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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The 'walking eye' 1960s CBS Records logo does not belong in the CBS Records article because the 1960s CBS Records has absolutely no connection with the current CBS Records. The 1960s CBS Records and is today called Columbia Records. The 1960s CBS Records logo belongs in the Columbia Records article. There ia already a hatnote directing readers to the Columbia Records article regaring the 1960s CBS Records label and to Sony Music Entertainment regarding the former CBS Records company. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:WGFinley (
talk)
15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Thank you. Rothorpe ( talk) 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, Cassianto suggested I contact you to see if you'd have some free time to give Peter Sellers a copy edit? It's had a fairly sizeable revamp over the last few weeks and I hope we'll be able to go to GAC shortly. There's also been discussion about the infobox, which I hope we'll be able to get rid of at some point, although a few people are supporting at the moment. If you have any time for the edit, that would be great, but no problems if you're already overstretched and too busy. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, sorry to bother you with what must seem like a very repetitive request. What are your thoughts on infoboxes? A discussion is taking place here and I would really value your comments. I happen to hate them as I think they are repetitive, redundant, uninteresting, ugly and misleading. A driveby editor has added one and I feel stuck with it until a consensus can be met to secure its deletion. It's made all the more serious as Fleming is currently up at FAC. -- Cassianto Talk 07:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, Thanks so much for all your help on the Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record article (as well as your truly sterling efforst on the main Peter Sellers article too). I'm going to sit on the article for a day or so and then fire it off to a Peer Review, with an FL being the ultimate aim. Your work has hugely increased the chances of getting there: many, many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 06:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, just a quick note to inform you Tim riley has left Wikipedia. There is a tribute rolling on his talk page. I know you and he had a lot in common and he held you in great esteem. -- Cassianto Talk 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, Thanks very much for all you assistance on the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article. The article is now at FLC and this is due in no small part to your efforts. Thanks again. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 08:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For the hilarious comment in your edit summary at Odeon Records. Thanks for the fix. 78.26 ( talk) 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) |
How nice to see you over at old Grim! I'd be eager to know your first impressions? -- Cassianto Talk 16:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
15:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc ( powwow) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You asked on the talk page why this had been deleted. In fact, although a "DABlink" for it was added to the top of Alan Melville by an IP more than four years ago, there has never been an article at that title. You could consider writing one, if you can find references? Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 10:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 09:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I currently have the above listed at peer review as a result of a lot of work and research which I have conducted over the last couple of months. I would be extremely greatful for any comments you may have and would welcome any feedback or suggestions. Many thanks in advance. -- Cassianto Talk 02:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning CBS Records, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
[•]
11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Please go to the topic talk page on terrestrial planet to explain why we need the moon and ceres in the lead picture since they are not considered terrestrial planets. Cadiomals ( talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You changed the MoS on 8 December 2011, but you hid it amongst many other edits (it was very well done...). Then you joined the mediation about the/The. Why have you never declared that you made those changes to the MoS on the poll page? Only a question.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The way you have written the para now reads as though they were both returned to the UK on the 29th Sept. Markdarrly ( talk) 12:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
the Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your help at Pink Floyd. It was promoted to FA today! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
Yes, it's strange how history can get re-written, isn't it? I assume a perfectly good-faith edit - because the headstone has now been removed. But that's not the only interpretation, of course. Well spotted anyway. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
why you deleted the cuban and brasilian flag there are two type of latin jazz you have to differentiate what country they ccame from people have to know there are two type of latin jazz, cuban and brasilian. 174.98.152.28 ( talk)
