User talk:Chaosdruid/Archive 6

The long-awaited translation is here!
Hi, I thought I'd let you know that I've finished translating the conversation I had with Bizovne's IP sock in Slovak. You can view it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CoolKoon#Translation -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. you might also want to consider adding my talk page to your Style and punctuation "Nazi" section of your userpage ;)

Re Travel Guide tag
Hi,

Yeah, I know.

Check Talk:National Capitol Columns - that was already outed there.

It's also the source I added to the References: National_Capitol_Columns.

Additionally it's in the National_Capitol_Columns section, tagged as:

While I did substantially reword the article, it still contains some bits pretty much word for word from that source, so I left the above tag on the article till someone digs up some more refs.

If you look at some of the flowery stuff I changed or removed, you'll really see why it was tagged for travel guide! --jjron (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Zonouz help
Didn't want to clutter up the GOCE drive talk page any further, but I appreciate your help with that reversion; I'm a newbie (as if you couldn't tell :-)) and still get rattled when stuff like this intrudes on my gnomedom. All the best,--Miniapolis (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May Backlog Drive
Don't mean to be a Pollyanna but noticed that Operation_Day's_Work hasn't really been sufficiently copyedited. In the intro there is "has helped spreading this type of volunteerism" and in the paragraph titled "Denmark" subheading there remains a sentence that ends "students are no longer considered to be truant during this day" when it really should be qualified with "non-participating students are no longer considered to be truant during this day." In addition there are multiple spelling errors in names of countries in the charts that follow.--Aichikawa (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mid-drive newsletter
The mid-drive newsletter is now available for editing. User:Diannaa/Sandbox -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Thank you very much. I appreciate it probably wasn't the easiest article to work through in terms of size but you've been a big help. Harrison49 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

L'Histoire d'une fée, c'est...
Thank you for your help on this article. Much appreciated! Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Progress box
I answered your query from feb. on the talk page, with a fixed version of what was in your sandbox. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

Can you check my first attempt at copy editing?
I made copy edits on this page. Can you check them? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rita Bennett
I thought "Rita also features" was incorrect, and that it should be "Rita was also featured" or "Rita also appears" or something like that. I could be wrong about whether it was grammatically incorrect or not, but either way, it distracted me when I read it, and that's not a good sign. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  05:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  05:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Thanks for looking at the article I edited and doing the demo. The demo really helped me understand copyediting. I copyedited these two articles: Karyenda and Yehudit Tamir. They're short. If you have a chance, could you let me know if it's OK to remove the "needs copyedit" tag? I'll probably redo tilted plane focus tomorrow.

I looked up emphasize, miniaturize and defocussing in my dictionary and it didn't give alternatives. I'll keep a better eye out for that.

I have a few questions about the demo. You left "more simple" and Digital. I would have changed to simpler and digital. Is this a British English thing? Also why single quotes around "bokeh", "miniaturise", and "de-focussing"? I would have thought no quotes or italicize. I couldn't find anything in the MoS about single quotes, except for quotations within quotations. Why did you delete the second reference? Thanks again.Bluebonnet460 (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk stalking here, but if you want to find some synonyms for the words you've mentioned, try to spin them out into phrases - you can remove redundancy somewhat by having "emphasise" become some variation of "lend emphasis to", "give credence to", "call attention to", etc. Sometimes it's better to use a few words instead of one - it can make a short point seem like a fuller sentence and help prose flow better. Sorry to butt in! GRAPPLE   X  04:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Woohoo! I have a stalker lol :¬)
 * No problem, anything that adds to all our learning is better than not saying anything. Plus I had an RL problem yesterday that meant I couldn't get back on until late today so please feel free to join in anytime! Chaosdruid (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I re-edited tilted plane focus and removed the tag. I went mostly by your demo so it should be OK. Thanks again for all your help.Bluebonnet460 (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Sign-Off
Hi Chaosdruid,

