User talk:Chaosdruid/Archive 2

ready for miszabot (test page please do not delete)

ADHD edits
Hi Some of your edits to the ADHD page may have reduced the quality of the article. For example you have changed the statement that "Amphetamines are addictive" to "may be addictive" Can I ask you to look again and perhaps reverse some of those edits yourself to restore the articles quality thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you that Amphetamines are highly addictive, and this is how I wrote it originally. However, it was a discussion on other article. One doctor argued with me that Methylphenidate only addictive when prescribed in high dosage. He was going to remove warnings about Methylphenidate addiction all together, so this is what we settled to. If you want to change this part of article to stronger addiction warning, I would really appreciate it, because I think little kids can easily overdose the Ritalin, or crash the pill and sniff it (which happens often in schools now days), then enjoy "getting high" on it and later develop tolerance. Innab (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

 * It is ok if you want to restore my old discussion with Laurinavicius about "Is Khazaria Rus Predecessor?" on Kievan Rus' article. However, I see no value in this old discussion, because we already dicided that issue long time go and not it is just taking space on the page. I am sure Laurinavicius also not going to add anything to that discussion, so it better to give this space for new discussions, so the "Kievan Rus'" talk page does not go over wiki limits on size. Innab (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Alex han deletion
Hi. I thought maybe you were asking why I nominated that article for deletion instead of requesting speedy deletion (which is what I should have done).

I looked at the link that you provided and that young musician is a teenager. The Alex Han that's been creating articles claimed he was eleven. I saw that he was reported to WP:AIV and subsequently blocked. They may not have known that he was a young boy, but the edits were a little bit of work to clean up after.

So that's about as much as I know. Thanks and see you around! Dawnseeker2000  19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was good. I'm not much of a fan of horns, but that was fun to watch :) He really needed a big breath of air at the end! Dawnseeker2000   19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Waco Siege (2)
The 50 cal rifles are mentioned right there in the third sentence of the reference for that line. I added also the Texas Ranger report, which states that they found at least two of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi - ADHD again lol
Hi again You have just edited a page and left in a sentence "some ..." I would just like to point out that such sentences are not really in the correct style. You would normally be asked to provide a ref to support that statement, or probably more likely someone will place a tag on it, or at least be asked to explain in further detail. Anyone can say "some say this" or "some say that" but remember we have to back that up with facts on who "some" are :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC) (transcluded by Innab from users own talkpage)
 * I think my edit was much better then original statement: "Many people report excellent results using medical cannabis for treating ADHD and some research supports this treatment." At least now it does not sounds like cannabis is widely-accepted for use with kids ADHD. :-) I really would love to remove that whole sentence together, because I do not think this was a reliable sources on original statement anyway. So if you want to edit or remove it, you are very welcome, because I do not know how to say it better. I think it just needs to be removed. (Innab Innab (talk)

Talkback
Hi878 isn't home.  (Can I take a message?) 14:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC) East of Borschov (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kievan Rus
Hi What is the problem about including the decline of Constantinople as one of the reasons for the decline of the Kievan Rus ? I do not understand why you keep removing and querying it and recently added the citation needed in a lead in the article. for example a quick search gives this:- World Civilizations, Third Edition, by Stearns, Adas, Schwartz, and Gilbert. (end of page) If there are to be any more problems on this matter I really do not want to have to spend hours and hours simply to find references to appease your specific thoughts on the matter as it is already well established that the general decline of those states (including Kyivan Rus) were influenced vy the decline of Constantinople. Bear in mind that one of the main trade routes was through the Dneiper and the Varangiian guard were paid lots of money and gained lots of pwer from Constantinople you can easily see that once it fell those trade routes went and they lost lots of power, influence and cash Chaosdruid (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC) (transcluded by Innab from users own talkpage)