Hi Rothorpe, another user and I are planning on taking Hiram Wesley Evans to FAC soon. Would you be able to give it a copyedit in the near future? Hopefully there aren't too many issues, but things slip through the cracks from time to time. We've done a lot of revising too, so we might have missed a few things that are obvious to an outside observer. No problem if you don't have time though, thanks. Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, we have listed Sellers again at FLC as it was not promoted due to a technicality. We would really appreciate a re-visit if that's at all possible. There are no new additions to the article so it should just be a quick refresher and then a show of support or oppose. Many thanks once again. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 13:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my incorrect edit of the intro. I fixed it, and also added cites per talk page if that was a concern. if you were concerned about the content of the edit and not merely that I mis-edited (ie deleted a chunk by mistake) then see talk page for details, otherwise hopefully this is now ok. Can you let me know? FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe. I believe it was the space between the semi-colon you were referring to in Khalil al-Wazir. If so, I'll just let you know it's done :-) -- Altaïr ( talk) 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have any. Can I borrow some of yours? Good grief, you can give me the one below!-- andreasegde ( talk) 00:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
the Civility Barnstar | |
For sticking it through during a long and tedious mediation while never losing your cool and remaining civil to all. Well done! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Rothorpe ( talk) 01:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Rothorpe, I was/am perfectly fine wtih the criticism that was there. All I am arguing is that is was enough. Please self-revert. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've now trimmed the Blaney paraphrase as you suggested at my talk. Let me know if this resolves your concerns. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link to the TFAR page as you requested. Thanks again for all your help and advice! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried following your link to Sport_Gaffes_1, but after a couple of redirects ended up in WordDictionary.co.uk. Perhaps you would like to consider fixing it or removing it? I didn't touch it since it is on your user page which I regard as sacrosanct. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, just a quick note to let you know of Grimaldi's FAC which I have just listed. I would be most grateful for any comments or criticisms you may have to offer. Hope all is well! -- Cassianto Talk 13:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For making Death of Jacintha Saldanha more readable. Thank you. Rayabhari ( talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks very much! Rothorpe ( talk) 13:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Rothorpe, hope all is well on your end. I'm currently working on a PR for Cher, at the request of Lordelliott. We could use your help, as he is a native Spanish speaker, and you are of course our resident expert on the finer points of proper English grammar. If you are interested and can find the time, please take a look at the article and help us correct some of the errors we are missing. Your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Also, please feel free to add any comments at the peer review page. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That is a keen 'ear'. Not many people can understand the difference between: 1. The call was part of Australian radio programme Hot30 Countdown; 2. The call was part of Australian radio programme, Hot30 Countdown; 3. The call was part of the Australian radio programme Hot30 Countdown; and 4. The call was part of the Australian radio programme, Hot30 Countdown. Naturally not all four alternatives are possible in all cases, so it is highly improbable that anyone would use Number 2. in this case. Nonetheless, well spotted. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, I've opened a peer review on a relatively new article, Bernard Lee on stage and screen. It's fairly similar in scope and layout to the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article you very kindly helped out on previously. If you have any spare time, would you be able to look it over and pass comment, particularly on the coding aspect? It's not a problem if you are too busy to be able to get round to it. All the best - SchroCat ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, this is just a quick note to let you know of the recent FAC of the character actor John Le Mesurier which I have co-nominated along with Schrodinger's cat is alive and Dr. Blofeld. Confident it meets all featured article criteria and should the subject matter interest you enough, we would welcome any comments or criticisms that you may have to offer. -- Cassianto Talk 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, wasn't intending to create an article, it was just a suggested disambiguation from Dab solver, because one or two other articles redlink to the same non-existent article. Although I now see that the disambiguation page has an external link to a great article at theavengers.tv, it really shouldn't, per Wikipedia:DISAMBIG#External_links. A WP:EGG link to his appearance in the Bed-Sitting Room isn't appropriate either. I'll see if I can dig up enough to merit an article for him next week. -- McGeddon ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, how are you? We last worked on Ahalya, that you helped reach to FA by a copyedit. Dwaipayanc and I are working on the iconic Indian film Mother India to take it to FA in celebration of 100 years of Indian cinema. Can you please copyedit it. We are facing trouble with the excessive quotes, especially in sections Themes, Critical reviews and Legacy. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks a lot for copyediting the article. I have two question/ comment. Let me say at the beginning that English is not my first language, and so plee pardon me if I do any mistake in these comments.
First, regrading the doubted versus limited. This is about the a review which told that American audience might not accept the film. So, in this particular instance, the current sentence construction with " limited" does not probably convey the sense. How about " questioned "? If we retain " limited", it means as if actually the acceptance was limited. However, in this sentence, that is not the intended meaning. It intends to say that the review doubted about its acceptance.
