User talk:Armadillopteryx/Archive 1

Howling Bells
Thanks for your copy edit on this article, hopefully it will pass GAR. Do you think you can leave a comment on the article's GA talk page to let the reviewer know that you have gone through it? Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I've left the comment. Best of luck! Armadillopteryx (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. =) I'm currently removing some of the excess references. I didn't realize how many were packed in there. :p Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better to have too many than too few. But now you're improving your own editing skills! : ) Armadillopteryx (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true. On it's first attempt at GAN, I discovered that I did not have enough, so I added a bunch. ;D Howling Bells and Radio Wars are two articles that I have also recently nominated and they are awaiting review at GAN. I wouldn't have a problem with you copy editing those as well, if you would like. Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to copy edit those articles for you. However, I'll be pretty busy with some non-Wikipedia things during the next several days, so if you need the revision very soon, I can't promise it. But if it can wait a week or so, I should be able to manage. You can also feel free to post another request here in case another editor can get to it before I can : ) Armadillopteryx (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's no rush, so whenever you get time is cool. I can wait, but if you find you will not be able to do it within two weeks, please let me know. ;-) Mattchewbaca (meow) 03:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I should be able to take care of it within the next two weeks. If, by the end of this week, I find out otherwise, I'll let you know. Armadillopteryx (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Armadillo, you have helped Howling Bells reach GA status! You can add an icon on your user page if you would like. Here are two different examples of what I'm talking about: User:Shaidar cuebiyar and User:Malconfort. Thanks again! Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and congratulations to you! I know you yourself put an enormous amount of work into it. Good luck with the other articles, too. I hope they achieve the same success. Armadillopteryx (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Armadillo, for continuing to watch over and improve the article, it is very much appreciated. The wording in the sentence that I changed yesterday just didn't seem to read correctly, and after my edit it still didn't read correctly! ;D Possess the ability to rearrange the words of a sentence so that it can read properly, I don't. Good job for recognizing that, it reads much better now. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! My contributions are small compared to yours, though. I did my best to improve the citation that was added as just a bare link, too, but I don't have as much knowledge about that as you, hence the lack of archive URL, etc. I'm glad to keep a watchful eye on the grammar and syntax. Any plans to try to bring it to FA anytime soon? That would be a fun project, no? Armadillopteryxtalk 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you attempted to provide fields for that ref, that's very good. User:Shaidar cuebiyar showed me how to format refs, and I'm indebted to him for that, because it's a good thing to have the refs look professional. Even though I've recently discovered that he has knowingly withheld vital information from me that would have improved the two Howling Bells articles that you have copy edited, but I digress. If you would like me to show you how to format references or to archive them as well, let me know. FA for Howling Bells? It's a very strong article, thanks to the stability of it's foundation. Three, five, ten years from now while other articles are crumbling around it, it will still be standing strong, as long as it is properly maintained from this point forward. After maybe a couple of more albums from the band the article could be ready for FA, but it currently isn't comprehensive enough for that status. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometime, if you've got a few extra minutes, might you be able to show me how to archive ref links (and/or how to improve them in general)? I could give you a ref that I've written that, to my knowledge, is pretty complete, and you could show me what's missing (or, more importantly, how to find things that are missing that don't necessarily show up right on the article's page). That would be nothing urgent, but it's something I'd like to learn if you have a chance. : ) Armadillopteryxtalk 09:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, I would enjoy showing you how to do these. May I see the ref that you are talking about? Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... how about this one? At the moment, all I can see missing is the archive URL (which I don't know how to find), but I'm sure there must be more. Also, should I include both the "work" and "publisher" fields, or should it be one or the other? Thanks!