 * Ok, I included your link into the article. However, main reason for Kievan Rus' decline by 99% of historians that I have read, including your link, was the conflict with regional princes, so it should be listed first. This is also what is included in school and universities programs in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. I really would ask you to site the sources when you do the edits in future. Innab (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You would ask me to cite sources ?? lol - can you find one that says "the fall of Constantinople had nothing to do with the decline of the Kievan Rus' economy"
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree that fall of Constantinople played some role in Kievan Rus' decline, but before this sentence was written like it was a main and only reason for the decline. Russians themselves fought with Byzantine multiple times, so it definitely was not the main reason. Russian official school books point conflicts between regional princes as major role in the disintegration of our first state, and hardly even mention Byzantine role. This is why it is important to cite a source to make the article look better, nothing personal :-) Innab (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A gift
ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - you must have gone to quite an effort to get all those together :¬)
 * I would like to take you up on the offer of getting the editing school going so will start cobbling together something later tonight after the Brazil game
 * I am also in the middle of trying to expand the BEF article, a collaboration on Metallurgy of Ukraine to save from AfD and checking some Ukrainian history articles so should be onto that around 23:00 UTC (or earlier I hope)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - that was bad - I have just lost 2 hours of my life looking through those examples, tests and links and only to realise there are many more hours to go !! Ah well, off to watch Brazil get a pasting from N. Korea :¬)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit of Omerta
No problem at all in replacing the copy edit template on Omertà (novel) as I removed it prematurely during an aborted attempt to edit it.--Supertouch (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Dad's Army
Hi, it was mainly that the fact itself is quite trivial, and also unreferenced (I realise most of the article is also unreferenced, but it's my intention to rectify that at some point soon). I remember there used to be a whole section discussing what all the actors did in the war, but I'm not sure it's really needed. Also, I have to admit I didn't like the tone of "a strange twist of fact versus fiction" and the spelling of "Le Meusier". Sorry to bring all these criticisms up, but you did ask... Bob talk 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus references
Well, I do know how to make inline references, but the books cited contain general information about the prehistory of Cyprus, so IMO it did make sense to put these references at the end of the article. regards, Dmitri Lytov (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Regarding Philia culture, can you please add some more details about Goldman (1956), like a full title of the book? That'd be very helpful. De728631 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, keep up the great work. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Sich Riflemen
OK. But have you actually read this paragraph? In order to get Ukrainian organisations legalized Kyryl Trylovsky designed a trick — translated the statutes of the already legal Polish paramilitary organisations and presented them to the Austrian authorities.[clarification needed] That way the Sich society was finally legal in Galicia and on March 18, 1913 the first Sich Riflemen company was set up in Lviv. Now, are you stating that this does not sound as just some sort of opinion without any particular scientific nor other type of support? These couple of sentences imply on the dubious decision of the Austrian authorities and ridicule them. I do not see how these sentences fit with the article. That is way of a high claim to write without any kind of support. Was there an investigation taken that confirm the copyrights breech? I doubt that. Whoever wrote that did not even provide a copy of the statute for the Polish organization that he mentioned to prove his point. So, why does that even have to be in the article for the other purpose than simply to discredit? Please, explain. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I guess the more appropriate tag could have been added. Thanks. The paragraph just sounds like some unreasonable sentence. When I read it sounded to me like those damn Ukrainians were able to outwit everybody in the whole Christian world. And we, poor Polishmen, are the biggest victims of those gangsters. Now, is that not ridiculous? Maybe some trick was indeed involved, however the way the paragraph is put, it is just way too simple. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grand/grands prix
Hi Chaosdruid. Because "Grand Prix" is a French term, we use the French form of the plural, which is "Grands Prix" (in French they pluralise the adjective as well as the noun, e.g. "one black cat" is "un chat noir", "two black cats" is "deux chats noirs"). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy
Yes, as noted by my response on the talk page. Ω pho  is  00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I understand your viewpoint. That is very reasonable. I will start my collaboration in other non commercial topics. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgmcorp (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion 2
Hey, Thanks for the guidance. Especially for the individual projects and suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.164.215 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

F1 feedback
thankyou I have made those changes and really value your feedback. i can't beleive i had'nt had ago at creating content ages ago this is awesome. i hope I have posted this right because this is all new to me

all the best, dman Dman F1 (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rick Springfield
Thanks for your intervention. I hope I didn't come across as someone who was throwing her weight around. I was actually doing my best not to give in to that temptation! Deb (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

History of Norfolk
Hi Chaosdruid and thanks for your message and your changes, which I like. I am happy that someone else is prepared to help out, there are lots of decent sources to use and I will in time get round to using some more of them. The article is so unfinished that I think it needs more than me to get it sorted. I'll take your advice on using my sandbox to prepare chunks of the article, and I'm happy to pass chunks onto you in the way you suggest. I may not get time to work on the article too frequently though. On the other hand, now England are out of the World Cup... Amitchell125 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See User:Amitchell125 for embyonic Roman Norfolk section (only one book used, until later this week!) Amitchell125 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of edits
I reverted your edit because it had obvious errors in it. If it were a difference of opinion I would have asked about it. The Spirit's error and naming the refs inappropriately ('http'?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedBanana (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Original post on bananas page which the above is a reply to)

Reversion of edits
Hi

It may be that you do not understand why the changes were made, it is entirely another matter for you to simply revert them. Next time it may be more polite to simply ask why on an editors talk page — editors are more than happy to explain their reasons. It is not usually a good thing to reintroduce incorrect material or replace things which were removed as a matter of policy and style (WP:MOS).