Second, regarding noun plusing with with. Please refer to User:Tony1/Noun_plus_-ing. This suggest avoiding such construction. The last sentence of plot now has such construction ( with Radha opening the canal... Water flowing...). Do you think it would be better like this, " The film ends in 1957, when Radha opens ..." ? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do not understand how to use quotation marks, look at rule #1, seen here: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
In short, you have vandalized the page Joyce Carol Vincent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skriptar ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"…"! | This user uses " logical quotation marks". Forcing internal punctuation leads to factual errors. It's not a nationalistic style issue! |
...You should read this. Rothorpe ( talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
And you should read this: http://grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html " When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States. Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic." Do you have nothing better to do than to nazi-edit the interwebs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skriptar ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed text I wrote from " — " to "—". After reading Dash, I realize that " — " indeed is not common, and I won't use it anymore. However, it seems to me that " – " is a preferable alternative for a number of reasons. Since, if we can trust Dash#En dash versus em dash, the latter is preferred in the UK, I'm wondering why you didn't choose that alternative? — Sebastian 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Rothorpe, can you please quickly communicate your thoughts about the Rocket Record Company to the Wikipedia administrator Kinu when you get a chance. Kinu is handling all final changes made to the Rocket Records Wikipedia page, but he had to lock the page from any changes being made until this upcoming Tuesday, after which the proper changes will be able to be made. Thankfully, it seems as if everybody is now on the same page regarding the proper corrections that need to be made to the page, which is a very good thing. This Wikipedia record label project is very important to many of us in the Wikipedia music community, so I appreciate your input on the matter. Keeping Wikipedia as accurate as possible is incredibly important, and this is one of many changes regarding record label documentation that will help to ensure that. I look forward to your response.
Eric Gregson ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson
Rothorpe,
Being a collector of recorded music, the album covers and single label references, through the years, all use the upper case "The" when showing 'The 4 Seasons' or 'The Four Seasons' or the other variations from over those years.
I would think that those releases would be enough to be the guidepost by which capitalization is determined. Yes, there are groups that did/do not like the use of "The" in any form, but in many cases, the use of "The" is part of a group's name. It's not Beatles, it's The Beatles.
It would be appropriate to revert those edits as I don't think the lower case approach is correct. Thank you for reading this.
Bbrownlie ( talk) 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In perusing your talk page, I found the link and had no idea the amount of time spent on the capitalization of the word 'the' in regards to The Beatles. What a waste. I have always been of the belief that what a group or a film called itself was official enough. Some one mentioned trademark/copyright issues - of, course, I would trademark/copyright every variation of my group name if it meant protecting the good of the name from exploitation (acknowledging that that approach can even be a bit over the top or silly if you're seen as over-reaching). Others mention grammar and style with all matter of references. Yet, for The Beatles, the drum logo, the offical recordings that were released, the official re-issues, in other words, the offical product of the organization always referred to The Beatles. Yet, there has to be an arguement because there are rules that override the intent of the group itself. Then, to add to the confusion, are these WIKI rules or guidelines? Guidelines suggest non-mandatory. I suppose, in some ways, it's a healthy debate, but it does make me wonder what drives people to take such sides and force a conclusion because both sides (or all sides) takes hit for being, in their own way, obtuse. Bbrownlie ( talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, The 4 Seasons releases were A-list and chart-topping, especially considering the competition from the "British Invasion" and others. To the subject at hand, I don't believe it's a matter of what publishing houses do or do not. It's a matter of the group and its intent through such things as logos, which implies that there is prime importance to the group's desire. I don't think it's an elegant solution because we (the general "we") step in and become arbiters without authority. We are so lucky to have "us" around to make decisions for others that we fall all over ourselves to create debate and decisions when none is necessary. For me, I think we are too full of ourselves (and I can include myself on occasion). Cheers as well! Bbrownlie ( talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
copyediting
Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 70th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion. I must have been looking at a previous edit and accidentally saved that version into my watchlist. My apologies and thanks again. -- Jodon | Talk 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
When used with the present tense of a verb, “currently” is almost always unnecessary since the present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.
Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?
The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler.
Maybe some people think the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently”. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?
No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.
Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”? There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.
