User talk:Andplus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Andplus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks...

...for your copyediting on Dark Sceptre; my grammar was rather erratic. All of your contributions over the last few days have improved Wikipedia. Marasmusine 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapels

Thanks with your help at Tornabuoni Chapel and Sassetti Chapel. I wrote them by translating the Italian equivalents. the problem is that, as you noticed, my English is not properly an... English-English, but maybe more an Italian-English. Can I ask your help in future too? Do you have any other Italian Chapel, or church etc. would you like to have here? Ciao and good work. --Attilios 09:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman brick

Sorry if I messed up some of your edits on Roman brick. Thanks for the edit summary compliment. I have really had to piece this one together, there really doesn't seem to be a definitive comprehensive source. I have come across some great stuff on Ancient Roman brick stamps which seems to have become the subject of significant scholarly work, so that will make for an interesting addition when I can parse it all and figure out what to add. If your changes haven't been able to take, I can take a pause from working on the article. Thanks for the work btw. IvoShandor 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am digging. Right now I can definitely say there were two earlier American architects who used Roman bricks, Samuel McIntire and Henry Hobson Richardson, though how much and where it was used isn't clear (it seems it is not much, considering McKim, Mead and White are credited with introducing it to the U.S.). I have only come across reference to them, so far, in works about Wright. Most of the other stuff I have seen so far concentrates on Ancient Rome. The one bit about use in the British Isles makes me think that use of Roman bricks may have either a)continued marginally (since the source used here goes on to say the height of the bricks gradually increased, which would be a move away from Roman style) or b)has been revived in modern times if use was phased out in the past. I suspect the answer may lie in the architectural influences of Richardson and McIntire, which I am kinda fuzzy on at the moment. IvoShandor 11:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I should mention, I will be mining JSTOR and some other databases for any information I can too, so that may reveal more. IvoShandor 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunger strike etc

I've been doing some checking, and the current wording in the hunger strike article predates my editing ([1]), although I did source it. The blanket and dirty protest articles were ones I expanded as I figured if they were going to be linked from the main page they needed to look better than this and this. What with being busy with an ongoing ArbCom case I didn't have time to make sure all the wording matched, even if the basic meaning behind the wording is the same. I'll have a look in the next couple of hours anyway. Thanks for pointing out the discrepency and your kind words anyway. One Night In Hackney303 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For your copyediting, Andplus (or is that "&+"?). -- !! ?? 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Nightmare

Thank you for editing the above. Apparently I ought to read the article after I add or rearrange content—that was rather embarrassing. What does your possibly sarcastic edit comment bed and sofa actually the same chaise longue? Lovely mean? That the chaise lounge should be referred to by one name for consistency? –Outriggr § 23:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see! I'm sorry I interpreted that as sarcasm. The context of a number of corrections, including the question in the edit summary, led me down that path I suppose. Well then—thank you! You are quite new here? I think you will be a valued editor. Your changes of wording were precisely what I figured would need improving. –Outriggr § 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Re your edit to the above (which seems to imply some biographical knowledge of Fuseli, or just a close article reading!), do you think this is better? It is closer to what the source is driving at--it's recast now as the incubus, not literally Fuseli, seeking to forestall a marriage. Chronology isn't really the issue, just symbolic intent. –Outriggr § 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think you read it wrong. I didn't write it right. :) Thanks for the input. –Outriggr § 08:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halotus

Hi, I have made replies to all of your concerns. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good replies. Oh, you dont sound harsh, and even if you do, it is a good thing. If you pick up these problems, then others will too. I'd like to see Halotus featured some day in the (perhaps far) future, so I will get to work on this soon; if not today, then tomorrow or the day after. I'll also add more information about Brittanicus etc. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I might do just that sometime soon. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agathodiamon and Agathodaimon

Where is the other article about the Egyptian alchemist? There is only something on a band, and a god. Agathodaimon redirects to the page on the god, currently. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, my source spells it Agathodiamon. Is it not possible that he is just little known? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyulph Ydwallo Odin Nestor Egbert Lyonel Toedmag Hugh Erchenwyne Saxon Esa Cromwell Orma Nevill Dysart Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache

L.Y.O.N.E.L. T.H.E. S.E.C.O.N.D. Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache does indeed deserve an article - he emigrated to New Zealand, where he fathered 17 children; hence the redlink. Most of the other family members are not so remarkable - the eldest, Lyonel Felix Carteret Eugene Tollemache, inherited a baronetcy and Ham House, which he gave to the National Trust in 1948; the other brother who died in the Great War, Leo Quintus Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache, may also justify an article - he changed his name by deed poll! -- !! ?? 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - I thought I had added the link to LYONEL THE SECOND as a reminder to write an article, but I see you added it. I hope someone does not snaffle it before I get back to it.
Thanks for all of your edits - it is nice to see someone polishing up some of my lacklustre prose. Don't worry about the style of references - that is what wikignomes are for. -- !! ?? 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny Coke bottles

Hello. I made a post about tiny Coke bottles at Talk:Ambler's Texaco Gas Station, any input there would be appreciated. Also, I wondered if you thought I should split up the five article DYK hook or just drop a few of the articles from the suggestions page altogether on that topic. IvoShandor 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No clue what a tiny coke bottle is myself, I was at the place and don't remember seeing one anyway. The whole "Orangeville edition" was what I was trying to avoid, we get complaints at DYK when one or two updates emphasizes one country let alone one village. Myself, I think Matisse was serious, he is known for outrageous complaints at DYK, the last one was that articles were too long. Apparently, home runs can be hit too far. :) Thanks for the perspective. IvoShandor 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldgirmes

Hi there. Thanks for you heroic copy editing on the Waldgirmes Forum article. I can't believe how sloppily I must have typed that one up. Perhaps I was drunk? In any case, thanks! athinaios 10:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Not to worry about the DYK, I seem to get enough of those anyway... The inline citation thing is understanndable, I think, but there's obviously nothing one can do if one's translating from another wikipedia... athinaios 11:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonid Hurwicz