Just thought I'd leave you a note here. Thanks for the check on Sign-off. I have left a reply to your comments on the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2011 drive page. Basically the copyediting I did to that article was undone by an anon-IP two days later. I have reverted, but they're likely to be back again and re-revert, so make of it what you will. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Klemens von Metternich
Hey Chaosdruid. Just letting you know that in the coming days there will be significant changes to the Legacy/historiography section, and a couple of extra sentences added to the Exile, return, death section. So no point touching those particular bits before those wholesale changes (I will also rewrite the lead but I see you've already copyedited that). Your copyedit of the existing sections and anything you can do with the revised sections are much appreciated nonetheless. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter available for editing
I have started a wrap-up newsletter for the May drive and it is now available for editing, here. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars
Hi, Chaosdruid. I have done a lot of the barnstars, focusing on people who only won one award. If you could please deliver some of the remainder and I will get SMasters to do some too. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Hi, I have put up a list of incumbents on the GOCE elections page. Please indicate if you will be running for re-election. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Chaosdruid. Thanks for helping with the barnstars :) I hope you had a nice weekend. I just wanted to ask you to remove your !votes from the election page, please. The voting has not yet started. Dont feel bad; I made the same mistake last time. See you later. -- Diannaa (Talk) 14:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics
Hi

When you reviewed the article there were several areas where you thought that OR was prevalent. Is there any chance you could take a quick look and tell me whether or not you think those areas have been addressed? My intention is to put it up for GAN again in the next 4 weeks so would appreciate your input in particular.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll respond on the article talkpage.  SilkTork  *Tea time 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Odour Sensing
The reason i started the article was because i couldnt find any articles on the subject. But seems i've used the wrong search terms. Then perhaps its better to work on the searchability or discoverability of the present articles than create a new one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malithyapa (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense and yes i am a new editor :) thanks a lot for your help. I will input my knowledge of odour sensing into these articles as soon as i find some time. I'm still getting used to wikipedia conventions and formatting. first of all i hope theres nothing wrong with the way im replying - Malithyapa (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pink Floyd revert
Okay I suppose that makes sense. Sorry for any headache. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi
I appreciate your copyediting work, and I commend you for taking the time and effort in an article that is incredibly large, complex, and disorganized. Regarding your latest contribution to the talk page, I want to extend myself to you and let you know that I am accessible and open for discussion. However, I want you to understand,as I am sure you already do, that it is not a productive thing to do to center attention on an editor personally without rationale. In this case, something is upsetting you about the Gaddafi page. Tell me what you disagree with in terms of content. Otherwise, and I know you wouldn't be this type of person, but otherwise, your comments would be bullying.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus for those additions and for the section title was discussed over a couple of days and consensus was found. You have changed the structure and removed the headers without seeking a new consensus. My comments were exactly that. I am certainly not bullying you, though your comments here, warning me about bullying, and removing my talk page post is certainly a form of bullying. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If there was a discussion and consensus was established, you could easily refer me to the consensus built on the section titles. If there was a rationale for why this "consensus", it would be welcome for that to be posted. As it was, I have no idea what type of discussion could be productively built on your talk page post, which was just a personal attack on me. The edits in question were never discussed, let alone referred to, and you and I both know that post came with poor intentions. The talk page policy you linked to clearly says it is acceptable to remove posts that are personal attacks. As before, tell me what you disagree with in terms of content.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go and read the posts on the article talk page, perhaps then you will see them. This was not a personal attack, it was a comment on you going against consensus, and that the article is in a poor state. Your personal feeling are getting the better of you I fear. Calling my comments nonsense, deleting them from the article talk page and telling me what my intentions are is clearly you being arrogant. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you can't even identify your issue with the edits other than your default "no consensus" excuse, I am left with no rationale for your section. your willingness to point to me by name for purposes of wikibullying, without any mention of the edits or the alleged "consensus" you are discussing, is absolutely against the NPA policy. If you have a logical discussion, by all means bring it up for discussion. As it is, you have a "no consensus" defense with no identified issue. Think of it like this : what edits are you referring to? Why? How are they against your consensus? And your suggestion that I go on a search for posts on the article talk page is absolute insanity. You obviously don't have rationale if you are asking me to search for it.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 04:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

moon robotics
hello

lunar solar power, david criswell

the automated growing factory concepts from the 80s (http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/GrowingLunarFactory1981.htm)

robotic village, concept from the 2000 (i have to find the references]

lunar ring from the shimizu dream page, for illustration purposes and for solar power

robonaut for project m

some concepts but maybee fun to present, wath do you think ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

