is the following sentence:

• The armament included Mark VII 6 breech-loading guns taken from World War I naval vessels which had been scrapped, and also included Lewis automatic machine guns against air attack.

You can see that "inch" is not even there. When I clicked on the link, I saw that it leads to an article that has "inch" in it, but it is not hyphenated. I don't know if there is a convention for describing these guns that doesn't include the hyphen or perhaps doesn't even require "inch". Maybe we should ask a military history expert. Corinne (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Before I started meddling with it, here is what it looked like: :::

In the 1860s the island was fortified with ten [[RML 7 inch gun|7-inch rifled muzzle loaders]] as one of the Palmerston Forts for the coastal defence of the Bristol Channel until it was abandoned in 1898. The infrastructure was reused in World War I and II when [[BL 6 inch gun Mk II – VI|Mark VII 6'' breech-loading guns]] and search lights were installed. To enable the movement of materials, soldiers from the Indian Army Service Corps initially used mules and then installed a cable-operated winched switchback railway.

See, both had inch on the business side of the pipe in the wikilink. I replaced the 6'' with 6-inch. After Mark VII 6 that is two apostrophes, not one double quote mark, and that was flat out of place as you caught it. Now I think it should be: six-inch and seven-inch per MoS. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The island's notable for retaining all the Armstrong guns (an attempt was made to cut them up, abandoned after one cut was made). I think one that was thought to be missing was uncovered about ten years ago. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Xanthomelanoussprog. Checkingfax Thank you, but I wasn't referring to the sentences you worked on in the lead, which I think was great. I referring to another sentence in the Steep Holm#World wars section. Corinne (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Where are you? Corinne (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC) What do I do with the sentence in the "World wars" section? Corinne (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. All fixed now: 6 → 6-inch. PS: I did not realize coastguard was a noun. Always thought it was Coast Guard. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thanks for getting to that. I didn't know "coastguard" was a word, either. Why do you think it is? Corinne (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I looked up coastguard by using Google: define:coastguard and it said: noun: coast guard, noun: coastguard. Also, online I saw: U.S. Coast Guard. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax (hope the ping works) I don't know if I would trust Google for spelling. It would probably include anything people have typed in articles, etc. I looked it up on Merriam-Webster online, and it gives it as two words, although it does mention "coastguardsman" and says it's chiefly British. I know about the Coast Guard. I'm focused on "coast guard" vs. "coastguard". I had never seen the two words put together like that. Toward the bottom of the Merriam-Webster entry is a link to Encyclopedia Britannica, and that entry has it has two words. Rothorpe had you ever seen "coast guard" written as one word? I wonder what the OED has. Corinne (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Here is where I found coastguard. I was going to change it to coast guard, but I shall leave it to you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, coastguard is one word to me. Rothorpe (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Oh. Hmm. That looks like a reliable dictionary entry. Rothorpe Hmm. That's interesting. I wonder if that's a BrEng/AmEng spelling difference, or perhaps it doesn't matter and either way is fine. Corinne (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I often see pending changes review edits to Hermes. Now there is one removing the second "l" in "travelling" or "traveller", thus changing it from British English spelling to American English spelling. Before rejecting the edit, I was trying to figure out which style was used in the article. I found "favored" in the section Hermes#Hellenistic Greek sources, but that's all I could find. I didn't look at dates. Can you figure out which style is used and whether the edit should be accepted or rejected? Corinne (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Corinne (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) I looked at the revision history and see that there has been some back-and-forth editing on this recently. If the article really is in British English, then "favored" needs to be changed to "favoured", right? Corinne (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I miss half your pings for some reason. Feel free to nag me on them. The original author of the Hermes article back in 2002 used American English. See this. That sets the precedent. Currently the Hermes article has traveler spelled as traveller as well. I am going to change them all to American spelling, cite the original author's intent, and post a tag at the top of the article indicating the use of American English in the article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thanks! That article has really been seeing a lot of editing in the last few months. Corinne (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thanks for your edits to the article. I was just looking through the revision history and saw this group of edits. I looked at each one and decided that I don't agree with any of them. There's nothing wrong with a phrase following a comma, and I don't particularly care for an emdash in a lead. I prefer the colon to the semi-colon and I prefer the wording of the phrase the way it was. What do you and Rothorpe think? If you agree it should go back to the way it was, how would we undo these edits without undoing later edits such as yours? Corinne (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne (and Rothorpe). I see problems with 99.9% of the changes you linked to above. Some look like maybe ESL comes in to play. I do not know of a way to undo an edit in articles that have been subsequently edited. If all the edits are in a row, and are by one author, and they are the most recent, you can roll them all back with Twinkle or with Rollback rights. Do you have Twinkle? Rollback won't apply in this case since I've done several edits after the one you want to undo, but Twinkle might come in handy for the future where you need to rollback more than one edit in a row. Oddly, some editors have been able able to undu edit{s} that I made that had subsequent edits by others. They must have a special Script that I do no know about (yet). Whenever I try to undo an old edit I get stopped. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they could be undone manually. Rothorpe, do you care to take that on (if you agree, that is)? Corinne (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I forgot to answer your question about Twinkle. I had it, and a few times used the Rollback feature, but since I re-set my Preferences that to the default setting, I guess I need to go back and enable Twinkle again. I forgot to look to see if that was changed or not. Corinne (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. You may need to re-enable wikEd too, unless you have wikEd enabled from a Script. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I had already re-enabled WikEd when I started editing with Firefox. Did you see the comment I posted above regarding "coast guard" vs. "coastguard"? If the ping is not working, I'll just notify you with the square brackets, but that would be another problem for WP Village Pump (technical). Regarding the problem I posted at Phabricator re Chrome, thank you for explaining how to take a screenshot. I think I can find the key on my keyboard, and I can save it to Paint, but I don't know how to upload anything to Commons. Corinne (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

