User talk:AnnaFrance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, AnnaFrance! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JamieS93 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Adoption

This user has been offered adoption by Save the humans (If you wish adoption by another user click here)

Save The HumansTalk :) 18:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Okay, to answer you questions and give you a little bit of a head start. (Excuse me if I ramble a bit, I have been going all day and am just about to get some sleep.) As far as working with the LoC goes, just jump right in. Find an article that you want to copyedit and start working on it. If you are having trouble with it or want a second opinion on it then ask another one of the active LoCE members or let me know and I will take a look at it. When you are done with it and satisfied that it is completely edited, then removed the copyedit template at the top of the page and move on to the next one.

Don't think that this is the only work open to you though. Be sure to look around and try out many different part of the project. There's no reason to limit yourself to mainspace either, there are a great many tasks available in projectspace, such as WP:AFD. I am definitely going to point something out early on, and that is to choose tasks based on where you want to go in the future with Wikipedia. Right or wrong, and I happen to think its wrong, there are a number of areas where participation is either damaging or necessary if you have your eyes set on becoming an administrator in the future. I know that it is a little early to give that a lot of consideration, but the unfortunate thing is that to get to that point you need to be at least a little bit politically-minded.

I have no interest in going any further than I am right now. I'm an administrator and quite simply I don't have time for anything more than what I'm currently doing. This gives me a rather liberating freedom to cut through the crap and say things like they are, you might want to step a little more lightly :). That is not something you want to worry too much about right now, just something you want to keep in mind.

For now, try out copyediting a little bit and maybe check out the "things to do" section of the community portal. I will talk to you some more tomorrow. Let me know if you need help with anything. Trusilver 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at the article on implicit memory, and I can't find anything really wrong with it. It has been marked for a lack of in-text citations, yet it uses the Harvard, author-date referencing system well and consistently. While not ideal, I thought the author's choice was to be respected unless used improperly or inconsistently. Several sections are marked for copy-edit, yet I find nothing wrong there either. The only complaint I can see with the article is its technical style, but it's difficult to remove technicalities from what is fundamentally a technical article.

OK, back to me talking. Normally the above paragraph would go on the article's talk page, right? Would I be overstepping myself in making these comments? Even worse--would I be overly bold to remove the various templates that I had issue with? (Is that how they're referred to? Templates?) Is it better to go ahead and follow my instincts and let someone revert me if appropriate, or would it be better to simply suggest this on the talk page? --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly make your opinion known on the article. If you feel that there is nothing that needs to be done to copyedit the article, then be bold and remove the tags on the article. The worst thing that can happen is that the person who placed the tag there will put it back again. The citation thing is a different story altogether. First of all, someone shouldn't be putting a copyedit tag on an article because it doesn't have sources, any that you find that have been tagged for this purpose you should remove immediately. But there is (what I consider) to be a half-assed de facto consensus when it comes to inline citations. While it is technically proper to use Harvard citations, the inline method is preferred and you will definitely not see an article passing GA or FA without inline citations. (something I learned when nominating Apache. Trusilver 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you recently joined the League of Copyeditors. Do you have an interest in peer reviewing some articles? If so, please visit Wikipedia:Peer review. I actually have some articles up for Peer review (some of which I have been working on quite a bit). Please provide feedback for Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1 if you are interested. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

When I come across red links, assuming I have no plans to create such an article, should I leave them as is? --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Use your own judgment. If it seems as though an article is likely or even possible, go ahead and leave them. If it is something that is obviously never going to have an article like blind people from Kenya, then go ahead and remove the Wikilink. Trusilver 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My first revert

I found my way to Special:Contributions/newbies, which is very interesting, and stumbled on a brand-new edit that obviously needed to be removed. I reverted the article and left a warning on the user's talk page. Could you please take a look at the asshole article and see if I handled this appropriately? I would greatly appreciate any comments you might have. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also like that you left the warning on that user's talk page. That is the best way we have of tracking vandalism and knowing what step to take next. You used a templated message so I assume that you have already figured out how that works. Remember that after receiving a vandalism4, or final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV where an administrator will take whatever action is appropriate to deal with the chronic vandal. If vandalism patrolling turns out to be something that you enjoy, you might want to look into using some type of utility to make the work a little bit easier on you. I personally prefer Twinkle, which has gotten to be a little bit old school, but it is what I am used to and what I prefer. Most of the new vandalism patrollers seem to be using Huggle. Trusilver 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I really have no special interest yet. I love to learn new things, and Wikipedia is a banquet. While I was checking out the newbie contributions I also found someone who had made 2 very nice edits already, so I read the material at the Welcome Committee pages and gave the new person the same nice welcome I received. I've loaded Lupin's anti-vandal tool script to see what that does, and I'm looking forward to participating in some AfD discussions as well. There is such a lot to do here! --AnnaFrance (talk)