KGK Railway
Hi Chaosdruid, I think I am finished with providing the further details and Biblio needed. Pl go thru it once, correct the grammar and any other mistakes. So that we can start process of putting article on main wikipage. Jethwarp (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Empire State of Mind
Hi, Chaosdruid. I'm an user from the w:es who's currently translating this article to Spanish. Can you please hide all the text copied and pasted from copyrighted sources? I would appreciate it a lot since it will make my translation easier. Please, answer me here or here. Greetings, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick response. Is it the only web site in which copy and paste has been done from? Sorry for my insistence, but I want to make it sure it's not a problem in the whole article, but in that paragraph only. Thank you again beforehand, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again :) My idea was to re-write in Spanish that paragraph to completely avoid the plagiarism, but I'm glad to know this. Greetings, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Fursuit
I saw that, and responded appropriately. I would like to ask, however, that until the discussion is over, that you do not make any edits about the topic of the discussion, and I will do the same. Equivamp(talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cetacean Needed
Read + received. Glad you like. Have a look at the template. :^) —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 05:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Red light camera
Hello, Chaosdruid. Earlier this year I see you had commented on the problems with the Red light camera article on the Red light camera discussion page. I have been working on an alternative draft, which I've shared and explained on that page. In my preparation, I have recognized that I have a conflict of interest with the subject, so I think it would probably not be a good idea for me to be too bold here. Please join in there if you have the time or interest to help. Thank you. --VenturaHighway (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Chaosdruid, thanks again for your help with this article. Overall it looks really amazing, and the vast majority of edits since I posted it are very good. I've just been reading through since the changes were made and noticed that I missed one change you made in the draft stage, at the end of the introduction:


 * "Studies have shown that using these cameras does not necessarily increase safety, in some cases accident rates have increased once they were installed."


 * While I don't dispute that there are studies with these results (and I did include them in my draft) it seems to me that this isn't as neutral as what I had in the introduction before (here's my original version). There isn't a source given here, and I understand that introductions don't always need them, but I'm concerned that there is not one source that puts those two statements together as you have. They are discussed in the article separately, and I think it is misleading, because wide-ranging, multi-country studies have generally shown that (despite yes, some instances of increases in certain types of accident rates) overall the impact is to lower accident rates. If you agree, then I would like to ask if this statement could be removed and the end of the paragraph restored to the previous version from the draft, which I think is more appropriately balanced between the competing views. Please let me know what you think. --VenturaHighway (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * VenturaHighway, watch out, you are drifting in the direction of MPOV and COI problems. You need to be having this discussion on the article's talk page. This what you're doing by having the discussion on a single editor's talk page begins to approach canvassing, which is looked dimly upon (a diplomatic way of saying it's against the rules). Even when our intent is good and pure, we need to be careful to follow these rules and guidelines because it takes only the appearance of an end-run around the consensus-building process to spoil a great deal of hard work and good contribution, including yours. I've adjusted the wording you're looking at for better neutrality. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station
Ok, ummm, from largest to smallest, there is a big one used for grabbing spacecraft and berthing(docking) them to the station, moving them from one port to another and doing the same sort of thing with modules, it's called Canadarm2 it's ends kind of remind me of the sandworms in Dune. both of it's ends come off the station by themselves, so it can walk around the station like an inchworm does, although, only the USOS part mostly. (the station is divided in two, the russian orbital section ROS and the US section )There is another one, same deal, but lighter by half or two thirds or so, it can walk about the russian section without breaking anything, and i think the rest of the station) The russian section has generally smaller, more important modules (the us section goes for size not function, except japans laboratory, which is in the USOS, and the largest and best thought out lab up there) The Japanese Kibo laboratory has it's own dedicated robot arm, which takes experiments that are exposed to space out front of the lab on a porch, and sticks those experiments into a little airlock just for experiments, not for people. There is a big russian lab that will be commanded to join the station next year. It has a medium sized arm that is built by esa i think, the ESA site is a good source. That robot does the same job as the kibo arm, grabbing stuff which is exposed, but just stuck randomly about, no porch, and sticks them in an old fashion cylindrical trashcan shaped airlock which joins to the russian lab. That arm, and the trashcan are up there now, they are attatched to the outside of ummm, dont remember, i think rassvert module. They are just stowed there. Probably going into the assembly of the ISS article would show you as each arm was sent up as payload, and to those pages, and give some links that way.