Hi, sorry for whatever. Apart from whatever, do you happen to know anything about the lectures given in honor of Hurwicz, one named for him? And about the criterion (1951 or so) used in decision making? More about his students? I'd like to see them added. About main page space, yes it is important (as I recall I replied on that subject a couple of times) but not so important as to ignore what are gaps in the article. Thanks for your note. -Susanlesch 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, if you see anything that is out of place and have time to fix it that is great. I or somebody might have some luck, maybe in Web search, we'll see. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Andplus, sorry to ping again but I missed noticing something, before replying, you had an edit comment on "Len". I don't mean that more comments aren't welcome, only mean to say I misread the context and misunderstood what was on the DYK page and went off looking for reasons. -Susanlesch 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thich Quang Duc

Dear sir, I'm wondering if this Buddhist monk ever interested you? I was looking for a copyeditor. Thanks, Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Errm, I was wondering if you were intested in things related to Thich Quang Duc such as the Hue Vesak shootings :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Miall

"Psychological warfare" just meant broadcasting propaganda to the enemy. He spoke German and was in charge of broadcasts in German at the BBC, so I guess it made some sense. See Political Warfare Executive and Psychological Warfare Division. -- !! ?? 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. If I'd thought about for a second it would have been clear. Andplus 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

You seem to be doing a solid job cleaning up articles I have just "launched". First thing is "thanks". Another is ... I have a couple more "en route". If you fancy helping then I'll put them under joint authorship when they goto Did you know? If you are too busy elsewhere then thanks again anyway Victuallers 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm only editing when I have a few minutes to fill, so don't rely on me, but I'll certainly copy edit any you want to list. Just drop me a note. Andplus 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thx for offer above and Another thx for Simon Sainsbury - others may fair better, but whether he gave money directly or told a trust to do it, is a fine line. Victuallers 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acrocanthosaurus

Hello, Andplus;

I appreciate your revision of Acrocanthosaurus, and would like it if you would add comments to the FAC page, as the WP:DINO editors usually work quickly on outside concerns. J. Spencer 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for your edit; reply

..thanks for your edits to Battle of Red Cliffs. The first thing that jumped out at me is your change of the term "commandery" to "command". The former is the term used in translations considered authoritative.. many of your other edits helped the flow of the article.. I will look at them in detail and try to edit the article whenever necessaary.. tahknks again! --Ling.Nut 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy the pygmy hippo

Hey, &+, thanks for taking an interest in Billy the pygmy hippo. I tried to address your comments. A brand new editor, an IP address, has taken interest in the article too and so I'm still trying to sort out some of his information. I notice you have the copy editor's curse -- the moment people recognize you're a good copy editor you are overwhelmed with requests. Let me add to your affliction ;) Javan Rhinoceros is currently a featured article candidate. If you enjoy animal articles, I'd deeply appreciate an extra set of eyes to help me improve the article. It's a long term project and I intend to continue improving the articles even after FAC, so no rush. And if you don't like rhinos don't even worry about it. Cheers! --JayHenry 17:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look (it's either that or the Montreal Screwjob). You seem to have answered most of my queries on Billy, although I'd still like to know what SSP stands for. I was surprised there wasn't a photo of Billy himself anywhere. Grace and the raccoon get everywhere but no sign of the hippo. Andplus 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Taken a quick fly through. A few queries here and there. Andplus 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Either subspecies, or species survival plan, I think. Not notable... grr. -- !! ?? 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to my edit summary on Ian Anstruther‎? I was referring to the fact that, as our erudite correspondent informs us, "he took a dump on his mother" in his early life - not an unusual occurrence for a newborn, though, even had it been, I would have preferred more encyclopedic terminology and the retention of the other information. Perhaps the edit summary was a little insensitive, but this whole notability of articles thing seems utterly pointless to me; who is going to look at an article unless they want to know about the subject? As for arguing over the inclusion of somebody with obits in the national press…grr indeed. Andplus 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I third your grrrs. I looked into SSP (it was added by the IP), it is indeed Subspecies Survival Plan coordinator, which isn't really relevant for the article on Billy. As for pictures of the prolific Bill, there were some pictures in the news archives but alas still copyrighted. A tremendous thanks for looking at Javan Rhinoceros. I'll review your comments there this evening. --JayHenry 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(←)Saw the comment below about capitalization. What do you think on these animals? Should it be Javan rhinoceros or Javan Rhinoceros. I go back and forth on which makes more sense/introduces less ambiguity. --JayHenry 08:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For my money, Javan Rhinoceros works best in this article as it allows you to differentiate between the species and a rhino that happens to be in Java. With all the species and subspecies and locations drifting around in the article it helps to give a quick visual clue as to what you are discussing ((I don't want to spark off another capitalization war on my talk page though). Most importantly though is that the use be consistent; you had a few lowercased when I went through the article, probably as the result of switching back and forth. Andplus 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Strongly suggest you ask this question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life (also see my invite below; it's easy to lose track of threads.. don't rely on the orange Notice band; check the hist for everything after your last comment). --Ling.Nut 08:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of Sherry