 * Armadillopteryxtalk 23:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, including both "work" and "publisher" fields I think is a matter of preference, so since you are the creator and major contributor of the article it is up to you to decide what to include and what not to for reference fields. Aside from their website, The Washington Post is also a newspaper, so you will want to use Cite news. Wikilink The Washington Post, because they have an article of their own on Wikipedia, but only at the first occurrence if they are referenced more than once in the same article. Their article is where you will find the owner or publisher of the organization, in this case it is The Washington Post Company. You can add them to the reference in the publisher field and wikilink to their own article if you would like.
 * Let's try the following Sky News Australia reference from your article:
 * For this, you have used Cite web which is correct (Good job!), because they are strictly a cable and satellite news provider and not a print media. Just use Sky News Australia in the "work" field and wikilink to their Wikipedia article. You will also want to wrap Sky News Australia in italics, this reverses the work field in, which it's default parameter is set to italics. Only print media like newspapers and magazines should be italicized. On their Wikipedia article you will see that they are owned by Australian News Channel Pty Ltd., which itself is owned by three different organizations. I suppose you should probably just put Australian News Channel Pty Ltd. if you provide the publisher, but I guess if you wanted to you could list each owner separately, and that would be cool too.
 * If you are wanting to know publishers for websites that do not have articles on Wikipedia most of the time you can find that information at the website itself. Here is a reference from your article for The Village Voice. The ownership/publisher information can be found at the bottom of the page, and in this case it is Village Voice, LLC. Sometimes, the publisher is not so easy to find out and you should look through the "About Us" page on the website to find out more specific information about who is in charge and so forth. I also use Whois to find out who the site is registered to and in most cases the information is easier to find and more comprehensive. When I search villagevoice.com with Whois it gives me the full name of who the site is actually registered to, in this case it is Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. You can see it here This is not always who the publisher is though and if you can't find any different specific publisher information from the references website, than use the registrant information from Whois.
 * If you use Mozilla Firefox as a browser their is an add-on called Flagfox, it is a very handy tool, this is what I use. After you install it you can just center-wheel click on the flag while you are on a website for whose information you would like to find out about and Whois will display the information.
 * For archiving the two most popular are Internet Archive and WebCite. You can manually archive web pages with each of them. Using Internet Archive all you have to do is copy the url and place it into the address bar where it says Wayback Machine here and click on "Take Me Back", if it's already archived it will be displayed to you like this for example, click on the blue date and that is the archived page. If it's not archived yet you will get a page like this, click the "Latest" button and it will take a snapshot of the web page and then in a few months or so it will be permanently archived. Just wait some months and then enter the url into Wayback Machine again and see if it is archived yet. WebCite is instant archiving, I prefer this so you don't have to wait. You just go to their site and click where it says "Archive" and enter the url and your email address and that's it! You can choose to fill out the rest of the fields if you would like. To see if a page has already been archived through WebCite just click "Search" and enter the url. I've already entered this reference from your article into both services here and here. As you can see WebCite didn't archive it well, but Internet Archive did a little better job, you'll just have to wait for it to become permanent though.
 * If you have questions about any of this, I'd be more than glad to help. Oh yeah, and thanks for your latest cleaning up edits on the two HB articles after I got done with them. :) Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you for such thorough advice! Whenever I have a little more time, I'll go through my articles and practice this with all my citations. I'll let you know when I get around to that. Maybe you can see how I've done, then. And you're welcome for the (minor) grammar edits on your articles. I enjoy editing them. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went through my two articles and edited all the refs. WebCite really wasn't doing a good job archiving any of them, so I used Internet Archive. However, only a few of them had already been archived, so many of the refs will have to wait a few months before I can add those. I did add the ones that were already permanent, though. Sometimes, a website or news agency's owner/publisher in the Wikipedia article didn't match what I found on the bottom of the website's page as the copyright holder. Also, the Wikipedia article for many of the sources listed a single person's name in the Publisher section of the infobox. That didn't seem right to me, so sometimes I used the owner instead. What do you think about that? If you've got a moment, could you take a look at Aelita Andre and A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade to see if I've done everything correctly? Thanks! Armadillopteryxtalk 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's coming along nicely Armadillo, there's a few things I've spotted that you will want to change and add, but for the most part it's good. When you are using Cite news, the "work" field should either be "newspaper" or "magazine". Only use the "work" field for Cite web. For refs where there are multiple authors, like your ref #9 on Aelita Andre, you will want to use: |last1= | first1= |last2= |first2=, and so on, depending how may authors there are. I would say that since you wikilinked the media outlets in the main text, to not link them in the reference section, but that is completely up to you. You may also want to de-link common terms like bark and twigs, because that is just an open invitation for an editor who uses a script to come in and mess something up on your article. For A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade you will want to use |language= Portuguese, and also, |trans_title=, for all of the refs, since they are not in English. And, are you sure you used WebCite, because I searched some of those and couldn't find em? Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the publisher/owner thing. Unless it specifically says publisher than I would use the copyright holder, like you have. I don't know if you're talking about this in particular: Globo, but if it was me I would not use Roberto Marinho. For one, the guy is dead, so he is definitely not the publisher. And two, it doesn't give a specific publisher, so yeah, what you have used is cool. Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt, thanks for the advice. I'll make these changes. What I meant with my question about the publisher applies to sources like The New York Times, which in its infobox states that its publisher is a single person (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.). This isn't the only source that gave me this issue. It seemed more logical to use the owner instead in cases like these, right? That's not the same as the Globo article, which doesn't quite call Roberto Marinho its publisher. Let me know if you want more examples of what I'm getting at if that would be helpful. Thanks again! Armadillopteryxtalk 22:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I would use Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., since he is indeed the publisher. Any other Wikipedia articles where it mentions a particular individual as publisher, I would use them as well. I don't understand Portuguese, so I don't know where to look on those references' web pages for who the publisher may be, but they may mention a specific individual or organization other than the copyright holder. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I changed all of the "work" fields within the cite news parameters to "newspaper" or "magazine," and I've added the language and title translation fields to A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade. There are 3 English sources in that article, and I chose to specify the language as English there to distinguish them from the Portuguese sources. Is that all right? Armadillopteryxtalk 23:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I changed all of the "work" fields within the cite news parameters to "newspaper" or "magazine," and I've added the language and title translation fields to A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade. There are 3 English sources in that article, and I chose to specify the language as English there to distinguish them from the Portuguese sources. Is that all right? Armadillopteryxtalk 23:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it says at that if the default language is English than do not use this parameter, but if you want to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. The only thing is, is that a particular editor may come across it and decide to remove it using a script and it could mess something else up in the article. For ref #8, you can either not use title translation or use the English translation. For ref #10, the site is registered to: Tutela Empresarial Ltda. If I could read Portuguese I would try to look for a publisher, but when I look at all the words and I'm like, whaaaaaa??? ;D Mattchewbaca (meow) 00:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, how did you find out where #10 was registered? I tried searching "whois" on that site, but it didn't return anything for me. I removed the English translation of #8 since it was indeed redundant. I do prefer to leave the |language=English fields there, because I don't want someone reading over the refs quickly to think that all the sources are in Portuguese. By the way, what are these mysterious "scripts" that you keep mentioning? Armadillopteryxtalk 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found it with the add-on for Firefox that I mentioned before, Flagfox. I just clicked on the flag and it showed me the information. Scripts are just JavaScript programs that people make specifically for Wikipedia, so that they can go around and enforce all of Wikipedia's "rules". The scripts will sniff out variants between British english and American english, wikilinks for common terms, news publishers, etc. Most of these people really don't care about creating articles per se, they just like to play rent-a-cop, but nobody is renting them. User:Ohconfucius decided he didn't like seeing popular news publishers on two of my articles and used one of his scripts on them and in the process messed up all of the other references by squeezing all of the fields together. Here is his scripts page: User:Ohconfucius/script. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, maybe I should see about downloading Firefox, then. If someone used a script, for example, to remove the English fields in my references in that article, could I not just undo the edit and explain to the user that my decision was carefully considered and not merely an oversight? It doesn't seem like there's a rule giving script edits priority over non-script edits. It seems a little different from undoing a bot edit, which is usually harmless, clear-cut and simple. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you could undo their edit and then make friends with them, but if you undo their edit and don't make friends an edit war could erupt between the two of you on your article. When he ran the script on mine, it wasn't until after you had copy edited the article that I realized what had happened to the reference fields. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Here's another question, by the way: You said to use The Washington Post Company as the publisher for The Washington Post and Village Voice, LLC as the publisher for The Village Voice, but their Wikipedia articles also list people rather than companies as their publishers. So should I change The Washington Post 's publisher to Katharine Weymouth and The Village Voice 's publisher to Michael Cohen? Armadillopteryxtalk 01:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I overlooked the publisher for The Washington Post when I looked at it yesterday. Yes, use the publishers that are listed for both. Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your last edits of the two HB articles. I see that Yobot has hit your articles too. Mattchewbaca (meow) 03:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad to help. The articles are coming along very nicely, by the way. Armadillopteryxtalk 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reverting the stupid citation tag on the article. Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) Armadillopteryxtalk 03:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A Banda Mais Bonita Da Cidade DYK nomination
Hi Armadillopteryx, good work on expanding and sourcing A Banda Mais Bonita Da Cidade. I've nominated it for Did You Know since it was over a 5x expansion. Feel free to offer a different hook at the nomination's entry. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Qrsdogg, thank you for the nomination! It's the first one I've had. When you say that I may offer a different hook, does that mean that I can suggest a different fact from the article? I just want to clarify the meaning of the terminology. Thank you : ) Armadillopteryxtalk 23:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I'm glad to help. I love to see articles at AfD get re-written like that. Yes, that's basically what it means. Generally if you think there'a catchier fact from the article you can put something below the first suggestion like "Suggest ALT1 ... that [fact from the article]?" Qrsdogg (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I do have another question that perhaps you can answer. I've been wanting to make a very minor change to the name of the page, but I don't know if I should do that while it's at AfD. The change is simply to make the word "da" lowercase. Would that create a redirect/any AfD trouble since the only change is the case and not the word itself? Armadillopteryxtalk 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, there is a general rule against name changes while AfD's are ongoing, but I can't see anyone objecting to a change in capitalization like that. In fact, I doubt anyone would really notice.
 * You know, what's really funny to me is that there are more delete than keep !votes in the discussion on pt.wiki but it looks like the article will be kept here. I wonder if the Portuguese wikipedia (like the German Wikipedia) has a higher inclusion criteria? It's a bit counter-intuitive, I would have thought that they'd be more likely than us to keep an article on a Brazilian band. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I find that ironic, too. Their deletion system is different from ours, though. It doesn't come to a resolution through consensus. Rather, they simply vote and briefly justify themselves. If at least 4 people vote to keep the article and there is a 2/3 preference toward keep, it's kept. Similarly, if at least 4 people vote to delete the article and there is a 2/3 preference toward delete, it's deleted. There are also rules for what to do when neither of these situations is the case. Actually, at the moment, they're 2/39 short of having their 2/3 preference for delete. I don't know why so many of them don't want that article. What's the German Wikipedia like? Armadillopteryxtalk 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about the German Wikipedia's voting process, but I think it is somewhat similar to the voting structure you described. I do know that they have much higher inclusion standards, the current state of an article (rather than its potential) plays a big role. They also tend to delete articles about internet or pop culture phenomena much more that we do, I think. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Aelita
Did a bit of detective work based on the 22 month old exhibition. Deduced from the BBC that she celebrated her b2nd birthday on Jan 9 2009, so Jan 9, 2007! Also Sidney Herald sayd on Jan 8 2009, turns two tomorrow, so definitely Jan 9, 2007!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation
Hi, I was just editing an article that used a Portuguese source and someone noted that a translation should be posted in the references section. Could you check the (machine) translation that I posted here for accuracy? Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