If you are looking for something that you might find interesting. (I find it downright boring, but it's what my daughter is doing right now and she seems to be having a good itme with it.) Disambiguation pages are in need of cleanup and there's probably enough work for a half dozen people to go nonstop for a month to clean it all up. Those pages are often very inconsistent and more often then not they don't conform to WP:MOS. Just something to think about. Trusilver 08:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation

After tomorrow I will be on vacation for two weeks. If you have any questions while I'm gone, I've got a list of a few really good admins that are almost perpetually online.

User:Jmlk17 User:Keeper76 User:Dihydrogen Monoxide

Any of them would be receptive to helping you with any questions that might come up.Trusilver 15:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to give me the names of some admins I can bother. I appreciate it. I hope you have a really nice time on your vacation! --AnnaFrance (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimini bay

Hi! I saw your !vote agreeing with my stance on Bimini Bay. However, I now realise my position was flawed, and have changed my !vote accordingly. As it could look like you are agreeing with my new vote, I thought I had best let you know and give you the opportunity to modify your stance. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blue message box

Hi! I could have dscribed it, but it is easier just to do it for you! (grin) If you are interested in the source code, just click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page, and look at the very top line. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSS file on CAT:CSD

Hi. I'm not sure what you intended at User:AnnaFrance/huggle.css (it doesn't look much like a CSS file) but it is currently showing up at CAT:CSD. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just worked through this issue with MZMcBride, who has edited the file. huggle.css is the configuration file for the huggle anti-vandal tool. The options in the file are used to specify which templates are to be included but Anna added them with the brackets round them, thus transcluding the templates and making the page show up in CSD stuff.

Anna: You don't need to use the CSD templates in the list as there is already a built in CSS function in huggle. If you want to add any other templates, make sure you don't use the brackets round them as this transcludes them and breaks stuff. See Gurchzilla's css for an example of how to do it properly.

Cheers, Astral (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for clearing that up, Astral. The Huggle docs just said to put the name of the CSD template, so I just assumed they meant with the brackets. Ah, now I know. (Sorry to answer you here, but I assumed from your talk page that you don't want anyone editing it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Graffiti copy edit

AnnaFrance, Please go ahead and make edits. I think there are numerous areas where the article can be strengthened (sentence and paragraph structure, grammar (e.g. parallelism (major issues), present participle usage, passive voice, split infinitives, incorrect or misplaced punctuation, etc.). I've made some, but have been unable to work more on it during the week. There's some room for improvement in the writing (I think the GA listing may have been premature), plus the addition of music and themes sections would be good.

I'd say the Peer Review process is complete, and editors should use it as a to-do list. I'll jump on it some more this weekend. I look forward to working with you.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AnnaFrance, your edits to AG look good. Thanks for jumping into it. I'll try to find time this weekend to work on it as well.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Inn

Thank you. ...njbob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njbob (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-edit Request

Hi there. Seems like you've been learning a lot (and much faster than I did, too). When you have the time, could you please copy-edit both Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100?... And please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about Wiki stuff. Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think by spit shine, Laser brain means "polish". He thinks a copyedit would be good, so go ahead and make some edits if you feel the need. If I think they are not beneficial, I can always revert your edits. ;-) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are great, so far. Please keep it up! I always make so many tiny grammatical mistakes... — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh Classic/PowerBook 100

Hi Anna. Not to worry. I'm all done with my tiny tweaks to the article, and I won't be cross-editing. Thanks for letting me know and for saving my edits. Good luck with the re-writes. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thanks again. When you have the time, please copyedit PowerBook 100 also (similar article to the Classic one in style). Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting on PowerBook 100 so soon. I have a lot of other article rewrites in the works, so I'll keep you posted on what I am doing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on what the first sentence of the lead should say, should it be ...is a PowerBook or ...was? I always use was because this stuff was manufactured/sold in the past (even though it still exists). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy kept, so far. Your edits were fine. Please keep up the great work. Thanks again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, though System 7 is over 10 years old. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Moore book title