First of all the edit introduced in the Crater section was indeed a mistake. This was due to an AWB "correction" which I had not spotted.

The edits were made because of two reasons.
 * The MoS states that there should not be more than one internal link per article. There were 4 links to "cleaning events" and so the number was reduced.
 * The references were repeats of previous refs and so AWB corrects this by giving the second, third and fourth etc. a name as per MoS.
 * The first becomes  and the second etc. are made into

I have undone your reversions and corrected the "Spirit's" bad edit

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Opportunity rover
(Why did you delete my message?) I didn't understand that refs had to be merged by policy, However I did understand that you obviously need to give proper, descriptive names to refs for the benefit of other editors so they can tell them apart. No one would have any idea what 'http' was without going all the way back to the source. I reverted you because of those 2 issues and because the only other change was trivial. I don't know why you are so offended and defensive. When I make errors I can happy to have them fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedBanana (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Above post is in reply to this, my second message)
 * That is not an innapropriate naming - they could have been called XYZ or bernietherabbit it makes no difference - it is just a ref name. The only thing you needed to do was to change the sentence with the incorrect "spirit's" to "spirit is". It is strange that you are now latching on to the name of the refs when in fact your first concern was that you did not understand why they were changed. I hope now you can see that I was indeed correct apart from the one mistake. Chaosdruid (talk)

Delete
Its your sort of passive aggressive, overbearing attitude that is causing people to leave Wikipedia. Sneering superiorly that I failed to sign my post for the second time. Signing gets done automatically and even if it doesn't who cares - not me - its a talk page. I am a normal user who is trying to help wikipedia because I love it, I dont have endless time to read all the policies but I pitch in whenever I see mistakes or an oppotunity to contribute and I make a difference, a small difference but a difference none the less.

Dont worry - I wont have the audacity to dare challenge your superior knowledge and opinions again. Don't reply to me I will not read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedBanana (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(above text is in response to this message)
 * You are wrong in your assertion that the name of the ref matters when AWB corrects refs as AWB does it automatically. It does not appear anywhere apart from in the ref which is hidden until another editor edits it. The refs were incomplete - lacking correct formatting, dates, publisher etc. and the purpose of AWB is to remove unecessary material and it was because of those incorect formats that AWB named it as it did. It is up to the interested editors such as yourself to follow up and correct the refs, add detail and give them any descriptive names - as you said "I did understand that you obviously need to give proper, descriptive names to refs for the benefit of other editors so they can tell them apart" You have now done that which is great :¬)
 * Do not turn this into something it is not. I informed you of procedure so that you would understand why editors might do those changes that you originally reverted. The fact that you said "I didn't understand that refs had to be merged by policy" shows me that I have indeed succeeded in my aim - to help clarify why, encourage you to understand, and advise you on the poilcy behind those changes I made.
 * It is up to me to delete any posts whcih I decide do not fit on my talk pages, as it is to delete any on yours. I deleted your post as it contained information which was incorrect where you asserted "mistakes" and "inappropriate naming" which is not correct - there was one mistake and the refs were named by AWB, not me. You are now accusing me of being offended and defensive and mention "errors". That is also incorrect and so I will probably delete that too - it is not up to you to decide what my state of mind is, nor how I am feeling ?.
 * If I was offended or being defensive I would not have followed this course of trying to educate you on the reasons and policy and I am being reasonable especialy as, in the posts on my page, you have moved the goalposts from "why they were changed" to "naming". I have already admitted that a mistake was made (see first post) and as no further mistakes were made I am not likely to admit to any. My intent was only to explain in answer to your edit summary and to try to help you further understand policy via MoS. Could you also ensure you sign posts on talk pages as that is the second post you have not signed.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(My reply to "Its your sort of passive...")
 * You may find it best to learn and address at least a small part of policy as it is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. There is a reason that those welcome messages have links directing you to policy, it is so that you can go and read them and learn how things are done. Do not shoot the messenger because you chose not to read or learn any policy, do not personally attack me just because you thought you were right when you were not. Sneering ? I hardly think you know the meaning of the word but, after this little personal attack, I will reinstate the previous messages and archive them so that others may see the truth - I have never sneered at anyone and I certainly will not take your bait.
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground yet you seem to make it so. Your reversions of my edits was incorrect, as I showed you, once shown you moved the goalposts, you resorted to baiting and veiled personal attacks, accusatory language and refused to drop the stick and walk away.
 * People are leaving because I am passive aggressive and overbearing? - I think you have not realised your own behaviour is exactly that which you accuse me of. Ah well this one is not getting deleted it is getting saved for posterity in my archive so I can remind myself of why people like yourself try and turn things around to match their own versions of events once someone corrects them.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Football articles
I will try, but I do not have that much time. The problem is also the amateur tournaments do not get disclosed so much and any information on them is really scarce. About the UEFA U-19, I probably will not even try to look as I am working to polish of the archives of the First and the Second league of the Ukrainian football. Those are in a big mess and also need so editing. I will review the mentioned amateur competitions in some near future. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I do know about that title, but I will continue to improve the historical competition in Ukraine. I propose not to delete the whole articles as they provide some historical background for more successful clubs, however as a consensus the red-links to some of the football organization can be replaced by a plain text until more information will be available and added appropriately. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. May be there will be found more participants who would join the cause. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no. I appreciate that you addressed the matter to me first. And yes, the football edition activity in regards to Ukrainian football from the regular editors has slowed down substantially. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Definition of terms
On the contrary, I think now is the perfect time to start improving those articles! You've made a fantastic start in my opinion - the tactical victory article has certainly expanded and I think it looks very promising. I certainly can't see any flaws, although I admit that whilst I do know a bit about this stuff, I don't have many sources that can help. I'd certainly recommend asking EyeSerene to have a look as well, he's quite up on this stuff, and I think asking on the Milhist page can only help further. Certianly, I don't think anyone will complain : )