For example:
In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear. Ground Zero | t 02:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello my dear Rothorpe, I come bearing another request. Marie Lloyd has been extended and is 90% complete. I wonder if I can call upon your excellent copy editors eye for a grammar fixing overview of my efforts. It is probably a bit bloated in places and some of the punctuation is debatable (or not). It would be great to have your input once again. Hope all is well and you had a good Easter. -- Cassianto Talk 11:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC), in the IPA
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The 'walking eye' 1960s CBS Records logo does not belong in the CBS Records article because the 1960s CBS Records has absolutely no connection with the current CBS Records. The 1960s CBS Records and is today called Columbia Records. The 1960s CBS Records logo belongs in the Columbia Records article. There ia already a hatnote directing readers to the Columbia Records article regaring the 1960s CBS Records label and to Sony Music Entertainment regarding the former CBS Records company. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:WGFinley (
talk)
15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Thank you. Rothorpe ( talk) 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, Cassianto suggested I contact you to see if you'd have some free time to give Peter Sellers a copy edit? It's had a fairly sizeable revamp over the last few weeks and I hope we'll be able to go to GAC shortly. There's also been discussion about the infobox, which I hope we'll be able to get rid of at some point, although a few people are supporting at the moment. If you have any time for the edit, that would be great, but no problems if you're already overstretched and too busy. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, sorry to bother you with what must seem like a very repetitive request. What are your thoughts on infoboxes? A discussion is taking place here and I would really value your comments. I happen to hate them as I think they are repetitive, redundant, uninteresting, ugly and misleading. A driveby editor has added one and I feel stuck with it until a consensus can be met to secure its deletion. It's made all the more serious as Fleming is currently up at FAC. -- Cassianto Talk 07:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, Thanks so much for all your help on the Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record article (as well as your truly sterling efforst on the main Peter Sellers article too). I'm going to sit on the article for a day or so and then fire it off to a Peer Review, with an FL being the ultimate aim. Your work has hugely increased the chances of getting there: many, many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 06:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, just a quick note to inform you Tim riley has left Wikipedia. There is a tribute rolling on his talk page. I know you and he had a lot in common and he held you in great esteem. -- Cassianto Talk 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, Thanks very much for all you assistance on the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article. The article is now at FLC and this is due in no small part to your efforts. Thanks again. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 08:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For the hilarious comment in your edit summary at Odeon Records. Thanks for the fix. 78.26 ( talk) 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) |
How nice to see you over at old Grim! I'd be eager to know your first impressions? -- Cassianto Talk 16:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
15:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc ( powwow) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You asked on the talk page why this had been deleted. In fact, although a "DABlink" for it was added to the top of Alan Melville by an IP more than four years ago, there has never been an article at that title. You could consider writing one, if you can find references? Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 10:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
— Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 09:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I currently have the above listed at peer review as a result of a lot of work and research which I have conducted over the last couple of months. I would be extremely greatful for any comments you may have and would welcome any feedback or suggestions. Many thanks in advance. -- Cassianto Talk 02:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning CBS Records, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
[•]
11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Please go to the topic talk page on terrestrial planet to explain why we need the moon and ceres in the lead picture since they are not considered terrestrial planets. Cadiomals ( talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You changed the MoS on 8 December 2011, but you hid it amongst many other edits (it was very well done...). Then you joined the mediation about the/The. Why have you never declared that you made those changes to the MoS on the poll page? Only a question.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The way you have written the para now reads as though they were both returned to the UK on the 29th Sept. Markdarrly ( talk) 12:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
the Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your help at Pink Floyd. It was promoted to FA today! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
Yes, it's strange how history can get re-written, isn't it? I assume a perfectly good-faith edit - because the headstone has now been removed. But that's not the only interpretation, of course. Well spotted anyway. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
why you deleted the cuban and brasilian flag there are two type of latin jazz you have to differentiate what country they ccame from people have to know there are two type of latin jazz, cuban and brasilian. 174.98.152.28 ( talk)