em / px / pt / ex / ...
It wasn't really an error. In modern HTML you can specify widths in a variety of different relative units. You can use "percentages", "em", or "ex". It also allows for absolute units (e.g., "px"). It's typically best practice to use relative units, since those will scale when a user rescales his/her browser or font-size. A nice summary of the various units can be found in the official spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units. What you did was perfectly fine, and wasn't an error. I just thought that in this particular case, it would be good to have the quote box contain a fixed number of lines, which did not depend on the width of the browser window, or on the size of the font. Note that "em" units are relative to the font width (I believe the width of the letter M) and "ex" units are relative to the font height (I believe the height of the letter X). Thank you for your work on the article. My changes have been very minor. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The template:infobox, which is called by template:infobox artist, uses "22em". It also uses "f9f9f9" for the background, which is specified by MediaWiki:common.css.  Thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted
Yes, You misunderstood something about the CC license - please see Upload/Flickr. Your image is not acceptable as it is licensed on Flickr as: CC License: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Best, feydey (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aelita Andre
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lucía Pérez
The image is on Commons, so it can be used on any Wikipedia site - like here at Lucía Pérez. feydey (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Italisation in cite web
Content of work in cite web is italised automatically by the template. Manual of use reads ""Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.". -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Magioladitis, thanks for your message. Only print sources should be italicized in the work field (and in those sources, I used no italics code); websites, however, should not be italicized and so the italics code is needed specifically to de-italicize the work when it appears on the page. I know it would probably be hard to program Yobot to differentiate between types of sources, so I wasn't upset with the edit. However, it did cause formatting problems in the refs. My edit summary (typed in the Twinkle window) apparently exceeded the character limit, so this wasn't properly conveyed on the page. My apologies for that. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Is there anything relevant to the Manual of Style? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding comes from this page, where italicization is explicitly mentioned for book titles, journal titles, names of newspapers, CD names, and titles of films/TV series, but not for websites. Actually, I misspoke above; I don't think it's necessarily a print vs. digital issue so much as the rules for specific types of media. Strictly online sources (e.g. not digital reproductions of original sources, like nytimes.com) are the only ones where the rule is to mention the title but not to italicize it. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I 'll ask Rjwilmsi's opinion on that. He spends a lot of time every day improving citations. He 'll know better. Either the manual or citeweb's documentation needs to be updated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds good to me. Once there's a definitive resolution, I'll be glad to make sure the refs in the articles I watch reflect it. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dorival Caymmi
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Congratulations, a great page on an amazing man. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Vrba : agressive removal of former edit
Hi Armadillo, I understand you like punctuation and exactitude, but in the case of your removal of my modest edit of Rudolf Vrba entry, your energy to undo is not justified and quite aggressive: - the name of Dr. Pollak was mentioned twice - before my edits of today - once written as Pollack and once as Pollak. So I checked in the just-read french edition of the book and it says Pollak. So I corrected. - I also changed the date from 24 april to 25 april 1944 as the french edition (page 336)reads: "Le lendemain, 25 avril, Fred et moi sirotions un verre d'alcool, au quartier général du conseil juif de Zilina en racontant notre histoire au docteur Oscar Neumann, porte-parole de tous les juifs de Slovaquie, à Oscar Krasnansky, Erwin Steiner et un nommé Hexner...." This is on page 336 of the "J'ai Lu" edition of the book and I have not checked on which page it is on english editions (!) but there should be no difference. And if there is, it seems the latest published version be best. So the story is told to four persons, and the last one is referred as "someone named Hexner".