For reference you can look at a book from any established wine writer if you like. Sherry in the EU protected context of the wine from the Jerez region is a proper noun-much like Champagne (wine) from Champagne (wine region) is also a proper noun while the semi-generic usage of "sherry" and "champagne" are for similar style wines made in other areas and those are always lowercase to distinguish them. Hope that clears things up for you. AgneCheese/Wine 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a prescriptivist/descriptivist dichotomy. Virtually everyone writes about champagne and sherry (and port and madeira - does anyone still call them "port wine" and "madeira wine"?) - all in lower case - meaning the sparkling wine from Champagne (capital), the fortified wine from around Jerez in Andalusia (and the fortified wine from around Oporto, and the fortified wine from Madeira - capital). I guess "proper" sources - such as books by an established wine writer - use proper nouns, hmm? Quite what the EU protection has to do with it is beyond me. The EU may be able to prohibit imperial weights and measures, but it can't tell us how to capitalise our words.
Arguing against myself, people do write about wine from the Côtes du Rhône, or Lancashire cheese, or Melton Mowbray pork pies (well, clearly they don't write much about the latter). But in these cases, the territorial designation is being used as an adjective; that is certainly not the case with sherry (or port), for example. And it seems a bit odd to insist that the sparking wine must be capitalised. -- !! ?? 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
EU protection means that the Cava makers in Spain can not call their sparkling wine champagne, even with a little "c" because the name "Champagne" is trademarked much like the fact that a store in the United States can not call itself walmart (even with a little "w"). The "virtually everyone" who refer to proper Sherry and Champagne with lower case are simply people who are just not knowledgeable about the distinction. It is sort of like the folks who mix up using "its" and "it's". Its not deliberate ignorance but it is still incorrect. AgneCheese/Wine 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As you point out, French champagne houses are protected (at least within the EU), whether the word is capitalised or not. Using "champagne" is not really like using the wrong "its"/"it's" - rather, insisting that "champagne" must be capitalised is like insisting that split infinitives are grammatically incorrect
I wonder - do really intend to imply that using "champagne" is either being wilfully ignorant, or just plain accidental ignorance?). Does the OED consider it to be a proper noun? -- !! ?? 08:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
When I made the comment I was meaning to suggest you add a reference or note to the article to support the capitalisation, as otherwise it will undoubtedly be lowercased by some passing editor. I'm not sure the Champagne case (even if correct) is comparable, as Champagne is the name in its "native" language, whereas Sherry is not; in my mind the Sherry case is perhaps closer to an argument for capitalising Whisky. With branding comes the added complication of differentiating between the branded product and the thing itself, but we have many brand names that have come to be lowercased to mean generic items of their type (biro and hoover spring to mind for the UK and the US has jello and popsicle). I don't blame the wine writers for taking an easy option and capitalising throughout, though this doesn't necessarily mean they are right; should trade press usage outweigh common usage? Either way it doesn't particularly bother me, and I enjoyed the article, but my natural inclination was to lowercase Sherry throughout and without a note as to why it is capitalised I'm sure at some point it will be. It's not an uncommon problem though, the Javan Rhinoceros article which JayHenry asked about just above struggled with capitalisation too. Andplus 10:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - the OED says "
“ champagne, n.

1. a. The name of a province of eastern France; hence, a well-known wine of different varieties, white and red, and still or sparkling, made in this district.

 ”
The first citation, 1664 (from Hudibras, says "brisk Campaign [later edd. champaign]", then 1676 (from The Man of Mode) "sparkling Champaigne", then 1688 (poems by George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham "Champain", then 1697 "Liquors fine, Rasberry Wine..and Shampine", 1718 "young Fellows, who drink Champagne". Four of the three most recent citations, 1795, 1814 and 1875 say "champagne" (two in connextion with "claret").
Not to mention sources that say things like "the champagne of cricket", "champagne-bottle", "champagne-cocktail", "champagne-cork", "champagne-cup", "champagne-dinner", "champagne-glass", "champagne-supper", "champagne-tweezers" (tweezers?), "champagne-coloured", "champagneless", and "champagne gas" (CO2), and "champagne socialism", but "Champagne Charlie", and the colour "champagne".
For, sherry:
“ sherry, n.1

1. a. Originally, the still white wine made near Xeres (now Jerez de la Frontera, a town in Andalusia, near Cadiz); in modern use, extended to a class of Spanish fortified white wines of similar character, and (usually with prefixed word, as Californian, Cape sherry) to wines made elsewhere in imitation of Spanish sherry. Also, a wine of this kind.