Hi Rothorpe, another user and I are planning on taking Hiram Wesley Evans to FAC soon. Would you be able to give it a copyedit in the near future? Hopefully there aren't too many issues, but things slip through the cracks from time to time. We've done a lot of revising too, so we might have missed a few things that are obvious to an outside observer. No problem if you don't have time though, thanks. Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, we have listed Sellers again at FLC as it was not promoted due to a technicality. We would really appreciate a re-visit if that's at all possible. There are no new additions to the article so it should just be a quick refresher and then a show of support or oppose. Many thanks once again. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 13:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my incorrect edit of the intro. I fixed it, and also added cites per talk page if that was a concern. if you were concerned about the content of the edit and not merely that I mis-edited (ie deleted a chunk by mistake) then see talk page for details, otherwise hopefully this is now ok. Can you let me know? FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Rothorpe. I believe it was the space between the semi-colon you were referring to in Khalil al-Wazir. If so, I'll just let you know it's done :-) -- Altaïr ( talk) 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have any. Can I borrow some of yours? Good grief, you can give me the one below!-- andreasegde ( talk) 00:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
the Civility Barnstar | |
For sticking it through during a long and tedious mediation while never losing your cool and remaining civil to all. Well done! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Rothorpe ( talk) 01:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Rothorpe, I was/am perfectly fine wtih the criticism that was there. All I am arguing is that is was enough. Please self-revert. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've now trimmed the Blaney paraphrase as you suggested at my talk. Let me know if this resolves your concerns. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link to the TFAR page as you requested. Thanks again for all your help and advice! ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried following your link to Sport_Gaffes_1, but after a couple of redirects ended up in WordDictionary.co.uk. Perhaps you would like to consider fixing it or removing it? I didn't touch it since it is on your user page which I regard as sacrosanct. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, just a quick note to let you know of Grimaldi's FAC which I have just listed. I would be most grateful for any comments or criticisms you may have to offer. Hope all is well! -- Cassianto Talk 13:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For making Death of Jacintha Saldanha more readable. Thank you. Rayabhari ( talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks very much! Rothorpe ( talk) 13:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Rothorpe, hope all is well on your end. I'm currently working on a PR for Cher, at the request of Lordelliott. We could use your help, as he is a native Spanish speaker, and you are of course our resident expert on the finer points of proper English grammar. If you are interested and can find the time, please take a look at the article and help us correct some of the errors we are missing. Your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Also, please feel free to add any comments at the peer review page. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That is a keen 'ear'. Not many people can understand the difference between: 1. The call was part of Australian radio programme Hot30 Countdown; 2. The call was part of Australian radio programme, Hot30 Countdown; 3. The call was part of the Australian radio programme Hot30 Countdown; and 4. The call was part of the Australian radio programme, Hot30 Countdown. Naturally not all four alternatives are possible in all cases, so it is highly improbable that anyone would use Number 2. in this case. Nonetheless, well spotted. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, I've opened a peer review on a relatively new article, Bernard Lee on stage and screen. It's fairly similar in scope and layout to the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article you very kindly helped out on previously. If you have any spare time, would you be able to look it over and pass comment, particularly on the coding aspect? It's not a problem if you are too busy to be able to get round to it. All the best - SchroCat ( talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, this is just a quick note to let you know of the recent FAC of the character actor John Le Mesurier which I have co-nominated along with Schrodinger's cat is alive and Dr. Blofeld. Confident it meets all featured article criteria and should the subject matter interest you enough, we would welcome any comments or criticisms that you may have to offer. -- Cassianto Talk 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, wasn't intending to create an article, it was just a suggested disambiguation from Dab solver, because one or two other articles redlink to the same non-existent article. Although I now see that the disambiguation page has an external link to a great article at theavengers.tv, it really shouldn't, per Wikipedia:DISAMBIG#External_links. A WP:EGG link to his appearance in the Bed-Sitting Room isn't appropriate either. I'll see if I can dig up enough to merit an article for him next week. -- McGeddon ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rothorpe, how are you? We last worked on Ahalya, that you helped reach to FA by a copyedit. Dwaipayanc and I are working on the iconic Indian film Mother India to take it to FA in celebration of 100 years of Indian cinema. Can you please copyedit it. We are facing trouble with the excessive quotes, especially in sections Themes, Critical reviews and Legacy. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks a lot for copyediting the article. I have two question/ comment. Let me say at the beginning that English is not my first language, and so plee pardon me if I do any mistake in these comments.
First, regrading the doubted versus limited. This is about the a review which told that American audience might not accept the film. So, in this particular instance, the current sentence construction with " limited" does not probably convey the sense. How about " questioned "? If we retain " limited", it means as if actually the acceptance was limited. However, in this sentence, that is not the intended meaning. It intends to say that the review doubted about its acceptance.