Your input on the recent discussion has been very helpful and I thank you for that. You're tolerance certainly does you credit as well! I'm impossibly busy finishing a project at the moment, so I haven't got around to replying to the latest developments, or the Henge deletion discussion, but I'll try and manage it tomorrow! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied
on my talkpage. EyeSerene talk 11:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Choirokoitia
Hi,

I hope you will find the current version satisfactory? If not please feel free to voice your concerns, thanks Seric2 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies about Vellore
Sorry about that. Was in the middle of copyediting the article just before you tagged it. Apparently, I hit the save button on my changes and *then* I saw the GOCE banner. :( Anyways, feel free to revert any of my changes if you don't like them and I'm going keep my hands off until you're done.    Alvin Seville (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! or Diannaa  TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! -- Diannaa TALK 01:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil
Thank very much you, Chaos, you helped a lot! The was some quotations were written were on purpose. There is another editor called Astynax who is helping me removing them and changing them to simple sentences. The article itself is pretty big and has a lot of info (and for what I saw, the history section will need to be moved to its proper article) but I believe everything will be fine. Once again, thank you! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I've copied the conversation from my talk to Talk:Empire of Brazil and posted my response there. &bull; Astynax talk 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I notice you're removing a lot of commas from the article, I'm not entirely sure some of that is appropriate sentence structure, but you're not just removing them to remove them right? Gage (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry to butt in, but I noticed you removing commas (among other changes) on a page on my watchlist, while marking your changes as "copyediting". Looking at some of your other edits, this does seem to be something of a habit. That's fine, my view is that commas are often over-used, but sometimes it's simply a question of style and preference as much as it is of right or wrong, and on the occasions where commas definitely should be used - eg to set off nonrestrictive clauses such as "my wife, who is brilliant" - you seem to be taking them out there too. Also, I don't mean to be picky but on occasion your copyediting is introducing typos and changing words so they're completely wrong, which kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise ..  N-HH   talk / edits  15:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the propensity to take out commas as there are many places where they are unecesary. It is a matter of whether or not the sentence needs separating or infact does not. In your example the comma is not really necessary is it ? "my wife who is brilliant". For example if the whole sentence was "I mentioned the days events to my wife, who is brilliant" would be fine whereas "I asked for a second opinion on the problem and asked my wife who is brilliant." would surely not need it?
 * The typos and spaces were due to a couple of problems with the editor and my bluetooth keyboard. The first was due to the batteries, I think, as letters would come out in a completely dyslexic style: such as "Heoll" or "beettr" and I may have missed some corrections before saving. As for the problems with spacing it appears to be a combination of keyboard and editor - it would put the next character or space in the wrong part of the text- where I last edited instead of where I clicked the cursor due to a second or so time delay. It also means that if add a word and a space and then click further in the text and hit backspace or delete it deletes the space between two words I last edited instead of the target where I have just cliked.
 * I think that the new batteries have cured some of that but it is probable that there will be some corrections that I have missed.Chaosdruid (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, like I said, I didn't mean to be picky - everyone dumps in typos from time to time, whether due to simple human error or technical glitch. I just thought it was odd that on a couple of occasions your edits had actually changed existing accurate text. Anyway, no problem of course. As for commas, the ones in nonrestrictive clauses - where you are simply further describing something that's already been defined, as in the example we're looking at - are pretty much obligatory in standard punctuation as far as I'm aware. In other cases there is more flexibility. As noted, I'm also in favour of fewer commas rather than more, but at the same time they do often perform a useful function in terms of managing the flow of a sentence and I'm not sure of the value of removing quite so many of the more borderline ones. In many cases that's more a question of style and individual editor preference rather than one of copyediting to ensure the punctuation is "correct" as such. Anyway, I'm not too much of a grammar or punctuation Nazi. If you want to converse with some, or get another opinion on the use of commas, you could always drop a note at the MoS talk page. They might disagree with me, who knows ..  