They should never have been accepted by the pending changes reviewer. How annoying. Well, I'll put it on my watchlist and have a look through. No hard labour for me though... Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Well, it's just three edits all made at one time, but I agree with you that the edits should not have been accepted. Checkingfax Is there any way you can find out who approved them? Corinne (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. The editor's edits were auto-accepted because that editor is auto-confirmed (has X-edits, and Y-days seniority).

To upload to the Commons I have a goofy way: Click on the globe at the top left of any Wikipedia page; scroll to bottom of page and click on the link/image for the Commons; click on the blue UPLOAD button at the top of the page. (or on the upload-file link on the left-hand side of the page.); follow the yellow brick road; when it asks about licensing say it is your own work: that's what all the other screenshotters do; take note of the full URL after uploading and post that to your Phab ticket as a REPLY: Go to the requester's post and then click on REPLY; paste the full URL into your reply post. The WMF posts all their screenshots to the Commons and all the official Wikikpedia pages and Help pages use the Commons for screenshots so do not be put off by the wizard chiding you about screenshots. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Automatically accepted", yes, silly me. Anyway, I've changed some of them. Rothorpe (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What's that PDF file doing in the Etymology section? "Archived in the Wayback Machine"? What is that? Corinne (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wayback machine (help page) and Wayback Machine - see these. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I like to find dead links using WP:Checklinks then use the embedded Wayback Machine (A.K.A. Internet Archive) to find an archived version of the dead page. Then Checklinks hangs the archive link near the dead link. But alas, I failed to merge that PDF archive link in the most discrete manner. Archiving dead links is tedious but Checklinks streamlines the process. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I wouldn't have known if your merge was discreet or not. I just point out things that look odd and let others fix them. But thanks for telling me. By the way, I learned something from your comment just now. I thought you had made an error in spelling with "discrete", so I checked it on Wiktionary: discrete. I was astonished to learn that the word was spelled "discreet" when it means one thing and "discrete" when it means another. I had never realized there were two spellings. I'll let you read the two definitions and decide whether you used the right spelling or not. Here's the other one: discreet, but there's a link to it at the definition for "discrete". So thank you! I learned something new. Corinne (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Looks like I used it wrong. One time I passed out lecture notes with the word roll when I should have used role. Somebody made a comment about dinner rolls and I did not catch on but much later when I did catch on it was embarrassing. Spelling is interesting too, like Sergeant and Marriage. Never understood the reasoning behind the "correct" spelling. I wish Firefox checked for grammar, not only for spelling. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax There are two things that I used to see that I don't see anymore:

1) In the Twinkle drop-down menu, I used to see an option to welcome a new editor, and that's not there anymore (but there are actually more things in the drop-down menu than before);

2) when I'm looking at edits in the Revision History, with current version on the right and the previous version on the left (I guess you'd call that the diffs), I used to see the option to rollback edits and I think there was also an option to welcome a new editor based on that edit. I have the rollback and pending changes reviewer right, but I don't see the options there that I used to see. I just re-added Twinkle a few days ago. Can you help? Corinne (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Re: 2): Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and scroll down the page and tick off the pages you want to see the Twinkle rollback links on. Be sure to Save your changes.