 ”
The first citation is 1608 (from A Mad World, My Masters), "Some Shirry", and then 1614 (from Bartholomew Fair), "sherry, sherry, sherry". It also has "Some rare old sherry" from North and South in 1854. The most recent citations use it at the beginning of a sentence, so iot is difficult to tell. -- !! ?? 10:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Your carriage awaits: Capitalisation conventions (or should that be Capitalization conventions!?!) Andplus 11:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As it has shown before in its history, the OED is not infallible and sometimes it will promote the common misconception rather than the common truth. As I said before, it not willful ignorance that cause people to mis-capitalized proper Champagne and Sherry, it is just simply lack of knowledge that those who commonly work and deal with the world of wine have. After looking online for a reference that spells out clearly "Proper Sherry should be capitalized" all I found was the knowledge was taken for granted with wine-knowledgeable writers capitalizing it and more novice writer not. On the History of Sherry talk page, I posted an example from one of the world most respected wine magazine and I can recommend for any a litany of books by Andrea Immer, Hugh Johnson, Jancis Robinson, Katherine McNeil, Oz Clarke, Robert M. Parker, Jr. or Thomas Stevenson. I can also direct users to the Wine Spectator website but unfortunately you have to pay for a subscription before accessing their archives. In the grade scheme of things it is not that big of a deal but Wikipedia seeks to spread knowledge and use the most recognizable name in the title. For anyone knowledgeable about wine, proper Sherry is more recognizable capitalized while "sherry" would indicate a generic-knock off. AgneCheese/Wine 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling this could run and run. Andplus 13:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Andplus. My last reply.
No source is unimpeachable. The OED has the virtue, as I alluded above, of reporting English as she is spoke and written, rather than prescribing how it ought to be written.
I think you are saying that capitalising these words is a proxy for determing whether a writer is "knowledgeable about wine" or not, just as the use of the words "serviette" or "toilet" can instantly pigeonhole the speaker into a social class. Or perhaps you are saying that capitalised-Champagne is a term of art amongst wine cognoscenti, which the hoi polloi cannot be expected to use properly? It is certainly convenient for you to be able to dismiss someone who disagrees with you as being insufficiently knowledegeable or a "novice". -- !! ?? 13:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Any volunteers for the spoken word version? There are far more barbarous insults to the language to be dealt with. Look at the blurb for today's FA for example (I can't bear to look again). Andplus 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I can agree to leave things be and move on but I see some ill will that I would like to clear up. I fret that you may be reading some insult or negativity into the use of "novice" when there is none. As I have repeatedly said, it is not willful ignorance, it is just a lack of knowledge. That is all and it is one that shows itself most evident when you see the usage among those more knowledgeable in the world of wine and those more novice. That doesn't mean there is any ill to the novice, it is just simply the current state they are in. Everyone is a novice in something and everyone was always a novice in something else before. Nor does it mean that anyone who is once a novice is banished to stay a novice. I admittedly did not know the distinguish between proper Sherry and Champagne for many years till I became more familiar with the subject. It is not dismissing your argument but rather pointing out the confusion between semi-generic wines and proper wines is a common misconception among those who are not knowledgeable about the subject. I surmise that you are an admin and I can tell you there are many things about the duties and tools of an admin that I do not know and if I laid forth a misconception, you would be quite right and reasonable in clearing up my misconception and noting that it is common mistake from a person not knowledgeable about adminship. I would not take your words as an insult and I hope you would not take mine as well. AgneCheese/Wine 13:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently I was mistaken about you being an admin. I took for granted that assumption based on the level headedness of your comments in other forums and the generally positive way you carry yourself. (Though I could honestly comment now on any future RFA "Amazed not an admin already" without it being cliche :P) But still the analogy can play itself well in any subject you wish to include, like English barons. :) AgneCheese/Wine 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a wine region thing, the capitalisation. As per "a fine Rioja" or a "full-bodied Beaujolais", wherever there is a Protected designation of origin the product name isn't generic, it's proper. Just like Camembert, Philadelphia and Gorgonzola cheese, or Parma ham and Parmesan cheese (both from Parma), Sherry comes from a region of that name – actually, a corruption of Xerez, but protected as Jerez / Xérès / Sherry. Interestingly, Stilton and Cheddar aren't protected this way, but the conventional assumption that they are is enough that you see them capitalised just about everywhere. So it's the trademarking of a geographical name which, by law, permits the proper-nouning of the brand. --mikaultalk 16:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another option...

Instead of linking to a disambig page in The Four Stages of Cruelty, what do you think about linking to wiktionary for "bladder"? I'm pretty sure someone is going to come along and take that disambig link out sooner or later. Awadewit | talk 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better. The definition there leaves a little to be desired, but the link should withstand the efforts of the repairers. Andplus 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And we can always improve the definition if we feel so inclined. :) Awadewit | talk 23:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to contribute to Content Review...

Hello again, Andplus. I was just saying on my talk, "...there's a glut of WP:FAC nominees and a dearth of (competent) reviewers". I'd like to invite you to consider getting involved in the various aspects of the Content Review Process on Wikipedia: WP:FAC, WP:PR & WP:GA. The latter is relatively better supplied with reviewers; the first two may be more in need of your help. I suggest reading WP:WIAFA and the essays at its bottom.. and ask for help from "old hands" such as Awadewit (whom I see you've met), Marskell, SandyGeorgia etc. Cheers and Happy Editing! --Ling.Nut 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I've looked at the FA nominations a few times —I think that's probably where I chanced on the Red Cliffs)— but haven't been impressed. The standard of articles promoted varies wildly, probably in direct relation to the level of scrutiny they receive. History and literature (to pick two) for the most part get a rigorous inspection while many other articles seem to be supported by people with similar interests regardless of their standard. Maybe that's an argument for getting involved, but most of the time I couldn't support because I don't know the subject area well enough to judge the quality of the article. For example, Red Cliffs would seem to me to be worthy of being featured, as it is well-written and interesting, but having little knowledge of Chinese history I couldn't say whether it is comprehensive or objective. Objecting is easier, but it enmeshes one in the review, as it is hardly fair to object and run. I did comment on one candidate when requested and on one Peer Review, but I find it much more time consuming than copy editing where I can dip in and out for a few minutes at a time. In short, I'm not sure the formal content review processes are for me (I could have just said that at the beginning!).Andplus 11:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. If you're into copy editing, perhaps you'll like WP:LoCE. Anyhow, I do appreciate yur help with Red Cliffs, and was impressed by your edits. Hope to see you around (doing whatever it is you'l be doing) for a long time to come... Cheers!--Ling.Nut 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BioShock.