There's a note to AWB users right next to the word "Compleat" that explains that this is the correct spelling of the word in the title of the book. Please try to be more careful with the drive-by copyediting. -JasonAQuest (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you ignored the note because you were banging through edits on autopilot, or you ignored the note because you thought you knew better than the cited source, you still ignored the note. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who didn't even bother to read the text she was editing is lecturing others to "read more carefully"? I did read your comments carefully, which is how I noticed that you didn't even acknowledge what your real mistake was: You didn't bother to read the note that was trying to prevent you from introducing an error into the article. That note is there for a reason; if you can't be bothered to read it, you are disrespecting the work others have done to keep the article correct. Yes, I'm investing a little time into explaining this, because some things are worth spending time on. And if it helps you slow down from your race through the alphabet with your new toy, and read before you edit, maybe others won't have to spend as much time correcting your "corrections". - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grater -> greater in Bicycle article

Your edit summary for this [edit] is "(Typo fixing, typos fixed: grater → greater using AWB)", which would not be correct. However, the only change shown by comparing versions is spoked -> spoked, which is fine, but not as advertised. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the tool. In an only slightly related issue, I'd love for someone that bills themselves as a copy editor to take a hard look at Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. We've managed to get it to GA status, but it appears to be too far out of the way to get real criticism. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

You have certainly been busy while I've been away. Just got done looking at all that you have done in the last three weeks. Keep up the good work. Trusilver 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope you and your family had a great vacation. I've been (mostly) staying out of trouble here at WP, still figuring things out. I've done "ride-alongs" with New Page Patrol, where I watch pages being tagged to learn how experienced patrollers do it, and reading the RfA questions-answers-comments page, which is fascinating. Anyway, here are two questions I have:

• I was recently asked to copy-edit the Macintosh Classic article, which I did (along with a handful of other editors). It appears to have been marked as an FA last night. Does that mean I get to count it as an "FA I have worked on"?

• There are many, many tags. Too many. How do you keep them straight, know which one is appropriate for each circumstance and how to apply it? Article tags and Talk page tags. Is it just an experience and memory thing?

--AnnaFrance (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as FA's go, there are really no rules for that. There are no set rules for putting up a userbox saying that you helped get an article to FA status. Personally, I feel like I haven't contributed to the article if I haven't made actual content additions. I spent two months copyediting the hell out of Bangladesh Language Movement to get it through FA, but I don't note my contribtions anywhere. I prefer to give the praise to the two gentlemen who wrote the article and asked me to help copyedit it for them. That's just my personal view.

As far as templates go, don't worry too much about it. Nobody can keep all of the templates straight. I figure that off-hand I could think of maybe 20% of them without having to look up the Wikicode for them. I try to keep in mind the ones that I use most often, the rest I look up as needed at WP:TEMPLATE. Trusilver 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for your hard work

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award you, AnnaFrance, this barnstar for all your hard work copyediting articles, in particular Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100 for me. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am rewriting some articles (listed on my user page), so when I am done, I'll let you know if I need any assistance. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Donaldson (activist)

Thank you for cleaning up Stephen Donaldson (activist), an article on which I've done a lot of work. Could you tell me why you removed the paragraph markup in multi-paragraph blockquotes?

Thanks. Espertus (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversions and notes. Espertus (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Trusilver: Cleanup

I'm hoping you monitor my talk page, otherwise I'm talking to myself. :)

When you see an article with a Cleanup tag ("This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards."), what do you start looking for? --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not Trusilver, your user/talk page is on my watchlist. I used to do a lot of cleanup work on articles. I looked for words which need wikifying, MoS issues, grammar/prose issues, layout and other style things. Usually with the messier articles, it is easy to spot what needs fixing (especially once you become familiar with the standards of FA class articles). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Wackymacs, about the standards for FA articles. I haven't explored the review process at all yet, and I should. I can see where it would have application even if FA status isn't an issue yet. Thanks for taking the time to give me some tips. Much appreciated. --AnnaFrance (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do monitor your talk page, but a little too late this time :). Trusilver 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Trusilver. AnnaFrance you should check out WP:FAC sometime - it soon becomes clear which articles do not meet the criteria and which do. This kind of off-hand knowledge becomes useful later on if you do cleanup work on articles. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Star Elementary School

I'd like some advice about what to do about Lone Star Elementary School. Briefly:

• It's not about the school. It's one paragraph of a piece of movie trivia that tangentially involved a person at the school (the librarian).
• It cites a zoetrope.com website, from which it was taken, mostly verbatim.
• The article for the movie in question already contains the information.