Thanks, Checkingfax. I looked at that page and didn't see anything I needed. I had never looked at that page before when I enabled Twinkle about two years ago and got rollback and pending changes reviewer rights about a year or so ago. Corinne (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. In the "Revert and rollback" section do you have all these checked off?

Show rollback links on these pages: [ ] Diff pages [ ] Contributions pages of other users [ ] My contributions page

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Still ruminating on 1). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I replied to the last comment at Phab, but haven't received a reply. Can you read my last comment there and perhaps tell me what to do? I don't understand "be sure to launch with.....null", and there is something that looks like a web page in green letters but I don't know what to do with it. These guys assume that everyone knows the lingo of computers. Corinne (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I was having trouble making any edits to Bristol, so I left a comment for Baffle gab1978; s/he replied, suggested I report it, so I left a comment at the Village Pump (technical); Baffle gab1978 made some fixes to the article. I haven't tried editing yet, but I thought you might be interested in this, particularly the unsigned comment with a link at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Having trouble making edits. Corinne (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll see that I left an additional comment at Baffle gab1978's talk page. I was able to make the edit manually, but not with cut and paste. Corinne (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Can you figure out why the text throughout the article is shaded in gray in edit mode? Compare to the Exeter article that I believe was written (or expanded) by the same editor and which I copy-edited almost a year ago. The text in edit mode is black letters on a white background. Not only is it a little harder to see where regular text is compared to references, perhaps that is connected to the reason why I can't edit with cut and paste. Corinne (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: The material below was moved up from another section with the same heading (Bristol) further down the page.

Rodw I wanted to ask you about this passage in Bristol#Government:

• Bristol City Council consists of 70 councillors, representing 35 wards. They are elected in thirds, with two councillors per ward serving four-year terms. There are elections in three years out of every four-year period.

The way the second sentence is constructed, it sounds as if the two councillors per ward are elected and serve at the same time. Is that the case? Or is it more that one of the two in a ward runs for election and serves for a term that does not coincide with that of the other councillor? If so, I'm thinking it might be better to move "with two councillors per ward serving four-year terms" to the end of the previous sentence:

• Bristol City council consists of 70 councillors representing 35 wards, with two councillors per ward serving four-year terms.

Then continue:

• Councillors are elected in thirds, with elections held in three years out of every four-year period.

and then:

• Thus, since wards do not have both councillors up for election at the same time, two-thirds of the wards participate in each election.

so it would read:

• Bristol City council consists of 70 councillors representing 35 wards, with two per ward serving four-year terms. Councillors are elected in thirds, with elections held in three years out of every four-year period. Thus, since wards do not have both councillors up for election at the same time, two-thirds of the wards participate in each election.

What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done:I think your proposed revision is fine and supported by this source.— Rod ^talk 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe and Checkingfax -- The section Bristol#Arts begins:

• Bristol has a thriving current and historical arts scene. Some of these have merged with modern venues and digital production companies being based in old buildings around the city.

I have two questions about these sentences.

1) The second sentence begins "some of these". I assume "these" refers to "current and historical arts". However, that phrase is used as an adjective in the first sentence, so technically the antecedent for "these" is not a noun, noun phrase, or proper noun (name), as it should be. Is it clear enough to you? Shall I leave it as is, or do you have any suggestions?

I'm sorry my grammar skills are so limited I don't even understand your question.— Rod ^talk 09:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Rod I'm sorry; I'm used to discussing wording of sentences with Rothorpe, a fellow retired E.S.L. teacher. The antecedent of a pronoun (he, she, it, they, him, her, them, (etc.), and this, that, these, those (when used alone, not before a noun, like this issue), should be clear. It should refer to something mentioned just before it in either the same sentence or the previous sentence. If there is more than one thing it could refer to, it is unclear, and so ambiguous, and should be cleared up. In this case, "these" probably refers to "current and historical arts" (which is plural, matching "these", which is plural). The problem is that "current and historical arts" is not used as a noun in the previous sentence; it is used as an adjective, modifying "scene" (which is singular, so "these" can't be referring to it). So it's a stretch to have a pronoun ("these") refer to a phrase that's used as an adjective. It should refer to a noun, or noun phrase, that is used, or functioning, as a noun or noun phrase. One solution would be to reword the first sentence. Another solution would be to use a noun after "these": "these arts groups", for example. I can only reword the first sentence properly, or use the right noun after "these", if I'm sure what is meant. That's why I asked you. (See more below.)