(all russian craft, both manned and unmanned, are robots that don't need any human intervention. Humans monitor them, and only intervene if something is going wrong) European cargo ships (ATV's) are robotic same way. Japans 'white stork' HTV ones aren't too special, they fly same as rockets automatically as expected but can't dock themselves, they are grabbed by the big arm and berthed. the soon to be retired shuttles aren't at all, they are mostly manually flown, with only a small amount of autopilot on launch anyhow, skip shuttles, they aren't robots, and their robot arms are not station robotics obviously.There is a tiny little guy like a stickman about the size of a 4 year old child, it's just got two arms and no legs or head, really skinny too ,and it gets put on the end of the other big arms to fiddle with smaller items around the place, it's called dextre.

The links you found are payload experiments not part of the station, nasa has a great tendency to be confusing sometimes, I'll find images for you, I have to go through them regularly anyway, and the nasa interface for their image library is insanely complicated. I give up on it, and have a shortcut into their archives. I'll find pics, to help explain things, I have to find pictures for an existing project that is on the drawing board, and it covers the same images basically, so we don't both need to do the same work there.

I'll look for more and better refs for you mainly for the ESA one i can't name off the top of my head, but the canadarm2 page may have some proper refs in it, i'm not sure though, some of the pages the iss page links to are crap, some are good.

Now Robonaut is a big piece of crap, it's an advertising gimmick by some company so they can say 'hey look we make cars and robots for the iss' it's a payload, and doesn't work, like it is hyped as a Gazillion dollar piece of string, meant to go outside when crew are doing EVA's and hold tools for them, but it cannot go outside, it hasn't been equipped with shielding for radiation or electrical discharges (like static, but much worse on the outer surfaces of the station) plus, it would need modifications to move around the station itself. It hasn't been switched on, according to it's official facebook page, where some nasa twit (the nasa site points to this page) some bloke pretends he IS robonaut, and people ask him questions, like, oh, whats it like outside, and he's like gee I'm sure it's great, but maybe oneday when i'm upgraded i'll get the chance to do that, or some such, and I kid you not "I haven't been switched on yet" I mean, OMG ! hello I'm talking to you whilst I'm switched off. anyhow, the crew used the robonaut for a 'prank' on mission control (wasn't funny, is on youtube), and absolutely everyone on the net uses him as the butt of jokes, and really good ones too I must say.

Well, thats what i can think of straight off the top of my head, now i'll find you what i can on the medium sized European one. so there is canadarm2, something 1/2 the size, another one slightly smaller i think, then Kibo's dedicated arm, then dextre.