N-HH   talk / edits  08:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for loath and loathed - did she feel a strong digust or was she merely unwilling ? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I read that sentence as meaning unwilling, hence why I restored it. Either way, "is loathed to" makes no sense, so that was surely wrong. If the text was intending to suggest she felt strong disgust, it would have to be quite severely rewritten.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I really should keep my mouth shut as I know nothing about the article in question but I noticed this dialog and thought you might be interested in the following. Some time ago I came across a concept of "breath groups" where you take a breath between groups of words. These often correspond to commas, even if grammatically the comma should not be there. That is why so many people put commas in the wrong places. Also speech is not asynchronous. It is strobed. There is a rhythm to speech like in poetry and song. Some words are quavers, some are broken into semi-quavers (beats and half beats). Often a breath group is broken by a pause of two beats, hence the comma. When I worked with speech synthesis I discovered you can really screw things up just by putting a syllable off-beat. Just my 2 cents. Robotics1 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi chaosdruid, forgive if this is not proper place. I left and answer for you in industrial robot talk but I don't know how to flag it so you know it's there. Is there anything I should do about that, or do you see it anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotics1 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re henges
Good old Josh, nice to know he's still leading the way on this stuff! Nice going getting in touch with EH, it appears that they were lucky enough to get things right by reaching the same conclusions we did based on reliable sources! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, "of some description" is probably the best description. Had I known about COI when I started on wiki, I might have declared an interest in all the Stonehenge articles I tested my editing prowess on (not that I did anything that would have represented a conflict thank goodness). Are you a druid of some description then, or is that a cover? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually its Pollard who uses minihenge in the shire guide Neolithic Britain, so we're fairly safe using it. Lets hope EH can keep up! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "and I have Stonehenge on my desktops if that qualifies". Certainly beats me. Don't worry, you'd certainly pass as a better archaeologist than many of the ones I've met! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

History of Norfolk cats
Venta Icenorum already exists as an article within "Category:Archaeological sites in Norfolk", a subcategory of "Category:History of Norfolk" (and also "Category:Archaeology of Norfolk"). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary at Dnipropetrovsk
That edit summary was in Ukrainian. You can tell the difference when you see the letters: І, і, Ї, or ї. These are Ukrainian letters and not used in Russian. --Taivo (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lifeboat (rescue)
I'm sorry to say it, but I think it's going to be a long road to GA-class. That said, I think I can make some suggestions.

Criteria B1 is about inline citations. For the ships wikiproject, the rule of thumb is at the very least one citation per subsection and anything that is likely to be challenged. In particular, the reviewer has to make a judgment call when there are citation needed tags.

B2, that the article "reasonably covers the topic", is much harder the way this article is organized. Breaking out particular countries into sections calls attention to missing countries. A reader will automatically think "What about France?" or "What about Japan?" I've gotten stuck in this situation before and it's not easy to move past. The only way I've made progress in these situations is smushing everything into one section and speaking more generally about the topic, using particular countries as examples.

