User talk:Corinne/Archive 13

Natural landscape
Corinne while editing Landscapes I checked Natural landscapes and got involved in editing it. Would you be willing to look at the following, which is part of the lede?
 * Author Rachel Carson describes a natural landscape as a view or what is actually seen: "For here the natural landscape is eloquent of the interplay of forces that have created it. It is spread before us like the pages of an open book" (Silent Spring, 1962).

To me the Carson reference is unclear and I asked editor Rstafursky for clarification. I don't know if the problem has to do with difference between British and American English? As Rstafursky hasn't responded I plan to delete this sentence, but this may well result in conflict, so I'd like another opinion. I see that you are interested in both geography and biology. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * R Well, first, thank you for asking. You've got your work cut out for you with this article. I see several misplaced commas in the first few paragraphs. Regarding your question, it is not clear to me whether the issue of comprehensibility you have is with the Rachel Carson quote or with what immediately precedes it, or both. Have you checked to be sure the quote was copied from Silent Spring correctly? I agree that the prose is a little unusual, especially, "the natural landscape is eloquent of...". I think that just means, "the natural landscape eloquently expresses (or conveys)...." Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the quote. Is there anything in particular that bothers you? Of course the other question is whether the quote helps to illustrate or support something said in the article. The words that immediately precede the quote, "Author Rachel Carson describes a natural landscape as a view or what is actually seen," are presumably a paraphrase (if they are a direct quote, I'm sure you'll agree they need to be in quotation marks). If this is the part that makes you pause, perhaps:

Author Rachel Carson describes a natural landscape as


 * a view, or what is actually seen. (adding a comma after "view")


 * a view, or that which is actually seen.


 * a view, or something that is actually seen.

Since I haven't gotten that deeply into the article, of course I would not object to your removing the entire sentence. I'll leave that up to you.

I have other concerns, though, with the lede:

1) This sentence does not make sense to me:


 * A natural landscape may contain either the living or nonliving or both.

What's "the living or nonliving"? The previous sentence mentioned "living or nonliving elements". That's slightly more comprehensible. I see no reason to repeat the two words. Also, I don't think there is a spot on the earth that does not contain living and nonliving elements. It has been shown that even the harshest, most barren environments contain life (microorganisms, slow-growing plants, tiny creatures, etc.). So, to me, this sentence makes no sense at all. Even after reading the attached note, it makes no more sense than it did before I read the note.

2) This sentences makes little sense:


 * The natural landscape is a landscape under the current control of natural forces and free of the control of people for an extended period of time.

Unless a section of land is completely protected from wind, rain and sun, it is subject to (I prefer that phrase to "under the control of") natural forces, and even if human beings have been farming it, damming a river, building on it, etc., it is still subject to natural forces, so the word "current" is unnecessary (and I think the whole first part of the sentence is unnecessary because land is always subject to natural forces).

I think a lot of this article is gobbledegook. The part that makes the most sense and is the most interesting is the change in human beings' perceptions of, and relationship to, the natural environment over time. Later today, I will read the article all the way through. Let me know if you have any more questions. CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, I wish that I'd had the courage to use the word gobbledegook! I've been trying too hard to understand Rstafursky's point of view. His statement (in Talk) that "wilderness is not a view" and "Wilderness is also misleading in the fact that it causes one to dream of wild things ... vicious things" are bewildering. I appreciate your thorough comments – including those relating to nature.

With regard to the Carson passage, my difficulty with the preamble to the quotation "Carson describes a natural landscape as a view or what is actually seen", and in particular I don't understand what view means here, especially as Rstafursky emphatically says on the Talk page that a wilderness isn't a view. The Carson passage doesn't help clarify this. But it is probably best just to delete rather than attempt to guess what Rstafursky actually means.