Yes, there are a couple of reasons. First of all, no one is ever going to read a hidden comment (unless they happen to read articles in edit mode), so the changes you suggested will likely never happen. Second, I've found hidden comments all over that article, and they aren't really necessary... in any case they just detract from the quality (I'm not saying they shouldn't be used at all, but sparingly, and not by one individual, but by consensus on the talk page: such as the one at the top of the New York City article). A third reason is that you're adding unnecessary bytes to the page, but that's just being pedantic. ;) If you have any concerns like the ones you've added, I'd suggest leaving a note on the talk page rather than a hidden comment (see reason #1); sorry for not suggesting that before, I realize that that would have been much more helpful. · AndonicO Talk 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The only point above that makes any sense is to leave a note on the talk page (I don't find I have time to do that), and even that isn't a reason to remove the comments. I particularly like "no one is ever going to read a hidden comment…I've found hidden comments all over that article/…they just detract from the quality". Priceless. Andplus 16:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is clear that someone noticed those hidden comments, isn't it? But perhaps they did not elicit the intended clarification of the points at issue...
I can't see how they "detract from the quality" - they are intended to be invisible to the reader - nor can I think of an easier way for a copyeditor to identify specific areas in an article where qualify can be enhanced. Many writers watchlist their articles, so will spot comments of this sort. As for adding "unnecessary bytes"...
I often leave hidden comments, even in the articles I write, generally for points were the sources are unclear, or flatly contradict each other, and I am going to continue to do so. But, yes, it probably does make sense to add a note on the talk page of the articles in question, or the talk page of one of the editors of the article who has added a substantial amount of its content, point out that the comments are there.-- !! ?? 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad it's not just me. Most of the articles I work on are actively monitored and the one in question is a featured candidate, so if the authors aren't watching they have only themselves to blame (excepting the case where some helpful person removes the comments). Andplus 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the hidden comments - lacking a better word processing system, they pinpoint exactly where the problems are in the article. Andplus, I took care of all but one of them which I'm not sure where you're coming from with it (about differences in 360/PC in reviews). Also, I agree with what you stated about the forum/username issue, and realize there's a larger picture that should be pointed out (that BioShock's per-user activation is the exception and not the norm and should be cited as such). --MASEM 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Got those two points you noted, but this is the comment that is still in there that I don't know what you're getting at in the Reception section: "IGN noted that both the controls and graphics of the Xbox 360 version are inferior to those of the PC version, in that switching between weapons or plasmids is easier using the PC's mouse than the radial menu in the Xbox 360 version<!-- just mentioned this:, as well as the graphics being slightly better with higher resolutions-->." I'm not sure what you mean by that statement as this is the first time the two platforms were compared. --MASEM 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean, and also removed that statement about the bronze Atlas (as I don't recall anything like that, so I'm sure its pretty much a speculation statement). --MASEM 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] q.

Thanks for the edits to the painting. Would you be interested in editing one of my furthest-along articles, Ulysses (poem), which in principle is to be nominated for FAC sometime? It's already been reviewed and ce'd by Awadewit. Who is it, though, that can be certain to aver about the extent to which ungainly phraseology may still, despite my best efforts, be extant? –Outriggr § 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Any bad writing what was in it, it seems to be re writted over before that I got there mostly. I'd like to see a poem on the main page: the vandals would have to find a rhyme for poop. Andplus 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for doing so. Perhaps when it is nominated in FAC, you could pop over and comment... –Outriggr § 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andplus. I lost my first draft of comments here because my guitar touched my keyboard, both of which reside on my lap (my legs resting on the desk, if that helps clarify) and did something mysterious, so I have to be shorter this time. Instead of replying to your inline comments here, I'll respond and/or remove them in the article itself.

Regarding Fred looking off the page: oh dear. This image is already a replacement for one in which he was obviously looking off the page (see article talk page), and I don't find it obvious here that he is looking to the right, certainly not enough to be aesthetically unappealing. The current pose, a contrapposto of sorts?

Thanks again for your comments. –Outriggr § 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Morris

Are you interested in thinking about any more cirkcet articles sir? I need a copyedit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That blooming blinking ceiling!

I don't know who you are, but I love you! You can come and edit the articles that I write any time you like! Can I give you a list? Next time I put something up as a featured article I want you in on it!

Fictive architecture.... Hmmmm! That's how one of the books that I quoted refers to it, but it might appear under Illusionistic architecture or trompe l'Oi! (dunnohowtospellit!).

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
...and hear is you're every frist coppy etidors' barn stare Amandajm 07:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! "varied considerabably" is better. So nice to deal with someone knows that alliteration matters! definitely not drastic! The eyes is drastic, but not the acorns.... then again .... they are highly significant acorns! The Pope was a della Rovere.
What do you write when you are not editting other people's stuff?
I am just doing the rounds of all the pages on my watch list. I find it hard to believe the effort that people put into vandalism! But "The Great Escape" is on TV and my son is watching it. The music is terribly distracting. They keep singing Christmas Carols flat, monotonous and with an unpleasant sense of urgency, but perfectly together which is what you would expect from their military disciplin I suppose! Amandajm 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he andplusalso his brother (who?) are both great. Trompe l'oeil. -- !! ?? 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most kind (though I won't pass on the compliment). Andplus 12:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheeky git. And what a busy bee you've been. WP (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all that, but I don't know about the brother. As for the other That is exactly and precisely and, whatismore, also the very tromp I'm trying to realise. I'm acutally dyxlestic and my commputer iss twins, so we are both jusst slightly mad.. Writing anything at all takes an hystorically long time but I dont' sleep much. II reeeally need a copy edittor! Do you, Andplus, write for a living? Would you like to take a look att Edmund Blacket (yes, he's only got one t, poor fellow!) Amandajm 12:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, but if you want to pay me cash or cheque will be more than acceptable ;). I'll have a run through Edmund when I finish looking through Arthur Morris for Blnguyen. Andplus 12:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Morris