So why dropping, as I wrote in my change: "date of meeting and participants according to french edition of Vrba book". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.90.70 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I'm sorry if my revert appeared aggressive, because I understand your edit was well-intentioned. I would agree that the name should be spelled as in the French edition of the book if this were the French Wikipedia, but since it isn't, I find the spelling that was already there to be more appropriate. Often, when works are translated into other languages, some names' spellings are changed to make the pronunciation more intuitive for readers. Therefore, on any language's Wiki, it's preferable to use the spelling found in sources written in that language. I have checked the article again, and I see your point about the inconsistency in the spelling of Pollack. I think it'd be better to change the single instance of "Pollak" to "Pollack" like the others.


 * Also, in the edit you made, there were a couple other issues (using a space before the period/misspelling Hexner: " ... someone named Hexler ." and saying "in presence of" instead of "in the presence of"). I thought it best to remove these things, especially because you did not provide reference information in an inline citation. If you have the book's information and want to add the details back, I don't have a problem with you inserting the information as long as you source and proofread it. I don't doubt your good intentions or the credibility of the book.


 * All that said, I am not one of the article's main contributors and really only have it on my watchlist because it was one of the first pages I edited when I opened my account. You may want to consult with someone who's spent more time on the article than I have.


 * Let me know if you have any questions or if you'd like any help. I'm glad to see that you care enough about the article to follow up.


 * Armadillopteryxtalk 21:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks
No worries, we all do something like that now and again. And awesome username, by the way. Cheers! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Actually, the reviewer is generally not the same person as the promoter. Once you pass the review, it is not your responsibility to promote the article to the prep area, as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Robert Frascino
Hi Armadillopteryx, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino and we need to hammer out a better hook. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Crisco, thanks for the review. I've replied to your comments there. Armadillopteryxtalk 17:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Frascino
Orlady (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Frascino
Hi,

Regarding the reference format, let's make it very clear. You wrote the article, you decide on the style. You are free to revert my edits.