Don't waste too much time on this as it will only give you a sore head (see my attempts to sort things out on the Talk page). I just needed another view, in case I had totally misunderstood a valid, if strange view, of nature {my fields are literature and hiking). Many thanks.Rwood128 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * R I just finished reading the talk page at Talk:Natural landscape. It practically gave me a headache. It kind of goes in circles. A few things struck me. First, I had never even heard the phrase "natural landscape" before I read it on WP. When I was growing up, there was "the landscape" and then "the urban landscape" (and then maybe also "the suburban landscape"). To me, "landscape" was always natural, and the term "urban landscape" came into existence to distinguish what a city looks like from what we saw far from the city, and the phrase "natural landscape" is kind of like saying "an educational school" or "an industrial factory". But academics are always inventing new words and phrases, and I guess since modern geographers felt a need to invent this term, then we've got to deal with it. I think part of the reason we're having trouble pinning down what a natural landscape (or any landscape) is, is that the word "landscape" is not a very precise term. It seems to mean different things to different people and in different times and places. I think to say that if one finds one human artifact in a place it can longer be called a wilderness is ridiculous. You said there was evidence of Native Americans' use of fire to modify the forests and plains to their own purposes. When I read that, I thought of something that was not mentioned, and that is that Native Americans not only used fire in those forests, they lived in those forests and on those plains. Some of those forests and plains can only be called a wilderness if they are relatively untouched by human beings. We can never say that they are wholly untouched by human beings. And even the term "cultural landscape" is, to me, kind of ridiculous. Wherever human beings have lived, even if in small numbers, they left their mark, even if we haven't found it yet. So how do you draw the line between a cultural landscape and a non-cultural landscape? Impossible. To me, the phrase "urban landscape" as opposed to rural or suburban landscape, and then wilderness, make much more sense than "natural landscape" and "cultural landscape". If we want to use those terms, I think we have to demand that a professional geographer define them, and define them so that the definitions make sense to the average person, not just to other geographers. Perhaps the definition as used by geographers could be the organizing principle of the article. Also, if the distinction between "natural landscape" and "wilderness" isn't made clearly, there is no point in having a separate article. CorinneSD (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, the term was new to me too, and it's good to hear some sensible comments on this topic. I have been using the geographers' definition as my focus, though at the same in my edits indicated that the term natural landscape had an earlier history in landscape painting and gardening. I certainly agree that the distinction between wilderness and natural landscape badly needs clarifying. Rstafursky clearly sees them as totally different but is clearly unable to clearly articulate the difference. I may email my neighbour who is a geographer. Rwood128 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have proposed a revised lede on Talk:Natural landscape. Your comments have been a great help in clarifying things. Rwood128 (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Coebergher Ecce Homo
 I was looking at the pictures you just added to your user page at User talk:Hafspajen. Do you know what the painting by Coebergher called Ecce Homo is about? Also, I'm just curious: why do you give headings like "PPPPPPP" to sections on your user page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sminty. Why not? I guess some kind of Pictures, pictures, pictures... but I don't always do things with a reason... sometimes is just fun to make heather that doesn't mean a thing. Just to be abstract, a la dadaism a bit. Free association, fantasy. Ecce homo - is a phrase uttered by Pontius Pilate at the trial of Christ. Do you want him to be released - I think he asked, or shall I release Barabbas... and people shouted Crucify him...Hafspajen (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hafs, why "Hello, Sminty"? I'm not Sminty. Does "Ecce homo" mean "This man" or "That man"? - CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are Corinne, - but Sminty will arrive soon. Hopefully. It is This is the man. --Hafspajen (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And now is my turn to ask - why do you put SD after Corinne? Hafspajen (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Initials. If I had known about all the creative user names I've seen, I would have made one up. Didn't know anything then, and now I think it's too late to change it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ' OK, so it is not Sverigedemokraterna. Or similar ... smiley. Hafspajen (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG, no. I hope no one thinks that. I hardly know anything about Sweden and don't know a word of Swedish. CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, was only teasing you ....I know that it is unrelated.  Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hrr.
Hafspajen (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate this. Hafspajen (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by this move by Bladesmulti. JJ has been so helpful to Bladesmulti and many other editors. I don't know enough about the issues to voice an opinion, and, other than the general good opinion I have of JJ, I haven't had much interaction with him regarding editing articles, so I can't really say much. I think it will work itself out. That's a nice painting you posted here. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. I tried to translate the caption with Google translate, but nothing appeared. What does it mean?


 * Der Blumenfreund -- Is that "the friend of the flowers"?


 * is growing nässlor -- Is growing what?