Hey Andplus, I'm watching you do some good copyediting on Arthur Morris. I just wanted to let you know that I (in my opinion) carefully reviewed it for FA this afternoon and left a lot of comments on the FAC page. I'm thinking that a lot of my comments may be superseded by your work and was wondering if you could possibly knock them off the list as and when you deal with them? I know it's a bit of an extra task but it'll make life easier when I try to work out what has and hasn't been dealt with! All the best, and keep up the great work. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm having trouble concentrating on it today: people keep distracting me with work. Not really sure how (or whether) I should strike comments in the FAC page, but I've copied them here, and marked off those I'm vain enough to think I've dealt with:
  • "...Invincibles which toured England ..." - reads strangely to my English mind - Invincibles who toured England? - DONE
  • As per Scartol above, the end of the sentence goes awry. Perhaps "...on an undefeated tour of England...?" - DONE
  • "...Morris became a batsman during his teens.." well, he must have been a batsman before that time unless every game he played as a bowler they never got that far down the order! I know what you mean, but perhaps you could expand. - DONE
  • Second World War instead of the US sequel version please! - DONE down to where I am. I changed it for consistency. I never realized there was such a furore over that until World War III/The Third World War broke out in Webley Revolver
  • "servied" typo. - DONE (it was my typo)
  • "on the first assignment to South Africa..." whose, his or Australia's? - wasn't sure about that either, left a note in an HTML comment
  • "Morris had amassed nine Test centuries and averaged over 65..." in total or on that SA tour? - don't know about that
  • "Morris was twice dropped..."...from the team as opposed to in the field?! - Seems pretty clear to me, and all I know about cricket come pretty much from copy-editing The Governor General (and you can see how much I knew then by the fact I actually copy-edited Governor General by mistake)
  • Give the source in the infobox some text (e.g. Cricinfo) rather then empty external link. - not my department, guv'nor.
  • "five foot nine inches" - as a minimum it's five feet, but it's best to use the {{convert}} template. - I think foot is in common usage too, though feet won't offend. I'll change it next time I go in. Why use the convert template? It's not likely to change is it?
    • I may be wrong but I think the convert template gives you non-breaking spaces for free. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Inserted them myself - DONE
  • Since when does being 5ft 9 give you an "imposing appearance"? - The height originally formed an awkward segue into his batting style. I moved it there but was interrupted before I finished, leaving him imposingly short. Probably fixed now.
  • "stuck the ball" - struck? - DONE
  • "Morris was especially noted for his cover driving, square cutting and on-driving. Morris had a reputation..." 2 x Morris in a row, reads stilted. - DONE
  • "first class" or "first-class" - consistency required. - DONE
  • "...his average rose to 57.42, and to 61 in 46 first class innings." - confusing. REWORDED
  • "Morris took two wickets in Tests, one of them Bedser in 1953.[1] He was rarely used as a bowler and was a reliable catcher.[3]" these could be flowed together. I semi-coloned them, but they could be reworked to flow better if his reliability as a catcher is why he was seldom used as bowler, or if somebody better kept him out
  • "his parents had split." - split up or left? Separated? DONE
  • "under 16" - usually hyphenated. DONE
  • "Morris' first class cricket career was interrupted by the Second World War, enlisting in the Australian Imperial Forces in 1941.[6] " - "..., with him enlisting..."? REWORDED
  • Link first use of Sheffield Shield. - not done
  • "The selectors persisted..." hmm, not sure. I know what you mean but again not sure this is the best way of putting it. REWORDED
  • Link Lord's. - DONE
  • Double check all en-dashes are present (I saw a 2-0 in Invincibles tour section). No idea
    • Scorelines etc should be separated by en-dash, not hyphen, per WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Conforming to typographical conventions is work for typesetters, machines, or juniors, as far as I'm concerned ;P The world was simpler when we used pen and paper. Andplus (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "54*" I know what this means but I suggest you use not out for non cricket experts. DONE
  • "...wicket expected to take spin." - bit jargony, need to open it up to non-experts. DONE
  • "He was unable to maintain his peak form in his later career." - I think this is going to apply to every sportsman, isn't it? Indeed - REMOVED
  • "relationships:Morris" - consider semi colon or em-dash or something other than no space colon no space. Spaced colon is fine - DONE
  • Make sure all averages are given with same level of precision. I'll leave that to Blnguyen
  • "life-ending" - terminal? Replaced by ultimately terminal, but think the article has structural issues that mean that should be replaced
  • Agree with Scartol, the captaincy section seems misplaced.
    • I think so too, but inserting it as break mid-story doesn't seem the best option
  • Link MBE. DONE In fact, should his name in the lead have the MBE after it? Probably
  • Ref [1] needs a "pp" for the pages field. I'll leave that to Blnguyen

I'll copy the rest over here as I get to them, but probably won't be able to do anything much until Monday now.-- Andplus (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so far, that's great. By all means strike them out, or use the Y Done Doing... or N Not done icons... Good work so far. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Blacket

Thanks for a great job. It is interesting to see the response of someone who doesn't know the architectural jargon. I have sorted out a few of the little problems like Decorated/decorated. Yes, it's a style so I have changed it to Decorated Gothic and the same with Perpendicular Gothic. Explained what the string-course is. It's a band of decorative moulding. "Ornament" is the correct architectural term and can be discrete, rather than "ornametation" which is descriptive and definitely OTT!

About the models and flaps. There is only one model, the St. Andrew's one, and it's not the moodel that had flaps. I've used the word "design" in place of architectural drawings so I've fixed that in at least one instance. The words are often interchangeable, in the sense of "the concept".

One of the things that one has to wonder at, and the reason for the narrative, is the time frame of everything. When Blacket sent drawings to Cambridge and Oxford, it was at least 6 months before he got their response. I seem to remember that the model has two windows in the North Transept, which means it was probably made during that 6 month period. I'm fairly certain that the new design for the facade post-dates the Oxbridge communication. The finished facade is a much more inspiring composition than that on the model.

On idiomatic thing- all those "first settlers" were "transported", many of them in chains, hence my use of the word.