There are other coverage questions that come to mind. How are they built? What special machinery do they have? Who builds them? How are they crewed? How are they operated in rescue missions? Are there some notable rescues you can discuss? Are there some sinkings you can mention? I see that you've addressed some of these questions in subsections of history, but their answers don't pop out at the reader like they would in a ==Rescue operations== section. B-class isn't as stringent as GA in terms of coverage, but thinking about questions like this might help you flesh the article out.

Another tip: when you have the article structured to your liking, take a look at WP:LEDE. The lead section should summarize each of the sections. A nice, well-rounded lead makes a good initial impression on reviewers.

In my experience, the more general an article is, the more difficult it is to move up the ladder. You could probably get 47-foot Motor Lifeboat, for example, to FA-status more quickly than getting this article to GA. That said, I've gotten two articles this general to GA-class: Oil tanker and Bulk carrier. For a (more specific, but perhaps helpful) FA, you might take a look at Yamato class battleship. Maybe looking at these kinds of articles would give you some ideas.

When you're ready to have someone take a look at it, you can leave me a note (there may be a note on top of my talk page saying I'm away for a long while) or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment. Also, WT:SHIPS is another good place to go for advice. Best of luck. H aus Talk 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: add scripts, AWB and comments
Thanks for the information about the dashes script! It looks to be fairly straightforward and a time saver. AWB will have to wait until I have a block of time to look it over in detail. &bull; Astynax talk 21:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB + FIRST Robotics
No problem - frankly, I think they should all be unlinked; nobody's going to use the FIRST Robotics article to learn what "Mexico" means. But maybe I have come down with excessive delink-ification-itis. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stiff upper lip
As a druid you might not have one, but see here less than 22% spent improving articles. Most of those edits would tax the patience of a saint. I think he/she enjoys winding people up. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Industrial Robots clean up, replaced: doesn't → does not,
That para was not mine. That is about the worst para in the whole article. I don't know who added it but it badly needs revision. Any thoughts about the whole article? David Robotics1 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversion controls
Hi Chaosdruid; — Reversions Done — my mistake as only looked at "compare revision view" from my watchlist link and not entire context. Sorry ! --- Look2See1  t a l k →  02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * re: Lighting control system

Talkback

 * Another. -- G W … 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And another. -- G W … 15:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One more message, and:

Blablaaa RfC/U
Some editors are currently developing an RfC/U in draft form at User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/RFC draft. Because you've been involved in trying to resolve the current dispute with Blablaaa, would you be interested in certifying the RfC? If not, no problem, although I'd be grateful if you could still take a quick look over the "Statement of the dispute" section and let me know about (or correct yourself) any factual inaccuracies. Thanks very much, EyeSerene talk 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, RL is far more important and I hope everything goes okay for you. It may be a while before the RfC goes live, but I think we have enough certifiers anyway. All the best, EyeSerene talk 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, although I'm on my way out in a sec, so nothing more from me until tomorrow. I just read the page and not the diffs, but it seems ok. It is a touch long (but I'm in no position to say that really looking at mine though), but you did interact a heck of a lot more. I don't think it will cause trouble or anything - its important to be upfront and air all views in these sorts of things (well.. I say that, but this  is my first foray into the world of RFC as too!).


 * Well, I will say one thing. Just be honest. Its too easy to head down the road of 'the end justifies the mean' sometimes, but that isn't good. I honestly don't mean anything by this, its just cos you said your diffs may be off a bit and I haven't investigated them.


 * Good luck, Ranger Steve (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Did you see the new henge on the news?


 * Ah, gotcha. Apologies - I didn't want to seem as if I was suggesting you might have been less than honest, I just didn't have time to investigate all of the draft. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gatchaman (OVA)
Apologies. I'm not sure how the tag reappeared. I found the article in the May 2008 copyedit backlog, copied its entire contents out of an edit window and into WordPad, made my changes, copied it back, and saved it. I suppose it's possible that I copied the contents shortly before you removed the tag, but I didn't see an edit conflict. At any rate, sorry about that. --Moralis (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of Cathedrals of England
I'm just leaving a message because I reverted your edits, and I thought I ought to let you know the reason. The Section heading to that section is Famous features of the cathedrals (ie architectural features). And it is about that, precisely. It doesn't discuss the history, the fires, the demolitions, restorations or anything except the most famous features. The history of Norwich Cathedral is accessible on the page about that particular cathedral. Regardless of how factual information might be, or how well referenced it is, it needs to fit the particular article, and the particular section, and even the particular paragraph. That isn't the right place for that history.

