![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Thank you very much for your help in getting Exhumation of Richard III of England to Featured Article status! I thought you might like to know that I have nominated it for Today's Featured Article for 26 March 2015. The request is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Exhumation of Richard III of England. Please feel free to comment if you have any views. Prioryman ( talk) 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I implemented some of those things you recommended. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have scheduled this for 19 March, in place of the London and Manchester railway opening, which has been deferred until September (see User talk:Iridescent). Blurb required for Brill. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the FAC for
Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me
04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Which of youse guyz is the TFA leader for the May articles? I'm prepping one for May 2 if you can peek at the blurb and see if any need for a tweak jumps out at you? Montanabw (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dank! You can check the discussion here. The proposal worked as a simple poll, with each aspect of it receiving a "yes" (sim) or "no" (não) by the participants. The reasoning given was that "in cases of obvious vandalisms, current rollbackers need to open a request for unblock that needs to be analyzed by an online administrator for conclusion. Apart from the bureaucratic aspect (request, response, archiving) the responding taking too long creates extra work in reverting a vandal".
We do have a low number of sysops (only 35), and we do have to wait longer than in the English Wikipedia in order to have a user blocked, a page protected, a link whitelisted, etc. But I can't say that was the reason they approved such feature. It's more like they wanted to make bureaucratic procedures easier for trusted users. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dank,
The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your efforts. I really appreciate what you do on TFA, and as a copy editor. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC was withdrawn recently due to prose issues. Feel free to leave comments.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me
13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
When you finalise the blurb for the 4 April TFA, could you address an important omission from the article's lead, which nowhere mentions that the crew of three all died in this accident?. This is surely a significant fact, and I'm very surprised that the ommission wasn't picked up when the article was at FAC. The main authors are long gone, I think. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I am carrying out a review on the article Mind Meld as part of its featured article candidacy. This is a film made up entirely of Star Trek actors Shatner and Nimoy talking and at one point Shatner (allegedly) farts. Justifiably or not, the film is now more famous for the farting noise than for anything the two actors talk about. In our article, the terms "flatulate", "flatulation" and "flatulence" are collectively used at least a dozen times. I suggested substituting a few of these for the simpler "fart" or conjugations thereof (I had not been aware "flatulate" was even a word), but the nominator and main contributor Neelix contends that "fart" is vulgar and of an unencyclopedic tone. I am not sure and, having deferred to you on word usages in the past, it occurred to me to seek your opinion again on the correct way to approach this. I hope you're well and I apologise for asking you to devote your attention to this undignified topic (not to mention the farting). Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Het, Dan, do you know what happened here? There's no deletion in the deletion log, and I don't see anything in your edit that could have caused it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
DanK, thank you for you copyedit advice for the Sinking Creek Raid page—all have been incorporated. I will have another raid created in a few months, and a significant upgrade to an existing Civil War regiment page by the end of the year. It would be great if you could look over those too. Thanks again! TwoScars ( talk) 15:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It finally passed! I'm happy to help out with the Main Page blurb, if you want. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The article on Ulysses S. Grant was featured specifically today because this is the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War. Unfortunately, that fact is not noted under anniversaries; we have
April 9: Maundy Thursday (Eastern Christianity, 2015); Vimy Ridge Day in Canada; Day of National Unity in Georgia (1989); Bataan Day in the Philippines
but nothing about Appomattox. Is it too late to fix that? YoPienso ( talk) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Gemini (2002 Tamil film) is about to be tomorrow's TFA. But there is one improvement needed in its TFA page: Kalabhavan Mani is not wiki linked, and is only mentioned by his last name. But can we just remove mention of him? I, as a non-admin cannot edit the TFA page. Kailash29792 ( talk) 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan, could you put the italics back in please: it refers to a series, and so the italics are correct. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 07:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(Copied from Talk:List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Small reversion): His Dark Materials, List of Star Wars books, The Railway Series, The Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight (series), The Hunger Games, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Vampire Chronicles... need I go on? Could you please change back the italics in the blurb to match the article title, and the use of the novel series name, and franchise name. The use of italics partly acts as an easy way of disambiguation the (unitalicised) character from the (italicised) series. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we keep the discussion centralised, please? I suggest leaving the discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion where it belongs. — sroc 💬 16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Dan, I'm going to pick up on a comment you made elsewhere that "There's an understanding at FAC that italics are the kind of fiddly little thing that good writers (such as SchroCat) usually don't care as much about as reviewers and copyeditors do."
