![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
Hello, Rothorpe! I have a few questions for you about Divine Comedy:
1) In the section Divine Comedy#Islamic philosophy, I think there is some inconsistency in formatting of titles, particularly the English titles. They appear in italics with quotation marks, or just italics, or regular (Roman) font with quotation marks. I don't know if some of these are short works, or short parts (such as chapters) of longer works. Can you figure it all out? Are they all correct?
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Divine Comedy#Purgatorio is:
I'm just wondering whether all those "the's" are needed. You have to read before this to get the full picture. I'm wondering whether the second "the" ("the sin") is necessary. It's true that it means the specific group of sins that are on the Mountain of Purgatory, but still... Perhaps it should be,
- CorinneSD ( talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! What do you think of this edit to Old Saxon? [1] Normally, I approve of writing out numbers in full when possible, but in this case, it's a translation of a German title, and the German title has the numbers, not the words for the numbers, so I don't know... CorinneSD ( talk) 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In response to a comment I just left on the talk page of Radiocarbon dating at Talk:Radiocarbon dating#Et al., the same editor changed et al. back to "et al." [2] However, at the same time, the editor wrote "coworkers". When I see "coworkers" I think of cows. I prefer "co-workers". What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I need your help in figuring out the correct capitalization in this section heading in La Laguna Cathedral. See [4]. I know most words after the first word in a section heading should be in lowercase, but is "Chapter House" a formal name of a building that should be capitalized in the heading? Is "Icon Museum" a similarly formal name, or should it just be "icon museum"? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Because of light-hearted discussions about moose on User:Sca's talk page at User talk:Sca#Moosing around, I looked at the article on Moose. I came across the following sentence in the middle of the fourth paragraph in the section Moose#Etymology and naming:
In the middle of the sentence you'll see that there is an extra "to". I wonder which is better:
or some other wording. CorinneSD ( talk) 21:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Another editor put 'living animals alive', perhaps a typo for 'living animals around'. 'Without any living animals to serve as a reference' would surely be enough. Rothorpe ( talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe -- I need your opinion on something. Can you read my comment of 3 March 2015 at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Zucchini (and look at the edit to which I provided a link)? You can respond here or there, whichever you think is more appropriate. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Check this out: User talk:Hafspajen#Cheers. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I have just started reading the article on Anton Bruckner. I have a question for you. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is the following:
I paused at "or". Normally, in examples following "such as", we would see "and". I wonder if "or" is correct here because it follows "Unlike other musical radicals". I don't think it is, but I thought I'd ask you what you thought. CorinneSD ( talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Also, if we change "or" to "and", I would add a comma after Hugo Wolf so that the adjective clause beginning "who" is enclosed in a pair of commas. CorinneSD ( talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe -- I've just finished reading most of the article on River Phoenix. As usual, I made a few copy-edits. I changed the formatting of a quote from pull quotes to a regular blockquote per MOS:Blockquote. It had been in two separate paragraphs, and in changing it to a blockquote it became one paragraph, and I couldn't figure out how to separate the two paragraphs. CorinneSD ( talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Here's the link to the edit: [6]. CorinneSD ( talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I just wonder what you think of this edit to Fire temple: [7]. The edit was made a while ago, but I just saw it again as I was looking at the latest edit [8] (not sure about that one, either). I think "from the point of view of both archaeology and sociology" (or something like that) to "archaeologically and sociologically" (which, while both grammatically correct and more concise, seems vague with regard to meaning). What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 18:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your improvements to the infobox I put up on Steve Hunter, however I think my original background was correct as posted per: Template:Infobox musical artists [9]. Thanks again for you work. BuffaloBob ( talk) 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this edit to Cinnamon? [10] Do you agree with the edit summary? I'm also going to ask Sminthopsis84 for his/her opinion since s/he is a botanist. (I sometimes think the word "very" is a boring word. Also, I believe, as qualifiers, "quite" and "very" have different meanings, with "quite" beings slightly less intense than "very"; would you agree?) CorinneSD ( talk) 18:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:Featured picture candidates. Scroll down a bit to see the nominations. There are quite a few. You click "Edit", then you can type "Support", "Oppose", or leave a "Comment" or even ask a question. If you don't want to vote, you can just look at the images and read the comments. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw this link to a new book or paper (didn't stop to see which) on the talk page of another editor. It's on a topic I find very interesting. I thought you might be interested in it. It traces linguistic evidence to pinpoint the origin of the original speakers of Indo-European. It is a little arcane, but clearly written, and if you take it slowly, you will come to their conclusion. I have read about half of it. If you click on "PDF" on the left side, it will open up as a PDF document. Then you just scroll down slowly to read it. You can also easily enlarge it. If you move your mouse to the lower-right part of the screen, you'll see about five or six things you can click on. You can click on the "+" symbol to zoom in (make the text larger). When you get to the chart, you can right click and choose "rotate clockwise" and read the chart horizontally. A long time ago, I read a book titled, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, which used both linguistic and archaeological evidence; I believe the author came to the same conclusion as these authors have, but I won't know for sure until I finish reading. Here's the link: [12]. (You might also be able to download it and read it later. I'm not sure. If you do download it, try to download it as a PDF file so you can enlarge the text as I described above.) P.S. Hope you don't mind I told Fylb about our discussion; didn't want him/her to misinterpret your comment at FP. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you agree with this edit? [13] Unless I missed it, it does not say (before this) that she was a comedienne, so the "In addition to her fame as a comedienne" is not really needed, is it? I think it is mentioned later in the article that she played some comedic roles, but that's not the same as being a comedienne, is it? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The citation supports the claim, but "in addition" is totally wrong, as you say. The fact that she was a comedienne has to be introduced first. I'll do the re-wording, or support your changes. Rwood128 ( talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD once again I was too hasty. The opening sentence of the lede does establish that she was famous for roles in comedies. Rwood128 ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
True, maybe the word comedienne should be in this first sentence, and the other plays identified as comedies. I have little doubt that she was a comedienne, as the other two works were also comedies. Your instinct is proving to be correct. Rwood128 ( talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD, I went ahead and made a change. Rwood128 ( talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to ask two of you -- Rothorpe and Rwood128 -- what you think about the discussion at Talk:T. E. Lawrence#Sexuality and the exception that proves the rule.. Both comments seem quite reasonable to me, but I don't want to make the edit without consulting with you. Since the two editors are IP editors, they may be hesitating to make edits or waiting to hear from other editors. Do you know enough about T. E. Lawrence, or can you glean enough from the article, to make a determination on this and perhaps make the edit? CorinneSD ( talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
...It's back! Rothorpe ( talk) 20:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Rwood128 ( talk) 11:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in a comment I just left at Talk:Divine Comedy#Title in opening sentence. Do you know anything about the Divine Comedy? What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I was looking at a set of edits to Tacitus. Here they are: [14]. I was thinking that one of them could be improved still further. It was changed from:
to:
(I put the relevant clause in italics and removed the reference (only here) so that it is clearer in edit mode.)
Normally, I approve of using a verb, but in this case I think the adjective works better. I think "which his works make evident" unnecessarily transfers the focus from "his hatred of tyranny" to the action in the clause. I wonder also whether the adjective clause "which is evident in his works" would sound better if it were:
(a) changed to "...giving him the hatred of tyranny that is evident in his works" or
(b) shortened to: "...giving him the hatred of tyranny evident in his works".
What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! What do you think of this edit to Wetland? [15] I think the way it was,
is better than the new version:
Yes, '(bogs and fens being types of mire)' is fine. Rothorpe ( talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) ('Voice issues'??)