I was a little surprised at your question as to how the drought affected funding!!! OMG! We are no longer a 90% rural community, but even so, the last seven years drought has meant that there have been no bananas, a staple food for all Aussie kids. Our family hasn't had a piece of steak since the year 2001, no-one has washed their car, or their house windows with a hose for at least 6 years. The apples are OK this year, but for a few years they have all been small and specked, the sort that you would not normally send to market, but that has been all that there was available at an affordable price. ....Would you believe that I had a cucumber on time-payment? ;)

The Church of England is dependent on the weekly offerings by the faithful to pay the clergies' stipend. In a rural community, the church was as poor as the people. But in the case of Sydney, the Cathedral also owned land and rental property. However, in all probability everyone was behind with their rent because food would have cost a fortune. Then when the goldrushes occurred in 1851, all the workers downed their tools. Even the ships were left in port by deserting sailors. My great grandfather arrived just as it all started, and used the funds he brought from Ireland to open a biscuit factory to make cracker biscuits for the miners. Thanks again for your help! Amandajm (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transportation

The picture that you painted was quite correct. Can you imagine? Shipped out to a country where nothing grew that they recognised? Mid summer and a stretch of several days over the century. The convict women, who were vastly outnumbered by the men, were all taken ashore four days after the men and were raped all night.

The first solid building was the Government store which was guarded night and day while the convicts and marines, with wives and children starved, and the governor went on the same ration as everyone else. The children got less flour, but more meat. The meat must have been foul! It was corned beef in barrels. (They brought cattle out with them, and most of the herd escaped. When they were discovered 23 years later they were several hundred of them.) The people from the First Fleet had great hopes of getting fresh supplies from England, but when the next ships arrived about two years later, they had some foul disease, typhoid, I think, and a lot of them had died, and those who hadn't were too weak to stand.

The first decent public building to go up was in 1811, the hospital, and it is an elegant Georgian design, colonial military style but its finer points are really very fine indeed. The columns of the verandah have what is know as "entasis", they are tapered and swell slightly below the middle. Getting the proportion right requires real expertise, as does the drafting of the profile of the capitals on top of the columns. They are perfect. I don't know whether our arrogant Mr. Greenway (who was a cocky, spiteful little man transported for forgery) had anything to do with it. I have read that on his arrival he walked up the street, saw the hospital under construction and shrieked that it would fall down and kill the patients. So I suppose that he designed the columns, whether the military engineer wanted him to, or not! I worked in said building for a while, and I'm really very attached to it. In Australia buildings of that age are so rare that its the equivalent of the Colosseum or the Aquaduct of Nimes. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Andplus, a nitpicketty person like yourself could get very discriminating at architectural appreciation, if you were to put your mind to it. You would have to learn a range of different "vocabularies", and I don't just mean the jargon, I mean the visual expression of the buildings themselves. The various parts all talk to each other in different ways, depending on the style. Amandajm (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh you have done such a fantastic job!
One or two little things... I found a nice link that explains exactly what a Great hall is. (if you've seen the Horry Patter movies, you would know!) Surry Hills doesn't have an "e". Dunno why not. Gothick with a "k" implies its pretty pseudo. Gothick bargeboards is definitely pseudo. Very pretty, but twee. ... But I left the "k" off it, to save confusion. (I love them! the fancier the better!) One more thing... Oh yes, those blinking "broaches". I can't described them in less than 100 words... well I suppose I can try... If you've got a spire and it's octagonal, it stands, as a general rule, on a tower which is square, but the spire is octagonal, OK? So four of the sides of the spire stand on the walls of the tower, and the other four sides stand on something stone or brick that is on the inside of the tower and projects from the wall in the corners. These things can be either pendentives or squinches. If they show, and need to look nice they are generally pendentives, and if the appearance doesn't matter to anyone except the bell ringer, the clock winder and the pigeons, then they are squinches. That's on the inside. On the outside, you've got something octagonal sitting on something square. The aim of the architect is to make the two shapes blend. The easy simple thing to do is to have a pinnacle on each of the four corners. That's been done to death. The other thing, a common solution when the tower is wooden frame and covered in lead, is to have a small, pyramidical shape (sloping of course) that rises from the tower corner to lean against the flat side of the octagon that presents to the corner, making a visual bridge that is like a sort of buttresses. Sometimes octagonal stone spires have them as well. .... What boring nonsense this is! Thanks once again for all your generous help! Amandajm (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulysses (poem)