Strela cranes, you'll need to mention those also, you can point out they are used for the same function as the robot arms, to hold items and crew members, they look just like telescopic aerials on transistor radios. I don't know how much of them is motorized, best to mention them, they need it as they do the same job, and later I'll find out about them by some in depth research in the russian websites. there are 2 strelas i think on pirs, though it could be pirsk? i'm forgetting its name now, they are a pigeon pair of airlock modules but one has the strelas which make it look exactly like the strelas are it's arms. Penyulap  talk 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Robotic arms, unless showing a reasonable degree of autonomy, are not robots. Most robotic arms do not fall into a "Robot" definition unfortunately. Dextre is referred to as both "robot" and "robotic", as shown in this NASA page . There is also this which gives more info. If the arm can operate autonomously then it would be a robot.
 * I assumed you were talking more about the PSAs and . Chaosdruid (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * sorry, it's way past my bedtime, and when I re-read your question, oops!. Kibo one has no name i think, and the ESA arm. So it wouldn't be a robotics section it'd be a robotic arms and cranes section, or, to keep the index tight and simple, just robotic arms ? and the cranes included, but not in the title of the section. See? this is where i need your kind of expertise, I don't know which ships are robots and which are robotic, I'm learning right there. I wasn't clear on the difference between robot or robotic, although I've got the arduino in front of me and enough servos for a hexapod in the corner over there. Penyulap   talk 18:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So how about the progress supply ships, they launch like any rocket does, go into orbit and all, but they spot the ISS form i think it's more than 200kms from memory, then start calculating all the trajectories and vectors and stuff, orienting themselves according to where they are, and close in on the station, then find which docking port they were told to use, and line up with it, and then dock and then harddock, though the guys watch them, they always avoid trying to intervene as it's actually once been unhelpful that way, i think that was what caused the accident on mir, the cargo ship crashed because he turned on his manual override panel, and it just thought WT? and got confused. whitestork sortof lines up, kindof has holdpoints, and does the same sort of thing, but i don't rightly know it's full procedures off by heart. the esa ATV has basically the russian system which the europeans mount onto it. Penyulap   talk 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The psa's if they are designed specifically for the station are a good include, the stargate universe fan who stole the idea got good value for nasa money,. that one is better and probably more useful than robonaut, IF it can go outside the station, otherwise it's more just a toy. If they can send it out the experiment airlocks, thats cool, but inside they have plenty of stuff like that as experiments. If they launch it and it's designed for the ISS and goes outside, then it's in and stays for sure. but if it is only proposed or doesn't go outside then editors will attack it. I won't. I think it should be included and left alone just for the stargate universe appeal alone.  Penyulap   talk 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * reading the article fully, it's another nasa toy that won't be used, it'll be in the way up there, it has no mission. anywhere it can go, a crew member can stick their head, there aren't any confined spaces that can be flown through, and if they suspect gas buildup they'll just rip the cables and close the hatches like always. I see another mini robonaut, I like it, it's cute and SGU, but it'll get ripped on by other editors. I'd go with it if you want to though, because maybe enough other editors will like it for the same reason i do, and protect it, or leave it alone. Penyulap   talk 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is whether or not the robotics would warrant their own section (or subsections), as they all provide different functions, or would be more suited to inclusion in the existing sections (which most are, especially the arms and robot supply vehicles).
 * As it stands the arms have been included but, as you rightly point out, the PSAs and Robonaut2 are not.
 * The PSAs are only able to work in a gaseous environment as they use fans for propulsion. The PSAs are not really mentioned much after 2004 and may have been discontinued, but they are not to be confused with the SPHERES which are an experiment. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I am unsure as to whether or not Dextre is autonomous, though the NASA page does amusingly refer to it as a person ("on his workbench")
 * Lolz. well you can't write for Germans the way you can write for Americans I guess. Umm, cool. so long as they are all covered, it's good. The strela cranes though, are they something you can identify about as prominently as they should be ?. I guess my desire to bring lets call it the manipulators together into a section was to make it easy to read about them in one place, and say how those cranes can actually move about. Inchworm movement and Strelas I'd say, but I'd take my hat off to you for pointing out that they are not robots. I need a slap now and then. Do you make any of your own robots at all btw ? Or play with any cool ones? I should go now, I'm quite tired. Penyulap   talk 19:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a page on NASA robots which is in dire need of some work - there are not even summaries for Dextre and SPHERES.

The individual mentions (in the ISS article) are quite hard to find, but should be covered in the "see also" section I suspect, though a separate section on "Robots and robotics" could easily be added with a very short summary and a lot of links to the individual elements. Perhaps in table form. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Omg this 'which can function as an equivalent to humans' reminds me of my effort on the robonaut page, how i explained how it provided Xpounds of valuable ballast, which decreased the rate of orbital decay, thereby lengthening the time in freefall between reboosts, which is all true. I think it's more accurate to say it's meant to replace a piece of string that usually holds tools for astronauts. however, it doesn't have shielding, can't go outside the iss, can't move about and hasn't ever been turned on. Ideal really. It hasn't killed anyone yet which is very positive. so far. Penyulap   talk 19:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be fixing the robot page unfortunately, I have too much to do, plus existing new projects, plus i need to rest, totally ! Penyulap   talk 19:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can grab that robot page, if it was space robots I'd be in it, as I'm a sucker for underdogs and NEU, and I'll incorporate your ideas into the ISS article later no problems. nite Penyulap   talk 20:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Empire State of Mind II
I've given up the translation, the article has a lot of copy-pasted phrases and information not verified by the sources. I'm afraid it isn't able to be a GA here anymore due to this. Greetings, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