Hello, Rothorpe,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. 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 try to 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) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! Would you mind looking at this group of edits to Loren Eiseley? [16] I don't think it's an improvment. The next three edits by an IP editor go in a circle and change nothing, so I was thinking about reverting to the version before this edit, but I noticed the addition of the name of the mother. What do you recommend? CorinneSD ( talk) 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Here you have two editors in a row who can't write. Do you feel like rescuing the sentence? [18] CorinneSD ( talk) 02:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
copyediting
Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
Three years ago, you were the 70th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I always look at your edits to your user page because I know I'll see fine tuning of an already excellent page. I was just looking at your last edits. Would you mind if I shared some thoughts? I'm going to copy the paragraph here for ease of discussion:
1) I don't understand this part at all:
2) If I understand the sentence correctly, you are saying:
I find this sentence confusing. You are really saying "There should be no spaces around X, Y or Z, but not where the hyphen...is being used as a dash..."
So you've got two negatives: "There should...be no spaces...but not where..."
I really don't understand that.
3) Also, I would have thought that you would make it clear that a hyphen really shouldn't be used as a dash in mid-sentence, and I don't see that.
4) I think when you say, "though an em dash...cuts more of a dash" is like saying it is all right to use a hyphen as a dash, but an em or en dash looks better. Is that really what you want to say? (See (3), above.)
5) I think that the people who stand to benefit most from the advice on your page are those who are not already expert at writing and punctuation. Therefore, I think the points you are making should be made in a way that is clearer, with each point made separately (although I think you inclusion of a sentence that illustrates the use of the unspaced em dash and the spaced en dash is a good idea). I also think "cuts more of a dash" may be confusing for the readers I am thinking about. CorinneSD ( talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I started from the standpoint of one of those publications that uses no diacritics (naive, facade, fiance, fiancee; not to mention people called Chloe or Andre) so that I could use accent marks in a completely new way as pronunciation guides. So the diaeresis isn’t a diaeresis; in fact it was inspired by the identical German umlaut mark, which shows a somewhat similar sound in that language (ër, fürther ïrksome wörk for the sërvants...) The ê has a different sound; actually, both AmE and BrE say rêsëarch, but the stress is different in the traditional BrE one: resëarch. Does that clarify? Rothorpe ( talk) 01:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't born yesterday you know, or even nine years ago. or can we expect a historical series? I found your edit here a bit minimalist! Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I saw on your user page that you were a Petrean, so I started to read Peterhouse, Cambridge to learn more. I have two questions for you (so far):
1) In the first paragraph in the section Peterhouse, Cambridge#Foundation is the following sentence:
I'm puzzled by the use of the word "without" before "Trumpington Gate". I suppose it probably means "outside of", but since the word has two basic meanings - "outside of" and opposite of "with" - why not just use "outside of"? I notice that "outside of" is used in the previous sentence, also with Trumpington Gate.
2) In the very next paragraph, there are two sets of dates: 1354-55 (if I remember correctly) and 1391-2. The format is different. Shouldn't the format be consistent? Which do you prefer? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this comment at Talk:Climate fiction#a dash of detail? Do you agree with the editor who posted the comment? CorinneSD ( talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in this addition to the Virginia Woolf article: [19]. An editor has added, just below the infobox, the only surviving recording of Virginia Woolf's voice. I listened for seven minutes, but it goes on. (Occasionally, there are pauses or brief breaks in the recording, but keep listening because it continues.) I was struck by her pronunciation of the word "that". It is pronounced with a very broad "a" sound, like "cat", and very like American pronunciation, and very different from the "a" sound when she pronounces "past". In American English, these two words rhyme (at least as far as the vowel sound goes). I also found it interesting the way she slowly begins to personify words (collectively), and I think she has it right on the mark when she says that words really only exist in the mind, and in relation to each other. But I didn't have the patience to listen to the whole thing. CorinneSD ( talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of reading the article on Firishta, an Indian historian. I came across a sentence I want to ask you about. It's in the paragraph immediately following the list of chapters in the section Firishta#Overview of work:
What do you think of this edit to Cynocephaly? [20] There are two issues: 1) Does it belong in the article? (I don't see any source.) and, if so, 2) it needs some copy-editing. CorinneSD ( talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do agree with these edits to Thessaly? [21] CorinneSD ( talk) 23:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is a picture of biscuits in the U.S.