I think that's hugely unfair of most (all?) writers of quality work. Most of us have a very strong understanding of the MoS – probably more than those who try and pontificate and pass warped judgements on the MoS talk pages: our work would not reach the levels of GA/FA/FL if we didn't know the MoS in all its infinite variety. There are times when we may deliberately ignore a minor point of the MoS for very good reason (it's a US-based style guide, and some of the more minor points are plain wrong in British English), but otherwise we stick rigidly to it when writing articles. –
SchroCat (
talk)
07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're here, I was just about to come over to your talk page and say something like: you're upset, and I want to know why. This could be part of it; I'm sorry for any offense I gave. The standard way of doing business around here treats editors' feelings as unimportant; "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". I think this comes from at least four things:
So, back to the present. It seems to me you weren't very happy with the way you were treated by anyone in that conversation. I'm hesitant to keep engaging with you on this ... I can't know of course because I've never met you, but I'm getting the sense that the more we talk, the angrier you get. Is there someone else that either you or I could talk with on the general and specific issues, maybe some Wikipedian you know locally, or from WP meetups? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at this and see if there is anything to fix since I am not a expert copyeditor, and if you have any comments please put them at the A-class review page. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 ( Let's have a chat) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the recent discussion, I thought it would be worth seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid further confusion and deal with some anomalous inconsistencies. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles and feel free to comment there. — sroc 💬 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Great writeup for 2002 Pacific typhoon season - [1]. I added an image of Typhoon Rusa, which was mentioned in the blurb and was one of the most photogenic storms of the season. I wasn't sure whether I should put pictured when the storm was mentioned, so I figured I'd ask you! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to thank you for all your help on that article ... much appreciated. We had a lot of people working on that, and we all wanted to get it right. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I liked your edits on the submarine article--very constructive indeed! Take care, and thanks again for taking the time to chat with me. -- EditorExtraordinaire ( talk) 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank,
I wanted to let you know that you seem to have misread my comment on the Main Page talk. I said that it should be changed to "who worked in Victoria"; not "who was working in Victoria", which would not make sense. Thanks, -- Biblio worm 19:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Thank you very much for your help in getting Exhumation of Richard III of England to Featured Article status! I thought you might like to know that I have nominated it for Today's Featured Article for 26 March 2015. The request is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Exhumation of Richard III of England. Please feel free to comment if you have any views. Prioryman ( talk) 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I implemented some of those things you recommended. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have scheduled this for 19 March, in place of the London and Manchester railway opening, which has been deferred until September (see User talk:Iridescent). Blurb required for Brill. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the FAC for
Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me
04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Which of youse guyz is the TFA leader for the May articles? I'm prepping one for May 2 if you can peek at the blurb and see if any need for a tweak jumps out at you? Montanabw (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dank! You can check the discussion here. The proposal worked as a simple poll, with each aspect of it receiving a "yes" (sim) or "no" (não) by the participants. The reasoning given was that "in cases of obvious vandalisms, current rollbackers need to open a request for unblock that needs to be analyzed by an online administrator for conclusion. Apart from the bureaucratic aspect (request, response, archiving) the responding taking too long creates extra work in reverting a vandal".