2) I'm not crazy about "being based". Do you think it's O.K., or shall I attempt a re-wording? Any suggestions? Corinne (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a dreadful sentence, but I think you're on the right track to a decent rewording. Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Some venues have merged with modern ones and DPC are based..."? Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Rothorpe. I'm glad you agree that it's not a good sentence. I'm going to ask the article writer, Rod, about this; he may know what is meant. I'm thinking for the beginning of the second sentence, "Some of these groups", but then what are "modern venues". A venue is a location. How can a group merge with a location? Or is it that some of the historical arts groups have merged with more modern groups? For "are being based", perhaps "are renovating and moving into"? Corinne (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Again I'm not sure what you are asking. Venues with the own in house companies can be groups as well as buildings. Some are new groups in old buildings, others old organisations based in new or renovated buildings.— Rod ^talk 09:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Rod (See more a few lines above this.) By "new groups", do you mean what the sentence called "current arts"? By "old organisations", do you mean "historical arts"? It all sounds a bit complicated. I wonder what the main point is that you'd like made (and reflects the source). Why don't we use the wording you just used? It's clearer than the other sentence, something like this:

• Some relatively young arts groups have renovated and moved into old buildings, and some older arts groups are based in new or renovated buildings.

If that's not exactly what you want to say, perhaps you could tweak it. Also, examples of the buildings might help. Corinne (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In the section Bristol#Architecture, there is an image with this caption:

• The Llandoger Trow, an historic Bristol pub

I realize that there are two pronunciations of "historic", and that when it is pronounced with a silent "h", the article "an" is used (not where I'm from, though). (a) I didn't see "an historic" elsewhere in the article; (b) in the article Great Gatehouse, Bristol, linked in this section, it says "a historic" in the lead. Rod, which do you prefer for the Bristol article? Corinne (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As historic doesn't start with a vowel I would say "an historic" but would not be distressed by "a historic" building etc. I am grateful for the expert guidance— Rod ^talk 09:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For many people, including myself, "historic" starts with a consonant sound; that is, the "h" is pronounced (aspirated), so would require "a" before it. For those people who do not pronounce the "h" at all (a silent "h"), "an" would be used. Corinne (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Corinne. OK I have percolated on this enough. I do not say iss-tore-ick, I say hiss-tore-ick‍—‌so for me it is "a historic". On the other hand, I would say "an honest" since I pronounce that "an on-nest" (roughly). I read online that both uses are common enough that either "an" or "a" may be used with historic‍—‌running about 66% for "an" and 34% for "a". I have heard "an historic" from a few pinky finger tippers in my day. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hello, Corinne. You're invited to join the Google Doodle task force of the Today's articles for improvement project. We aim to improve articles on current and previous Google Doodles to turn them into a valuable and inspiring resource for interested readers. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thank you for your consideration.

– Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Today's articles for improvement

Rothorpe Do you remember our discussion regarding the use of "the" before a name? I think you said you preferred to see it, and I said Americans usually did not use it. Well, I just finished copy-editing Mary, Queen of Hungary, and I see both styles used. Three different historians are mentioned. Shall I put the article "the" before "historian" in all three instances or leave it out? Or does it depend upon the construction of the sentence? Can you find them with the "Find" function? Any opinions on this or any other aspect of the article are welcome. I've left a few comments on the talk page, mainly intended for the requester, Borsoka. Corinne (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was in fact remembering that exchange very recently, and nowadays adopt a non-interference policy. Consistency is overrated! But if it seems worth changing in any particular instance, change it. You could use the Find function, but typing in 'the historian' and then again with out the 'the'... rather laborious. So leave well alone. Now I'll have a look at the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Thanks for your judicious opinion. ;) When I looked for them, I just put in one word: "historian". That got me to all three. Tell me honestly which you prefer: "According to the 15th-century historian John Smith", or "According to 15th-century historian John Smith". Corinne (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I prefer with the 'the', but am inured to the journalese of without. Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka This is the last thing left in Mary, Queen of Hungary, that needs attention. I'll let you decide which style you prefer. The three instances are inconsistent now, so need to be made consistent. With "the" is more correct, more traditional, more Br. Eng. Without "the" is more "journalese", becoming more common, and more Am. Eng. Corinne (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see you already added "the" to one. That's fine. Corinne (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe I need your advice. Working with Borsoka (see the last part of Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary#Some concerns following a copy-edit on January 29, 2016), we have formed a sentence that we both like better than what was there. See the last edit here. Here is the sentence as it is now:

• Since Louis had fathered no sons, the expectation that he would bequeath Hungary, Poland, and his claims to the Kingdom of Naples and Provence to his daughters made them desirable spouses for members of the European royal families.