Having said that, I always favor cite templates ;-). Here are my reasons:
 * Style can change on the future as a result of the community consensus. If you hard-encoded it, somebody will have to manually change it afterwards. Template are future proof.
 * Using templates encode references in a machine-readable format allowing bots to do some tedious work. Bots are not perfect but very helpful.
 * It make easy to translate it into other wikis. English is not my mother tongue and I contribute to Spanish and French wikis too. Templates always help.
 * Hopefully in a near future, citation style will be user defined. I prefer Harvard style due to my scientific background. Others may prefer the Chicago style. Why choose if we could have both? This is only possible if you use templates.
 * Using templates makes you focus on content not its formatting. Moreover, Cite web can be easily filled from the wiki editing bar. Why complicate editing?

Coming back to your article, not all the citations are web citations IMHO. Some were journal/news citations, some were pure web citations. That's why I took the liberty to change some reference coding. Take care --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I understand your reasons. I'm more than happy to hear your opinion about this, because even though I did write the article, I don't own it, and I'd really just like it to be as strong as possible.


 * In the few articles I've written, if a change were ever implemented through consensus, I would rather make the necessary adjustments manually. This is because bots are generally very helpful, but I have seen bots damage refs in some articles. This is mostly because, exactly as you've said, the citations come from various places: the web, newspapers, journals, etc. However, bots that correct italics do not differentiate between pure web sources and the others. The problem lies in the fact that names of websites in the "work" parameter should not be italicized, whereas most other types of "work" should be italicized. So when you de-italicize the "work" parameter intentionally, bots will sometimes reverse that and create an error in the ref.


 * If you'll notice, the format I use when handwriting the refs is copied exactly from the output of the template. So the final product of template citations and mine is actually the same. I use MLA citation format for my off-wiki work, but I do stay faithful to the template conventions here (minus the physical templates, of course). I still prefer this, but if you feel the templates are better, I'm willing to leave them for awhile. If you want to do that, I'll de-italicize web-only sources (e.g. The Body but not The New York Times) and see if the bots leave them alone.


 * Thanks, Armadillopteryxtalk 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your undo of my edits as discussion was not leading to your change. Nothing personal. I just wanted to record the lack of agreement. You reverted edits on journal/news source and web sources alike. From now on, feel free to adjust it to your taste. I leave it up to you. Have fun.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion long ago of Robert Frascino page
Hi there, Armadillopteryx. You asked me some time ago why I deleted Robert Frascino back in 2005. I looked through the delete log, and my terse comment was simply: content was: db-copyvio|url=http://www.concertedeffort.org/robert.html. I would very likely have double-checked that complaint before deleting the page, so in summary, I deleted the page because it was lifted in whole and without attribution or license from another website. Apologies for this slow reply, and kudos for building a solid new page! HorsePunchKid (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dorival Caymmi
The article Dorival Caymmi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dorival Caymmi for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Howling Bells
Thanks for your copy edit of the article, it's much better :) Again, I don't know proper grammar but I am just curious about a couple of things. You changed The Killers to the Killers. Is that right? Because the name of the band is The Killers. And in the Influences in musical style section you changed it to features and returning. Shouldn't it be featured and returned? Mattchewbaca (meow) 03:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem :-)
 * If we were just talking about The Killers as an entity, "The" would be capitalized. However, in that context, I understood the phrase to refer to the studio owned by The Killers. In that case, the band's name is used like an adjective (i.e. the "Killers-owned studio"). Here, the "the" isn't really part of the band's name (since you could just as easily say "a Killers-owned studio" or something else with no article at all. As such, I changed it to lowercase. Did I misunderstand something about the intention of the phrase?
 * As long as the album exists, it features the music, right? It didn't only feature it in the past at the time of its release. Compare it to the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is thousands of years old but still features the fifth king of Uruk. Generally, when discussing a work of art (written, visual, or musical), the default is to use the present tense unless the work has been irrecoverably destroyed and indeed can only be spoken of as something gone.
 * Regarding returning, it's an optional construction that I chose for concision. Although the sentence in Howling Bells is longer, the syntactical structure is analogous to that of a simpler sentence like "I sighed, turning away from her." Does that make sense?
 * Armadillopteryxtalk 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, heh, I guess that makes sense.


 * Good luck with your Dorival Caymmi GAN, you've done a good job on the article. I just notice one thing that maybe can improve it. Do you want me to edit it? If you don't like it you can change it back. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd appreciate some input. Armadillopteryxtalk 04:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. I think that is better too. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Howling Bells
Thanks for the copy edit. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) Armadillopteryxtalk 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)