 * Maybe this is a good picture of Sminthopsis84. - CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A perfect likeness,, especially the handkerchief in the back pocket. I did grow nässlor for a while, two years. After it is dug out it grows back from any tiny roots left behind. In the second year I dug a bigger hole to remove the plant and it didn't come back. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all it is not a copyright issue, Bladesmulti is wrong there. Second, taking someone to ARBCom, when not even discussing the issue properly with the guy, that is utterly bad style. Bladesmulti is doing something here that gives a very weird impression of him as a person, considering how much help he got from Joshua ans so.  Hafspajen (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 *  What does the caption mean? - CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It means growl. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you misunderstood my question, "What does the caption mean?" You thought I meant the section heading (Hrr). I meant the actual caption under the painting. I had already figured out that "Hrr" was a growl, expressing your feeling about what Blades did. I'm not that thick (slow). ;) - CorinneSD (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

- Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean nässlor? Why "growl"? Who, or what, is growling? And what does "Der Blumenfreund" mean? The friend of the flowers? Is that "the gardener" in German? Regarding Blades, I stopped giving him lessons in writing (based on errors he had made) because he never responded and didn't seem to be learning from them. He kept making the same mistakes. Hafs, it's hard to get you to answer my questions. If you answer any, you often answer just one and leave the others. Are you so very busy? CorinneSD (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I thought you realized that when you answered your own questions. Yes, "the friend of the flowers", as you said - a good picture of User:Sminthopsis84 - and growl because Blade's behavior, putting the knife in someones back who they thought was their friend. Well, not any more, I guess.  will not enjoy this. Hafspajen (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nässlor I don't know in English, a kind of a weed that bites. Hafspajen (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh...are you suggesting that editor is like a weed that bites the kind and patient gardener (JJ)? CorinneSD (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this was the reason why I didn't wanted to explain it ... . Thought you got the coded message..... Hafspajen (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't get it until you translated nässlor for me. The Google translate feature doesn't seem to work for image captions. (You're very clever, though. Wish I understood Swedish or German. Then I would understand right away. I know just a few words of German, that's all. I do have a Swedish phrasebook, though. Maybe I should take that down from the shelf.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nettle was it ... Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. CorinneSD (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - And about night pics - I like night pictures, it is inevitable with a certain loss of detail, but I don't think everything has to be so clinically lighted. And we just featured   one recently...  Hafspajen (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one is beautifully lighted! Almost subtle. So I guess the St. Basil's cathedral was too garishly or brightly lit? I guess I'm not very good at judging photos. Maybe I should just not vote on photographs. I didn't even notice the patched corner on the Persian carpet photo. I'm not a good judge as to whether an image is a poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent image. I just say it is an excellent or very good image when it's fairly clear and I like it, but I guess that's not discriminating enough. CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think so, Basil is fine. Hafspajen (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent problem
 I'm glad you are standing up for yourself. Never "throw in the towel", Hafs. You can see how many friends you have and how they came to your defense. I would just like to make a suggestion. If you are adding or modifying text in an article, you can let me know and I will be glad to go through and fix any errors I find. Of course, since, as Yngvadottir pointed out, you like to edit, save, edit, save for a while until you are finished, I would wait until you tell me to go ahead. That might cut down on some reverts by other editors. (I do think that editor should have waited until you were finished, and then brought any issues up on the article's talk page, and the personal attacks were inexcusable.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure - thank you. But I am slowly realizing that I run into a big time desruptive editor who was blocked and released... just to start this shit, all over again. this editor is a blocked editor who was unblocked, here high up. have unblocked with a WP:0RR restriction.  Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
 * Well, at least you know you're not (by far) the only one who as been the target of his/her poor behavior. CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not the only one - we can start a club. Hafspajen (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