Biscuits right out of the oven are delicious! CorinneSD ( talk) 00:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen ( talk) 22:25, 1 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
Hello, Rothorpe! I have a few questions for you about Divine Comedy:
1) In the section Divine Comedy#Islamic philosophy, I think there is some inconsistency in formatting of titles, particularly the English titles. They appear in italics with quotation marks, or just italics, or regular (Roman) font with quotation marks. I don't know if some of these are short works, or short parts (such as chapters) of longer works. Can you figure it all out? Are they all correct?
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Divine Comedy#Purgatorio is:
I'm just wondering whether all those "the's" are needed. You have to read before this to get the full picture. I'm wondering whether the second "the" ("the sin") is necessary. It's true that it means the specific group of sins that are on the Mountain of Purgatory, but still... Perhaps it should be,
- CorinneSD ( talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! What do you think of this edit to Old Saxon? [1] Normally, I approve of writing out numbers in full when possible, but in this case, it's a translation of a German title, and the German title has the numbers, not the words for the numbers, so I don't know... CorinneSD ( talk) 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In response to a comment I just left on the talk page of Radiocarbon dating at Talk:Radiocarbon dating#Et al., the same editor changed et al. back to "et al." [2] However, at the same time, the editor wrote "coworkers". When I see "coworkers" I think of cows. I prefer "co-workers". What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I need your help in figuring out the correct capitalization in this section heading in La Laguna Cathedral. See [4]. I know most words after the first word in a section heading should be in lowercase, but is "Chapter House" a formal name of a building that should be capitalized in the heading? Is "Icon Museum" a similarly formal name, or should it just be "icon museum"? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Because of light-hearted discussions about moose on User:Sca's talk page at User talk:Sca#Moosing around, I looked at the article on Moose. I came across the following sentence in the middle of the fourth paragraph in the section Moose#Etymology and naming:
In the middle of the sentence you'll see that there is an extra "to". I wonder which is better:
or some other wording. CorinneSD ( talk) 21:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Another editor put 'living animals alive', perhaps a typo for 'living animals around'. 'Without any living animals to serve as a reference' would surely be enough. Rothorpe ( talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe -- I need your opinion on something. Can you read my comment of 3 March 2015 at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Zucchini (and look at the edit to which I provided a link)? You can respond here or there, whichever you think is more appropriate. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Check this out: User talk:Hafspajen#Cheers. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I have just started reading the article on Anton Bruckner. I have a question for you. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is the following:
I paused at "or". Normally, in examples following "such as", we would see "and". I wonder if "or" is correct here because it follows "Unlike other musical radicals". I don't think it is, but I thought I'd ask you what you thought. CorinneSD ( talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Also, if we change "or" to "and", I would add a comma after Hugo Wolf so that the adjective clause beginning "who" is enclosed in a pair of commas. CorinneSD ( talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe -- I've just finished reading most of the article on River Phoenix. As usual, I made a few copy-edits. I changed the formatting of a quote from pull quotes to a regular blockquote per MOS:Blockquote. It had been in two separate paragraphs, and in changing it to a blockquote it became one paragraph, and I couldn't figure out how to separate the two paragraphs. CorinneSD ( talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Here's the link to the edit: [6]. CorinneSD ( talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I just wonder what you think of this edit to Fire temple: [7]. The edit was made a while ago, but I just saw it again as I was looking at the latest edit [8] (not sure about that one, either). I think "from the point of view of both archaeology and sociology" (or something like that) to "archaeologically and sociologically" (which, while both grammatically correct and more concise, seems vague with regard to meaning). What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 18:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your improvements to the infobox I put up on Steve Hunter, however I think my original background was correct as posted per: Template:Infobox musical artists [9]. Thanks again for you work. BuffaloBob ( talk) 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this edit to Cinnamon? [10] Do you agree with the edit summary? I'm also going to ask Sminthopsis84 for his/her opinion since s/he is a botanist. (I sometimes think the word "very" is a boring word. Also, I believe, as qualifiers, "quite" and "very" have different meanings, with "quite" beings slightly less intense than "very"; would you agree?) CorinneSD ( talk) 18:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in WP:Featured picture candidates. Scroll down a bit to see the nominations. There are quite a few. You click "Edit", then you can type "Support", "Oppose", or leave a "Comment" or even ask a question. If you don't want to vote, you can just look at the images and read the comments. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw this link to a new book or paper (didn't stop to see which) on the talk page of another editor. It's on a topic I find very interesting. I thought you might be interested in it. It traces linguistic evidence to pinpoint the origin of the original speakers of Indo-European. It is a little arcane, but clearly written, and if you take it slowly, you will come to their conclusion. I have read about half of it. If you click on "PDF" on the left side, it will open up as a PDF document. Then you just scroll down slowly to read it. You can also easily enlarge it. If you move your mouse to the lower-right part of the screen, you'll see about five or six things you can click on. You can click on the "+" symbol to zoom in (make the text larger). When you get to the chart, you can right click and choose "rotate clockwise" and read the chart horizontally. A long time ago, I read a book titled, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, which used both linguistic and archaeological evidence; I believe the author came to the same conclusion as these authors have, but I won't know for sure until I finish reading. Here's the link: [12]. (You might also be able to download it and read it later. I'm not sure. If you do download it, try to download it as a PDF file so you can enlarge the text as I described above.) P.S. Hope you don't mind I told Fylb about our discussion; didn't want him/her to misinterpret your comment at FP. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you agree with this edit? [13] Unless I missed it, it does not say (before this) that she was a comedienne, so the "In addition to her fame as a comedienne" is not really needed, is it? I think it is mentioned later in the article that she played some comedic roles, but that's not the same as being a comedienne, is it? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The citation supports the claim, but "in addition" is totally wrong, as you say. The fact that she was a comedienne has to be introduced first. I'll do the re-wording, or support your changes. Rwood128 ( talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD once again I was too hasty. The opening sentence of the lede does establish that she was famous for roles in comedies. Rwood128 ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
True, maybe the word comedienne should be in this first sentence, and the other plays identified as comedies. I have little doubt that she was a comedienne, as the other two works were also comedies. Your instinct is proving to be correct. Rwood128 ( talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD, I went ahead and made a change. Rwood128 ( talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to ask two of you -- Rothorpe and Rwood128 -- what you think about the discussion at Talk:T. E. Lawrence#Sexuality and the exception that proves the rule.. Both comments seem quite reasonable to me, but I don't want to make the edit without consulting with you. Since the two editors are IP editors, they may be hesitating to make edits or waiting to hear from other editors. Do you know enough about T. E. Lawrence, or can you glean enough from the article, to make a determination on this and perhaps make the edit? CorinneSD ( talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
...It's back! Rothorpe ( talk) 20:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Rwood128 ( talk) 11:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in a comment I just left at Talk:Divine Comedy#Title in opening sentence. Do you know anything about the Divine Comedy? What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I was looking at a set of edits to Tacitus. Here they are: [14]. I was thinking that one of them could be improved still further. It was changed from:
to:
(I put the relevant clause in italics and removed the reference (only here) so that it is clearer in edit mode.)
Normally, I approve of using a verb, but in this case I think the adjective works better. I think "which his works make evident" unnecessarily transfers the focus from "his hatred of tyranny" to the action in the clause. I wonder also whether the adjective clause "which is evident in his works" would sound better if it were:
(a) changed to "...giving him the hatred of tyranny that is evident in his works" or
(b) shortened to: "...giving him the hatred of tyranny evident in his works".
What do you think? CorinneSD ( talk) 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! What do you think of this edit to Wetland? [15] I think the way it was,
is better than the new version:
Yes, '(bogs and fens being types of mire)' is fine. Rothorpe ( talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) ('Voice issues'??)