TC help
Hi Chaosdruid, as you might know, I'm currently the person in charge of managing the Triple Crown nomination process. Well, now I have a nomination of my own, and it seems strange to award myself. I'm wondering if you can do me a big favor and award it to me? You can copy the template from here, and just change the name and signature stamp. You don't need to do anything else. I'll do the rest after that. Thanks so much! Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Excellent, thank you! – SMasters (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Index of robotics articles
Per your request, I've narrowed it down. It's incomplete, but a good starting point for additions. The Transhumanist 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs removed
Hi

Can you please explain why you are removing google book references from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of crowdedness. I've pasted them. Now I think that users who are interested in that issue understand facts. If you want, you can paste them again. Takabeg (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest I do not understand what you are trying to say.
 * "Because of crowdedness" - They only appear in the references section and not in the main body of text.
 * "Now I think that users who are interested in that issue understand facts" - if you mean that they understand it and so do not need the refs that is highly against Wikipedia policy of sourcing facts. The urls show the text from the source in context. It is highly irregular to remove them.
 * I suspect that I do not understand your points due to English not being your first language, perhaps you can try and simplify what you are saying to make it more clear. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, English is my fifth language :) You can do as you want. Takabeg (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
I am enjoying the sun (shame that it will be humid and showery Tuesday-Friday, according to Mr. Johnny Weather Forecast lol). Funny enough, your idea of keeping the "moss" as I call it in a separate tab might be a good idea...

Drive-wise now, and I seem to be coping reasonably well, learning lessons first encountered last time; i.e: I'm no longer rushing headlong into the drive (gees, that "headlong" sounds familiar). My method is simple: section by section (sometimes with a two-hour tea break in the middle :P!!) and then a finishing scan of the whole article. As of yet, there have been no major problems, but note use of the word "yet". It's only the third day of the drive, and it ends on the 31st, and there may be a bit of slight destruction between now and then :D!!

Hopefully things are fine with you, and I wish you good luck in the drive!-- The     wikifyer's corner   21:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'l probably tackle them tomorrow. It's 22:30 here and I am beginning to feel as if I slept in a room full of Scotch.-- The     wikifyer's corner   21:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They will be done by tomorrow evening. I am going to Cavan tomorrow. Good night.-- The     wikifyer's corner   21:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, before I went to bed I was watching the Robot Wars Series 4 Semi-Finals. Got to go.

This summer I am going to England, where I was born, and hopefully it won't be wet lol.

I have also been to Enniskillen in Northern Ireland.-- The     wikifyer's corner   09:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced banner
Hi

The unreferenced banner is only for articles or sections that do not have any refs. The section you added it to in the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus had 3 refs in there already. It also says "article". To change it to "section", add the section parameter:
 * which gives:

If you want to ask for more references you can use these banners:
 * Template:Refimprove - asking for more sources
 * Template:Primary_sources - asking for secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary ones
 * Template:Verify_credibility (inline) - questions the validity of a particular source

I have also corrected some of the grammar from your recent edits today :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Çok Merci. I put in that section of the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus, because there is no sources of third party. Takabeg (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ack!
(date added to allow archiving of undated post)

I've never written on a talk page before, forgive me, I have no idea what I'm doing. Also, I think you may have written at me or something, but I'll go ahead and ignore that possibility. Excalibur was given to Arthur by the Lady of The Lake (or however the capitalisation goes), and was not the sword in the stone. So, one more time, they were not the same sword. In the movie it is referred to as "Excalibur". That is the error. Maybe they just stuck Excalibur in a rock, but.. And, you left "literary orthodoxy" in there. That doesn't work, because there was no longer an inaccuracy listed regarding literary orthodoxy. If that's even a remotely correct term.. Anyway, I hope you understand. If you could still edit the article and try and make it sound better, that'd be great. Though I've come to think it looks just fine. Or sounds, rather. User:Hamiltøn 18:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Klemens von Metternich (redux)
Hey Chaosdruid. Just a courtesy note to let you know that I have not been ignoring your talkpage messages to me, but rather pontificating on if and how a split should be made. I could then move forward with a new GAN. This process may take several weeks (mainly because I'm doing a lot of travelling). In the meantime, thanks for your comments on the article, your post at WT:GAN, etc, I do appreciate it. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not going to reject any helping in tidying my sometimes waffly prose :) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 08:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) ✅