I hesitated about a speedy deletion because it's not entirely a word-for-word copy, but definitely most of it is. I'm not sure how strict WP is about that kind of thing. --AnnaFrance (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would nominate that for CSD. The article makes very little assertion of notability and what little it does could be merged into the article for the movie that it is referring to. Past practice states that high schools are inherently notable (something many disagree with, myself included) but elementary schools don't have that same blanket protection. The most I would do for this article would be to redirect it to the movie, and were it to come across my desk (so to speak) if I was monitoring CSD, I would almost definitely delete it. That failing, you could add a PROD tag to it and see if anyone else objects to its deletion. Either way, it is very poorly written and would need a complete rewrite to make it salvageable. But just to note, I tend to be a lot more exclusionist than the norm, so I'm also going to ask someone who is extremely inclusionist to chime in on this so you can get both angles on this issue.Trusilver 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is only about a month old, one could argue Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The article clearly needs improvement and if there's a copywright issue, the article could be deleted without prejudice of being restored sans copy vio. The connection with a notable movie does make this particular elementary school a bit more notable than a run of the mill regilar elementary school. Before deleting or nominating as well, I would encouage a search. Doing that, we find that beyond the movie connection, the school is also a recognized elementary school as it was selected a 2006 California Distinguished School. One problem with the Google search is that schools with the same name appear in other states, too, so one has to be careful not to confuse them. In any event, I was able to do this with the article in less than a half hours worth of work. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All but the first sentence of the "Influence on Outsiders film" section is taken from the referenced website. So, is that a copyright violation, or a section-sized blockquote that hasn't been properly formatted? (I'm not trying to be a smartass here—I'm asking a serious question.)

As a side note, this is an alarming difference of admin opinions. I'm not sure what to say about the inclusionist position. What couldn't be fixed with enough work? How much poor-quality material on WP is too much? It makes an editor's decisions much easier, though. If you don't have the time to fix it, just ignore it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider it to be a copyright violation as it stands, however I think that it probably could be reworded easily to not be a copyvio. I'm more concerned with the content in general and whether or not it is suitable for an article. I would say no, Le Grand would say yes. I asked him to come here specifically to show you how very different opinions are concerning what belongs on Wikipedia, even within the parameters of notability policy. I feel that WP:N isn't strict enough and there should be a great deal more rigidity on notability. Le Grand would probably tell you that anything that isn't a hoax or a copyvio should be notable. This isn't to say that I consider his opinion any less valid than my own, we all have different opinions on what is notable. (In fact, I'm harassing him to let me nominate him for adminship) The rest of your questions are difficult to answer; I'm of the opinion that if an article is so badly written that it's unsalvagable, then it just needs to be CSD'd until a time that someone comes back and writes it over and then we can determine if it is truly notable. Trusilver 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just hoaxes and copy vios, as I am also concerned with how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff (please note, though, that my "arguments" in the last two cases I now consider weak per WP:PERNOM; I still would argue to delete, but should have offered a more original rationale). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to deal with my questions. You've given me a lot to think about. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Service Award

This editor is a Novice Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Oh yes, and by the way. Congratulations on your first month anniversary with us. It has been fantastic working with you so far and I'm looking forward to much the same in the future. Good work on everything that you have done up to this point. Trusilver 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Thank you so much. Both for the award and for your help (so far—don't leave town). I'm still having a great time learning, and I've gotten my husband into WP also. He's interested in numismatics, and is already helping out there. Thanks for making this past month a lot less scary than it might have been. --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding scientific terms

In an article I'm working on, Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, a number of the more important or unusual terms have been bolded. I haven't found a specific WP policy on whether this is encouraged or discouraged. Is there such a policy? --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No so that I'm aware of, though general practice is that nothing should be bolded within the body of the article itself. When there isn't a specific policy forbidding something, I tend to fall back on standardization and format the article as is typical. Trusilver 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Copyedit

Hi, Anna. I have been the primary contributor to the article Last of the Summer Wine and am attempting to get it up to FA. I saw your name on the list of copyedit volunteers and was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look through the article to see if you can spot anything for us to edit. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)