Hello, Rothorpe,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. 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 try to 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) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! Would you mind looking at this group of edits to Loren Eiseley? [16] I don't think it's an improvment. The next three edits by an IP editor go in a circle and change nothing, so I was thinking about reverting to the version before this edit, but I noticed the addition of the name of the mother. What do you recommend? CorinneSD ( talk) 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Here you have two editors in a row who can't write. Do you feel like rescuing the sentence? [18] CorinneSD ( talk) 02:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
copyediting
Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
Three years ago, you were the 70th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I always look at your edits to your user page because I know I'll see fine tuning of an already excellent page. I was just looking at your last edits. Would you mind if I shared some thoughts? I'm going to copy the paragraph here for ease of discussion:
1) I don't understand this part at all:
2) If I understand the sentence correctly, you are saying:
I find this sentence confusing. You are really saying "There should be no spaces around X, Y or Z, but not where the hyphen...is being used as a dash..."
So you've got two negatives: "There should...be no spaces...but not where..."
I really don't understand that.
3) Also, I would have thought that you would make it clear that a hyphen really shouldn't be used as a dash in mid-sentence, and I don't see that.
4) I think when you say, "though an em dash...cuts more of a dash" is like saying it is all right to use a hyphen as a dash, but an em or en dash looks better. Is that really what you want to say? (See (3), above.)
5) I think that the people who stand to benefit most from the advice on your page are those who are not already expert at writing and punctuation. Therefore, I think the points you are making should be made in a way that is clearer, with each point made separately (although I think you inclusion of a sentence that illustrates the use of the unspaced em dash and the spaced en dash is a good idea). I also think "cuts more of a dash" may be confusing for the readers I am thinking about. CorinneSD ( talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I started from the standpoint of one of those publications that uses no diacritics (naive, facade, fiance, fiancee; not to mention people called Chloe or Andre) so that I could use accent marks in a completely new way as pronunciation guides. So the diaeresis isn’t a diaeresis; in fact it was inspired by the identical German umlaut mark, which shows a somewhat similar sound in that language (ër, fürther ïrksome wörk for the sërvants...) The ê has a different sound; actually, both AmE and BrE say rêsëarch, but the stress is different in the traditional BrE one: resëarch. Does that clarify? Rothorpe ( talk) 01:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't born yesterday you know, or even nine years ago. or can we expect a historical series? I found your edit here a bit minimalist! Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe! I saw on your user page that you were a Petrean, so I started to read Peterhouse, Cambridge to learn more. I have two questions for you (so far):
1) In the first paragraph in the section Peterhouse, Cambridge#Foundation is the following sentence:
I'm puzzled by the use of the word "without" before "Trumpington Gate". I suppose it probably means "outside of", but since the word has two basic meanings - "outside of" and opposite of "with" - why not just use "outside of"? I notice that "outside of" is used in the previous sentence, also with Trumpington Gate.
2) In the very next paragraph, there are two sets of dates: 1354-55 (if I remember correctly) and 1391-2. The format is different. Shouldn't the format be consistent? Which do you prefer? CorinneSD ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this comment at Talk:Climate fiction#a dash of detail? Do you agree with the editor who posted the comment? CorinneSD ( talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in this addition to the Virginia Woolf article: [19]. An editor has added, just below the infobox, the only surviving recording of Virginia Woolf's voice. I listened for seven minutes, but it goes on. (Occasionally, there are pauses or brief breaks in the recording, but keep listening because it continues.) I was struck by her pronunciation of the word "that". It is pronounced with a very broad "a" sound, like "cat", and very like American pronunciation, and very different from the "a" sound when she pronounces "past". In American English, these two words rhyme (at least as far as the vowel sound goes). I also found it interesting the way she slowly begins to personify words (collectively), and I think she has it right on the mark when she says that words really only exist in the mind, and in relation to each other. But I didn't have the patience to listen to the whole thing. CorinneSD ( talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of reading the article on Firishta, an Indian historian. I came across a sentence I want to ask you about. It's in the paragraph immediately following the list of chapters in the section Firishta#Overview of work:
What do you think of this edit to Cynocephaly? [20] There are two issues: 1) Does it belong in the article? (I don't see any source.) and, if so, 2) it needs some copy-editing. CorinneSD ( talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do agree with these edits to Thessaly? [21] CorinneSD ( talk) 23:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is a picture of biscuits in the U.S.
Biscuits right out of the oven are delicious! CorinneSD ( talk) 00:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen ( talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)