It's good, but I'm wondering whether it would read better if it was made clear who held the expectation.

• Since Louis had fathered no sons, the expectation among European royal families that he would bequeath Hungary, Poland, and his claims to the Kingdom of Naples and Provence to his daughters made them desirable spouses.

You'll see that the next sentence flows well from either of these. I really can't decide and I need your opinion. Corinne (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The first flows much better. In the second we wait too long for the daughters. Rothorpe (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. Then I'll leave it as it is. (I had thought of moving "to his daughters" to right after "bequeath", but then the pronoun "them" would be ambiguous.) Corinne (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Right! Rothorpe (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi Corinne. You did not send out the Bat-Signal but I moseyed on by anyway. I saw an 1880's here that I thought should be 1880s but then I changed it to {{circa|1880}}. Is that OK? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Checkingfax. I couldn't edit for three days because something was wrong with my computer. I took it to be repaired and just got it back. The "c. 1880" is probably fine unless someone comes up with a date for the painting that's much later in the 1880s than 1880. Corinne (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I thought you might like to test out this Diff converter: User:Scottywong/diffconverter Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Checkingfax. I'll look at this tomorrow (too tired now). Corinne (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Casliber I am reading the article Banksia aemula in preparation for shortening the summary of the article for TFA. I'm a little puzzled by something, actually two related things.

1) In the summary, which I haven't touched yet, I read this sentence:

• Found from Bundaberg south to Sydney on the Australian east coast, it is encountered as a shrub or a taller tree to 8 m (26 ft) in coastal heath on deep sandy soil, known as Wallum.

The phrase "a shrub or a taller tree" sounds like a shrub is considered a tree. Is that true? I always thought a shrub was called a shrub because it is somewhat different from a tree. If a shrub is not a tree, I would remove "taller"; you're going to give the height anyway, and anything that reaches 26 feet in height is usually not a shrub. I also think "a...tree to 8 m" sounds like botanists' jargon. I'm wondering if it would be clearer to non-experts if it read:

• a shrub or a tree reaching to 8 m (26 ft)...

yep. good catch. removed adjective Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

2) Then, in the article Banksia aemula, in the last paragraph in the section Banksia aemula#Distribution and habitat, I read:

• On North Stradbroke Island, Banksia aemula is one of three canopy tree species of Eucalyptus signata dominated forest 12–15 m (39–49 ft) high, the third species being E. umbra.

(a) Do the height ranges 12–15 m (39–49 ft) high refer to Banksia aemula only (on that island), or to the general height of the three canopy tree species?

(b) If it refers by some chance to Banksia aemula, isn't that height quite a bit above the 26  mentioned in the summary (and copied above)?

it refers to the general canopy layer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence of that paragraph reads:

• Here individual wallum banksias were measured at 8.3–12.1 m (27–40 ft) high, with a maximum diameter at breast height of 44 cm (17 in).

I know it says "individual wallum banksias", so are perhaps unusual in their height, but still, isn't that range also quite a bit taller than the 26 ft mentioned in the summary?

yes - lots of tree species will grow taller to stretch and reach the light. I will rejig it so it is mentioned in the description section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Corinne (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Casliber I finished shortening the summary, but last week when I was having trouble with my computer I removed the purge function so I couldn't "purge" the summary when I was done. I just added the purge function but don't know how to purge it now that I've saved my changes without making another edit to it. Dank I've finished the summary. It's at 1152 characters. Corinne (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, I made some tweaks, see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dank All good. I had thought about putting birds last, with "particularly honeyeaters" in commas after it, but I thought the creatures were in order of importance for pollination, with invertebrates placed last as least important, so I left it, but of course it reads better now. I keep forgetting to use the shortened form of a species after the first mention. Corinne (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax and Rothorpe I was just looking at a new comment added to the talk page of Pentecost – Talk:Pentecost/Archive 1#Small Potatoes (grammar), and I was astonished at the appearance (and somewhat at the writing itself) of the comment. The writing of the comment is generally correct, but a bit old-fashioned, as if it were written in the 19th century, but the spacing of the punctuation is unique. Also, I guess the writer is not familiar with the quality of conciseness. But regarding the message of the comment, I think s/he is right. For those not already familiar with the Christian calendar, it is not clear whether the phrase in parentheses applies to Ascension Thursday or to Pentecost itself. I'm not familiar enough with the calendar to feel confident in clarifying the sentence. If either of you are, perhaps you could add something and/or change the punctuation. Corinne (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Following the links, Feast of the Ascension is defined as "a Thursday, the 40th day after Easter". I agree the parenthesis is ambiguous, but it can easily be clarified. However, I don't feel like jumping in and doing that without your prior encouragement. Rothorpe (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe I thought my last sentence was encouragement. ;) Please feel free to make the necessary changes. Corinne (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Encouragement level is now sufficient. Rothorpe (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Gorthian See also this at Paleontology. Corinne (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. — Gorthian (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I saw you had placed the non-GOCE "in use" template at the top of the article on Humanism. I'm glad you're working on that article. It looked like it needed work. I saw your edit summary, kind of giving the template, but I couldn't figure out how to add it to my list of templates. I added the purpose of the template ("to....") right after the red "X" in my list of non-GOCE templates. Could you add the template right before the phrase "to....to indicate that an active copy-edit is underway"? Corinne (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Here is the mid-level version of the template:

{{In use|time=~~~~~}}

For a more abbreviated version you can use:

{{In use}}

The deluxe version includes a spot to include a note (like "I will be editing for about 30 minutes to improve the history section"):

{{In use|30 minutes to fix the information in the History section|time=~~~~~}}

If you are only editing a section, you can use:

{{in use|section}}

The five tildes (~~~~~) automatically sets the date/time that you placed the template, and the last time you saved an edit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I also added this link to that section:

• Link to master list of all the fancy "done" type templates

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you! Wow that's quite a list. I like the big blue question marks for "What???" or "What does that mean?" Corinne (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, can I ask you something about categories? Greetings --Tschips (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tschips I know nothing about categories. Perhaps Checkingfax can help. Corinne (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tschips and Corinne. I have created a few categories, and try to add categories to articles. I also "adjust" categories using WP:HOTCAT. What is the question? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: Thanks for calling help!

@Checkingfax: Recently I started to do some edits at Igbo Wikipedia and found the category of "oceans :ig:Òtù:Oshimiri" as subcategory of "world :ig:Òtù:Úwà" (which includes others like "animals"). There is a category "geografy :ig:Òtù:Geography" which already contains "continents" as subcategory. Could I simply change the oceans-category's direction (from "world" to "geography") or will it crash the system? Greetings, --Tschips (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tschips. Can you enable HotCat in your Preferences? Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, check off the box for HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion [example], and save your change. Then Refresh the page. Going forward, at the bottom of each article page you should have '+' and '-' signs next to each category, like this:

The new links are:

• "(−)" after a category: when clicked, the category is automatically removed.
• "(±)" after a category: when clicked, an input field to change this category is opened.
• "(+)" at the end of the list of categories: when clicked, an input field to add a category is opened.
• "(+⁺)" at the front: when clicked, enters multi-change mode, allowing modifying more than one category.

To change a category, click the "(±)" link next to the category name. This will open the input box where you can enter a new category name.

To add a category, click the "(+)" link at the end of the category line. This will open the input box where you can enter a new category name.

The input box of HotCat is very simple: a text field to enter the new category name, an indicator icon, and an "OK" and a "Cancel" button.

Let me know if this helps. Or, maybe I am not understanding your issue. PS: If you save a category and it shows up red, it means the category does not yet exist. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Great, thanks a lot! I try it out -will need some time- and tell you if it works! --Tschips (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Solved the problem, thank you for attending! --Tschips (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I saw your comment, perhaps it was in an edit summary, expressing your dismay that Ssven2 was retiring from WP. I saw everything had been archived on his/her talk page, but I didn't see any notice about leaving or any block. I did see a comment directed to Dr. Blofeld that s/he wasn't leaving, but was just going to edit less to protect his/her eyesight. Can you tell me if Ssven2 is really retiring, and if so, why? S/He seemed to be a very nice and good editor. Corinne (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if Ssven is retiring, though he is making productive edits less often, instead developing this. It is User:Krimuk90's exit that greatly upset me, considering how great an editor he once was, until an unnecessary edit war with User:Krish! made him suffer a nervous breakdown and he committed many kinds of vandalism which got him blocked indefinitely. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Ssven2 is not retiring, he has just reduced his workload at Wikipedia. In a brief discussion, he said that his eyes are alright and there is nothing quite serious. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you please help with this. Submitted a request at the GOCE. I see you are an active member of GOCE. --Inside the Valley (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished :-). Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis Wow. Thanks for the link as well as your good wishes. Corinne (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)