Second, regarding noun plusing with with. Please refer to User:Tony1/Noun_plus_-ing. This suggest avoiding such construction. The last sentence of plot now has such construction ( with Radha opening the canal... Water flowing...). Do you think it would be better like this, " The film ends in 1957, when Radha opens ..." ? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do not understand how to use quotation marks, look at rule #1, seen here: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
In short, you have vandalized the page Joyce Carol Vincent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skriptar ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"…"! | This user uses " logical quotation marks". Forcing internal punctuation leads to factual errors. It's not a nationalistic style issue! |
...You should read this. Rothorpe ( talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
And you should read this: http://grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html " When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States. Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic." Do you have nothing better to do than to nazi-edit the interwebs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skriptar ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed text I wrote from " — " to "—". After reading Dash, I realize that " — " indeed is not common, and I won't use it anymore. However, it seems to me that " – " is a preferable alternative for a number of reasons. Since, if we can trust Dash#En dash versus em dash, the latter is preferred in the UK, I'm wondering why you didn't choose that alternative? — Sebastian 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Rothorpe, can you please quickly communicate your thoughts about the Rocket Record Company to the Wikipedia administrator Kinu when you get a chance. Kinu is handling all final changes made to the Rocket Records Wikipedia page, but he had to lock the page from any changes being made until this upcoming Tuesday, after which the proper changes will be able to be made. Thankfully, it seems as if everybody is now on the same page regarding the proper corrections that need to be made to the page, which is a very good thing. This Wikipedia record label project is very important to many of us in the Wikipedia music community, so I appreciate your input on the matter. Keeping Wikipedia as accurate as possible is incredibly important, and this is one of many changes regarding record label documentation that will help to ensure that. I look forward to your response.
Eric Gregson ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson
Rothorpe,
Being a collector of recorded music, the album covers and single label references, through the years, all use the upper case "The" when showing 'The 4 Seasons' or 'The Four Seasons' or the other variations from over those years.
I would think that those releases would be enough to be the guidepost by which capitalization is determined. Yes, there are groups that did/do not like the use of "The" in any form, but in many cases, the use of "The" is part of a group's name. It's not Beatles, it's The Beatles.
It would be appropriate to revert those edits as I don't think the lower case approach is correct. Thank you for reading this.
Bbrownlie ( talk) 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In perusing your talk page, I found the link and had no idea the amount of time spent on the capitalization of the word 'the' in regards to The Beatles. What a waste. I have always been of the belief that what a group or a film called itself was official enough. Some one mentioned trademark/copyright issues - of, course, I would trademark/copyright every variation of my group name if it meant protecting the good of the name from exploitation (acknowledging that that approach can even be a bit over the top or silly if you're seen as over-reaching). Others mention grammar and style with all matter of references. Yet, for The Beatles, the drum logo, the offical recordings that were released, the official re-issues, in other words, the offical product of the organization always referred to The Beatles. Yet, there has to be an arguement because there are rules that override the intent of the group itself. Then, to add to the confusion, are these WIKI rules or guidelines? Guidelines suggest non-mandatory. I suppose, in some ways, it's a healthy debate, but it does make me wonder what drives people to take such sides and force a conclusion because both sides (or all sides) takes hit for being, in their own way, obtuse. Bbrownlie ( talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, The 4 Seasons releases were A-list and chart-topping, especially considering the competition from the "British Invasion" and others. To the subject at hand, I don't believe it's a matter of what publishing houses do or do not. It's a matter of the group and its intent through such things as logos, which implies that there is prime importance to the group's desire. I don't think it's an elegant solution because we (the general "we") step in and become arbiters without authority. We are so lucky to have "us" around to make decisions for others that we fall all over ourselves to create debate and decisions when none is necessary. For me, I think we are too full of ourselves (and I can include myself on occasion). Cheers as well! Bbrownlie ( talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
copyediting
Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 70th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion. I must have been looking at a previous edit and accidentally saved that version into my watchlist. My apologies and thanks again. -- Jodon | Talk 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
When used with the present tense of a verb, “currently” is almost always unnecessary since the present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.
Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?
The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler.
Maybe some people think the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently”. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?
No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.
Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”? There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.
For example:
In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear. Ground Zero | t 02:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello my dear Rothorpe, I come bearing another request. Marie Lloyd has been extended and is 90% complete. I wonder if I can call upon your excellent copy editors eye for a grammar fixing overview of my efforts. It is probably a bit bloated in places and some of the punctuation is debatable (or not). It would be great to have your input once again. Hope all is well and you had a good Easter. -- Cassianto Talk 11:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC), in the IPA