With regards to the pictures, Norwich was already represented once in that section. If you go back to the page, you will see that all the pctures are arranged alternately right and left, and that they are all verticals scaled at "upright" size. When adding pics to an article, you have to check to see of a formula is in place (eg alternate placement) and follow through. Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your pleasant message. I thought I might have been rather brusque. It is always a bit problematic when people add solid facts to an article, but it's the wrong article. I'm rather protective of those articles that are already very long, and are carefully structured. What a beautiful building Norwich is! It is hard to say why that complex vault sits so agreeably on the Norman arcade, but it does. It's a design of real genius. I've just thought of a good way to incorporate that photo in the article I'm currently working on, which is Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches. Amandajm (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ABB Group: "Corporate and Other" section
Hi Chaosdruid, you recently added a "Corporate and Other" section to the ABB Group article under "Organizational structure", on 3 July 2010. ABB does not have a specific Corporate and Other division. ABB's five businesses - Power Products, Power Systems, Discrete Automation & Motion, Low Voltage Products and Process Automation - are listed in the article and on ABB's website under ABB's businesses: http://www.abb.com/cawp/abbzh252/a92797a76354298bc1256aea00487bdb.aspx All large corporations have corporate departments such as corporate communications, corporate strategy, M&A, etc. I propose removing the "Corporate and Other" section from the "Organizational structure" section and adding a sentence about this as an introduction under Corporate Affairs without the "Corporate and Other" heading. What do you think? Hogantanya 13:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogantanya (talk • contribs)


 * Hi - I did reply on your talk page - maybe you missed it ? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

time to drop
lets drop the stick. both. in my opinion serious conversation is not possible. the RFC gets messed i think.Blablaaa (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Then stop with the accusations of OR. I have tried and tried to help you but everytime I give you aid in understanding english you choose to insult me. This is the last time I will accept behaviour like this blaaa. A bridgehead is simply what it says - capturing one end of the bridge is a bridgehead. Being able to cross the bridge is another matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you really think having one side of a "bridge" is called a bridgehead? -.- you should read bridgehead . But i know u simply dont have the balls to say "yes blabla you are correct i was confused with bridgehead" Blablaaa (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Norfolk Coast
Thanks for the advice, but... ~ lol ~ I've just copied the first line from its own article. I was searching for an album by The Stranglers and I found that page (^___^). If you know more about this topic (and when you have time, of course), please, rewrite the introductory line on both articles. Thanks in advance! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Rather than copy and paste it here, I thought I'd just let you know that I've posted a comment at EyeSerene's talk-page that mentions your name... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Planning to cycle Market Garden in case you didn't see it here. Biggest problem will be convincing my mate to visit all of the museums! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, you want me to knock my best friend ('her' by the way) unconscious every time we get near a museum? Interesting tactic... Still, worked for Murdoch! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I risk the same - but I blame the alcohol! Nice pics though. Nite! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatchaman
I corrected the date I must of pressed zero instead of 9 thanks for pointing it out. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding Blablaaa
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Virtual reality
By all means, I hope you weren't thinking I had rushed through it, because I spent a good four hours on it. I'll go check what you were proposing, but I should note that I did have to do many things to the article. Much of the "Mass media" section was merely listing several books on pieces of fiction with no significance, and there was a section on "Therapeutic methods" which was completely at the wrong side of the page. Most of it was unreferenced as well. I also believe I deleted an entire section, though I checked my diff and I really can't find which it was... I could be thinking of another article.

I don't know if you were personally affiliated with the article, but it was quite hard to read through and I fixed most of the errors I could find. It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm experienced with the subject, it has to do with knowing whether something is properly sourced or not, and whether the sentence made proper sense. Again, feel free to point out any errors relating to the article (the book error is probably my fault, terribly sorry about that), and I'd be glad to help rectify it, but just keep in mind that some of it was just very hard to read. Regards. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, re-checked everything, and apart from a few errors and mishaps, I see nothing else. Could you also tell be where the "can be done very realistically" was? Again, this was a case where the wording was very unclear... I can't really explain it other than "it's wordy". I could change it to reflect what it was supposed to mean, but I need to know where it is. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)