We do have a low number of sysops (only 35), and we do have to wait longer than in the English Wikipedia in order to have a user blocked, a page protected, a link whitelisted, etc. But I can't say that was the reason they approved such feature. It's more like they wanted to make bureaucratic procedures easier for trusted users. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Dank,
The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your efforts. I really appreciate what you do on TFA, and as a copy editor. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC was withdrawn recently due to prose issues. Feel free to leave comments.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me
13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
When you finalise the blurb for the 4 April TFA, could you address an important omission from the article's lead, which nowhere mentions that the crew of three all died in this accident?. This is surely a significant fact, and I'm very surprised that the ommission wasn't picked up when the article was at FAC. The main authors are long gone, I think. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I am carrying out a review on the article Mind Meld as part of its featured article candidacy. This is a film made up entirely of Star Trek actors Shatner and Nimoy talking and at one point Shatner (allegedly) farts. Justifiably or not, the film is now more famous for the farting noise than for anything the two actors talk about. In our article, the terms "flatulate", "flatulation" and "flatulence" are collectively used at least a dozen times. I suggested substituting a few of these for the simpler "fart" or conjugations thereof (I had not been aware "flatulate" was even a word), but the nominator and main contributor Neelix contends that "fart" is vulgar and of an unencyclopedic tone. I am not sure and, having deferred to you on word usages in the past, it occurred to me to seek your opinion again on the correct way to approach this. I hope you're well and I apologise for asking you to devote your attention to this undignified topic (not to mention the farting). Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Het, Dan, do you know what happened here? There's no deletion in the deletion log, and I don't see anything in your edit that could have caused it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
DanK, thank you for you copyedit advice for the Sinking Creek Raid page—all have been incorporated. I will have another raid created in a few months, and a significant upgrade to an existing Civil War regiment page by the end of the year. It would be great if you could look over those too. Thanks again! TwoScars ( talk) 15:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It finally passed! I'm happy to help out with the Main Page blurb, if you want. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The article on Ulysses S. Grant was featured specifically today because this is the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War. Unfortunately, that fact is not noted under anniversaries; we have
April 9: Maundy Thursday (Eastern Christianity, 2015); Vimy Ridge Day in Canada; Day of National Unity in Georgia (1989); Bataan Day in the Philippines
but nothing about Appomattox. Is it too late to fix that? YoPienso ( talk) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Gemini (2002 Tamil film) is about to be tomorrow's TFA. But there is one improvement needed in its TFA page: Kalabhavan Mani is not wiki linked, and is only mentioned by his last name. But can we just remove mention of him? I, as a non-admin cannot edit the TFA page. Kailash29792 ( talk) 17:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dan, could you put the italics back in please: it refers to a series, and so the italics are correct. Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 07:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(Copied from Talk:List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Small reversion): His Dark Materials, List of Star Wars books, The Railway Series, The Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight (series), The Hunger Games, A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Vampire Chronicles... need I go on? Could you please change back the italics in the blurb to match the article title, and the use of the novel series name, and franchise name. The use of italics partly acts as an easy way of disambiguation the (unitalicised) character from the (italicised) series. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we keep the discussion centralised, please? I suggest leaving the discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion where it belongs. — sroc 💬 16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Dan, I'm going to pick up on a comment you made elsewhere that "There's an understanding at FAC that italics are the kind of fiddly little thing that good writers (such as SchroCat) usually don't care as much about as reviewers and copyeditors do."
I think that's hugely unfair of most (all?) writers of quality work. Most of us have a very strong understanding of the MoS – probably more than those who try and pontificate and pass warped judgements on the MoS talk pages: our work would not reach the levels of GA/FA/FL if we didn't know the MoS in all its infinite variety. There are times when we may deliberately ignore a minor point of the MoS for very good reason (it's a US-based style guide, and some of the more minor points are plain wrong in British English), but otherwise we stick rigidly to it when writing articles. –
SchroCat (
talk)
07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're here, I was just about to come over to your talk page and say something like: you're upset, and I want to know why. This could be part of it; I'm sorry for any offense I gave. The standard way of doing business around here treats editors' feelings as unimportant; "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". I think this comes from at least four things:
So, back to the present. It seems to me you weren't very happy with the way you were treated by anyone in that conversation. I'm hesitant to keep engaging with you on this ... I can't know of course because I've never met you, but I'm getting the sense that the more we talk, the angrier you get. Is there someone else that either you or I could talk with on the general and specific issues, maybe some Wikipedian you know locally, or from WP meetups? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at this and see if there is anything to fix since I am not a expert copyeditor, and if you have any comments please put them at the A-class review page. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 ( Let's have a chat) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the recent discussion, I thought it would be worth seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid further confusion and deal with some anomalous inconsistencies. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles and feel free to comment there. — sroc 💬 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Great writeup for 2002 Pacific typhoon season - [1]. I added an image of Typhoon Rusa, which was mentioned in the blurb and was one of the most photogenic storms of the season. I wasn't sure whether I should put pictured when the storm was mentioned, so I figured I'd ask you! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to thank you for all your help on that article ... much appreciated. We had a lot of people working on that, and we all wanted to get it right. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I liked your edits on the submarine article--very constructive indeed! Take care, and thanks again for taking the time to chat with me. -- EditorExtraordinaire ( talk) 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank,
I wanted to let you know that you seem to have misread my comment on the Main Page talk. I said that it should be changed to "who worked in Victoria"; not "who was working in Victoria", which would not make sense. Thanks, -- Biblio worm 19:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)