Hi Andplus, I saw your 2p at the Ulysses FAC, but its unclear whether you were supporting or just commenting. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to avoid the featured article system as much as possible for the reasons I explained to Ling.Nut above, but when asked to comment I will. I don't think my position needs prefacing with a summary however, since I believe my opinions are made fairly clear. Is it a breach of a policy or a guideline (I'm constantly amazed at the number of these things floating around)? If so, I'll just stay away completely, as I'm unimpressed by the whole process (although not the efforts of some of the participants, yourself included). Andplus (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I had thought of writing to Andplus with just the opposite perspective... I'd like to see no bolded voting on FAC... just commentary. It maintains the good faith of people who have put a lot of work into articles. For example, "Oppose--image captions have periods" is a horrific statement in comparison to "I noticed that the image captions have periods". FAC nomination text would then have to be reviewed for consensus in what would probably be a more detailed manner, presenting a workload issue for the single editor who is able to pass them. I even filed an essay on this in my user space, user:outriggr/stuff#FAC vision. –Outriggr § 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If I'd known that was there it would have saved me typing ;). The other reason I don't add a bold summary is that I don't feel qualified to do so for many articles. I'm vain enough to think I know when an article is well-written, and I can often spot gaping holes in the content, but I rarely know if it is comprehensive or neutral. It might appear so to me, but without a background in the subject I have no idea whether it is or not. (On a side note: Have I misunderstood, or are you saying a single editor runs the whole FA system? If so, that's impressive, but I wouldn't have thought it very scalable.) Andplus (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought when I first got here, but it's fairly uncommon for FACs to get a detailed content appraisal during the nomination (I'm only talking about the [increasingly rare-ed.] type of article that has a meaningful base of secondary sources). There just aren't enough "experts" for that. Oh, and yes, one editor, the Featured Article Director, promotes 'em all. –Outriggr § 00:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought he was in charge of Today's Featured Article, I didn't realise his fiefdom extended to encompass the whole FA business. Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the appeal of Featured Article status. You line your hard work up to be selected for a day of vandalism. What other benefits does it impart? Perhaps the thrill of some pushy copy-editor deconstructing your carefully chosen prose and lecturing you in the edit summary? I can't see it as a badge of quality because some very poor articles get through (standards seem to have been generally lower in the past anyway), and many seem to be left to rot once they've passed. Edification of the masses? I don't buy that either. I suppose it puts it under the nose of somebody who might be interested, but you can do that on DYK too, with a lot less effort. I'm interested to know what the driver is. Is it just the done thing once the article has reached a certain standard? Andplus (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. This is the first one I've submitted. What does anyone get out of researching and writing a long article here? You have no way of knowing if it's actually being read page visit counters should be turned on. If it's "featured", it's apparently "wikipedia's best work" and gets a link on the featured page. With two million articles that follow a power law distribution of crappiness/pointlessness, it seems that one would like to find a way for his [the highly developed] article to stand out from the randomness by submitting (it) to a process that gives it more attention. This wouldn't be only a selfish pursuit; surely the encyclopedia ought to somehow guide readers toward non-crap. But that overlooks the likelihood that people arrive at any article, good or not, via search engine, so way-finding is perhaps overrated. All your points are valid. When you figure it out, let me know... –Outriggr § 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The above probably sounds more holier-than-thou (not thou, but you know what I mean) and just plain pessimistic than I intended ("crap" was supposed to be whimsical, not critical). What I was trying to get at was the "random article" effect: press that a few dozen times and then pontificate on what procedures might allow the really good articles produced here to have a place to call home, if in fact that is necessary. What did you mean by "edification of the masses"? The masses being the people having an opportunity to nominate an FA, or the visitors to the front page? –Outriggr § 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the little star gives the reader who has chanced on the article some indication that it has been thought to be among the best (if they know what the star represents), but the article could have been promoted in the lax days of whenever the FA system started and/or been entirely rewritten since the time it was promoted. By "the masses" I meant the people who read it while on the front page but, like you say, there seems to be no way of knowing how many people read it (although we do get to know how many people vandalise it). I'd always assumed the random article button was just a wrongly titled "Random US place's census data" button. Congratulations on getting a star anyway. I'm afraid that might sound a bit half-hearted after questioning the value of the system, but I wasn't questioning the effort required or the quality of the article. Andplus (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and no, it doesn't sound half-hearted: all I seem to do lately (anywhere) is "question the value of systems", and it's not a recipe for inner peace. Unfortunately, a variety of recent Wikipedia events [visitors: not FAR] have got me questioning this system again. Once my ethics neuron starts tingling, my ability to continue is jeopardized.
More to the point, Laketown, Utah had 188 people in 2000. –Outriggr § 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Morris

Hi. I wondered why you removed the template that I added. Your edit summary made no reference to it. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were still editing when I ran through it, got an edit conflict when I tried to save, and missed that addition. Fixed it. Sorry for the mix up. Andplus (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favourite hook

Thanks! - I was rather spoilt for choice, but that stood out! Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom Voting

According to the page: "You must have registered account with at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2007 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented."

Based on my counting, you hit the 150 edit mark somewhere around October 4th. (I counted only article edits, it may have been sooner if the people doing the scrutineering also count article talk pages.) Thus, you should be eligible to vote. Risker (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to find that out, most kind. Andplus (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your tips

[2] -- a nifty summary of copy editing mistakes that good writers (who assume they are therefore good copy editors) routinely make. Especially that fifth point. I don't think it's a worthless effort to maintain a list like that somewhere. --JayHenry (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that's observant, it was only there for a couple of hours at most. I had a run in over national varieties of English at A Vindication of the Rights of Men shortly after putting it up, which led me to believe that some of the tips may not be as self-explanatory as I think, and that there is probably a style guideline (imagine angels singing and a divine light illuminating THE GUIDELINE as you read that) for every issue that would trump both my tips and common sense. And I failed to copy-edit it! Somehow I've become entirely too involved in examining the site politics today, and it hasn't been an uplifting experience. Andplus (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I really feel what you're saying about both style guidelines and site politics. I've found that style guidelines are easy enough to ignore. The people that care about them fix things up eventually and in the meanwhile nobody is hurt by a spaced em-dash — yeah, the spaced em-dash is, for some reason, discouraged by WP:DASH. The politics... seems to me to be an inevitability of a group this large trying to do something. That's the trade-off between a one-person blog that nobody reads and the 8th most-visited site on the internet, I guess. Sanity tends to prevail eventually. What can you do -- on Wiki and in life -- but wake up in the morning, hold your nose at the unpleasant bits, take solace in the happy parts, and vote for Giano? --JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I admire your attitude, but I'm finding the whole thing demoralising. I have a low boredom threshold and I'm getting in a bit of a routine here (probably why I drifted into arguing about stuff yesterday), so I'm going to cut back on contributing. Andplus (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your post on WT:RFAr/Durova et al.

Hi. This is just to let you know I have reposted your excellent post onto the WikiEN-l mailing list (with attribution of course). See [3]. KTC 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On an off-site mailing list? How poetic. I see the supporters of Durova pick out exactly the same phrase in both fora and make the same defence. I do wish people wouldn't comment if they aren't going to read. I'm not asking for Durova to punished, I'm asking for equivalent responses for equivalent actions and a decision that doesn't encourage off-site attacks and plots, and doesn't penalize those who speak up against them. Andplus 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Or worse still, they read something I didn't write. I couldn't give a toss about the block. "Her actions" here are those which besmirched !!'s reputation. You see, I'm comparing them to Giano's for the purposes of indicating the lack of parity in the proposed remedies as a result of the limits of the Committee's authority. Andplus 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ou

Andplus, why do I have the funny feeling you're not returning? You went through the whole wikipedia editor cycle in a couple of months, I guess. Hope I'm wrong. –Outriggr § 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)