GA Mentor
Hi, yes. Let me know when you have completed the first pass of your review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, how is the review of Ditton, Kent going? The nominator seems to think that issues are fixed. Jezhotwells (talk)

Summer Wars
You gave me three things to work on. One and three are done. What do you mean by number 2? And I'm assuming that the "after what?" bit corresponds with "after the film".-- The     wikifyer's corner   17:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'l look on it afterwards. I need dinner and a shower, and we are heading to Navan tomorrow.-- The     wikifyer's corner   18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling me what needs done with your second bit of advice? I still don't have a clue.-- The     wikifyer's corner   18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Vacation
Just to let you know, I will be on vacation from July 17-19. I am going down to Southern Utah to visit Silver Reef and a couple other historic sites. I will also be unavailable most of the day on the 20th, as I will be in Eureka visiting the Tintic Mining Museum. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From a GOCE drive participant
Please don't kill me but I just tallied up my numbers for the May drive. Since I didn't make any of the awards, I am allowed to transfer all my words from that effort into "Rollover Words" for the current effort yes? Or do I wait for you or one of the other drive administrators to do it for me? Sorry for being such an ignoramus.--Aichikawa (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, I think the deadline passed for that one! I did notice there is quite a large gap in your contributions though from mid May to the end of June.


 * I have checked your edits and the two you have added were indeed completed in May, and therefore before the deadline.
 * 01:06 01-06-2011 : 4 articles = 2188 Drive closed, page locked.
 * The drive page is then moved to Final numbers, after which it is copied over to the "Barnstars page", from which the barnstars are awarded. As you can see you had not added No.5 or No.6.
 * Anyway, the reality of the situation is that your total was 7,912.


 * We need to consider the reasons for the omission, please can you answer these questions for me:
 * Did you add your own articles and word count during the drive, or did someone else do it for you?

I added half of the article names and word count during the drive, half after.--Aichikawa (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you not say anything at the time?

I got busy with a bunch of other things and had limited access to the Internet: I actually, amazingly, don't have Internet connection at home (on purpose because at work I have too much access to it), and I was off work. But now I'm b-a-c-k!--Aichikawa (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chaosdruid (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up:)--Aichikawa (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spanish Civil War
Chaosdruid- Thanks for taking the time to go through a newbie's edits. The things like units vs. units', were mistakes I was planning to correct in the morning, as I said in my most recent edit, and I'm really sorry you had to go through the article like you did. Clearly I shouldn't have said the page was done when it wasn't.

I understand that copy editing is not editing, but generally I thought rewriting sections helped the article say what it meant. For example, the introduction's section about new types of warfare was never covered in the article. Neither was press coverage, which was included in the same paragraph. I couldn't see why those topics needed to be part of the introduction, as the article was not about them.

Some of Your Observations


 * My confusion about the numbers of soldiers ("forty thousand foreign nationals fought with the Brigades, though no more than 18,000") stemmed from reading the MOS, which said that "when expressing large approximate quantities, it is preferable to write them spelled out, or partly in figures and part as a spelled‑out named number." I misunderstood that directive.
 * I added "finally" in "When the ships did finally leave," because ships could not leave while supplies were lost, but it's clearly OR and needs to be removed.
 * When I wrote that "their journeys were extremely slow," I suppose I assumed that the hundreds of artillery pieces, tanks, and planes (though they could fly), if transported by boat, would not fit on one boat, and thus more than one boat would undertake a "journey" to move weapons (at the same time or not). There is no way I can know, however.
 * I changed the quote from Hugh Thomas into a non-quote because I didn't think the article was trying to assign importance to Hugh Thomas, but rather what he said.

I've really just begun with copyediting. I'll try honing my skills some more. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qizix (talk • contribs) 07:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)