La Laguna Cathedral
Hello, in article La Laguna Cathedral ve added a section that I consider important and added references, can have a look ?. Thank you very much: Chapter house and Icon Museum.--95.120.190.125 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Chapter house and Icons museum, are not proper names. "Icons museum", refers to a Museum of Orthodox icons.--95.120.190.125 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. Thanks you. But then "icons" should not be capitalized, either (in that section heading). CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:95.120.190.125 What is the actual name of the icons museum? I think the actual name should be given, followed by a simple translation in parentheses. CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * His real name is "Icons museum". No other official name. Look in Spanish: Casas Capitulares y Museo de los Iconos.--83.51.159.79 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:95.120.190.125 The actual (=real, official) name of the museum is "Museo de los Iconos". That could be followed by the English translation in parentheses, either "Icons Museum" or "Museum of Icons". CorinneSD (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok.--83.44.138.217 (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Thank you! So nice to hear from you. Sorry you're presently in that predicament. Hopefully it is just temporary. Wish I knew German. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you - but was predicament, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A predicament is a difficult or puzzling situation, usually minor, that one finds oneself in. Usually, it just takes some thinking to figure out how to get out of that situation. You described a predicament to me. Let me know if you need more information to understand what I was referring to. CorinneSD (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesuits suppression section
Corrine - please delete this comment if I am not supposed to respond here. I am not fully aware of all the normal practices yet. If I understand your question I "think" the confusion is that where the text ends as "mikesj" -- it is someone else's edits. I only have the one line edit/change/comment that ends with my signature. I don't know how "mikesj" is a full signature but I guess it does look like it is part of my comment since it does not have the normal format with date. however those changes were not done by me -- I only did that last one. I hope that helps :)  BobRyan777 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Bob Thanks for the explanation. Maybe "mikesj" is a new editor, too. Of course I won't delete your comment. You can post a comment wherever you like, but the usual practice is to reply to a comment in the same place where the previous comment to which you are responding was posted. But there may be times when you want your comment to be seen mainly by the person you are writing to, and that would be that person's talk page, as you did here, or on your own talk page. You can always "ping" another editor at the beginning of a comment on your, or another, talk page so that person will look there. There are several ways to type the ping. One way is: and another is  (I'm using the template "nowiki" so that what I'm typing doesn't actually create a link or ping.) If you want it to kind of stand out, you can bold it:  . You can also let an editor know you are mentioning him/her by typing User:User name or Nickname or short version of name (whatever you type after the pipe is what will be visible) Welcome to Wikipedia! Let me know if you have any questions. CorinneSD (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! thanks!BobRyan777 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Bob (You don't have to leave the same comment in two different places. You can, but you don't have to, and, because of the various ways to get someone's attention, which I explained above, there is no need to.) Another thing: to make it easier to follow a discussion, it is customary to indent the beginning of your comment one space farther in from the left than the previous comment, using the colon, so it will look stepped, like this. (It doesn't have to be exact.)
 * I'll show you how it looks. Signed by User B
 * Then the next comment, etc. Signed by User C
 * You can skip a space or not – your choice. Signed by user A


 * When the comments get indented pretty far in, you can use this template: or  like the following:

It will continue the comment back at the left margin. By the way, if you put an editor's talk page on your watchlist either by clicking on "Watch this page" at the bottom of the edit window before you save it (just once) or by clicking in the star at the top of the talk page, then you will see all comments left on that talk page in your own watchlist. You can look at them or not, as you wish. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - thanks I have copied this entire section to my notes -- lots of very useful notes. Thanks again!BobRyan777 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bob I just wanted to mention something. It's not that important, just something to think about. I think you may have formed your heading to this section ("Nice to meet you Corinne, etc.") from seeing the heading of the previous section. There are no rules as to what to use for a section heading. Pretty much anything within good taste (and, of course, not revealing personal information about another editor) is fine. I've seen long headings, short headings, funny headings, even just a letter or a punctuation mark. Usually, however, the heading is related to the topic that you will discuss, such as the name of an article ("Society of Jesus"), a section within an article ("Supression and restoration") or a shortened version of it such you used, above, or a problem that needs addressing (such as "IP edits" or "Can you please look at this?"), or an interesting discussion or image that you want to draw your reader's attention to ("Interesting discussion"), or a request for help ("Need help with a template"). As you look at talk pages, you'll see the wide variety in section/comment headings. The one thing you don't see often is a user name in a section/comment heading, unless it is on a discussion page (such as RFC, ANI, etc.) that is dealing with a problem editor. There's no rule against it that I know of, you just don't see it. (I'm only talking about section/comment headings.) So, for example, you could write as the section heading: "Jesuits suppression section in Society of Jesus". In the comment itself, you can write, "Nice to meet you, Corinne". Then later you can provide a link to that section: Society of Jesus if you want to. Another thing I wanted to mention was that you can save useful links (internal, Wikipedia links or external links such as to an on-line dictionary), on your user page or your talk page. See a few at the top of this page. I had a little trouble with the Merriam-Webster link. It worked better without /dictionary. You will also see lists of helpful links on the user pages of many editors. You can copy and paste (in edit mode) into your user or talk page for future use. If you copy (not cut!) something from another editor's page in edit mode, be sure to click "Cancel" when you leave that page so that no changes were inadvertently made and saved. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New article
Houses at Auvers. Read the refs and expand it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of this could be added paraphrased, rewriten to avoid copivio, not my strongest side paraphrasing. It takes me a lot of time and energy. Don't like it much.

http://www.tfsimon.com/auvers-sur-oise.html ... ''"Vincent van Gogh is a symbol for the eternal problem with mankind: his questing for the meaning of life and the truth. In the course of his life everybody discovers life has no meaning, difference works up hatred and the truth has several versions... Vincent's life was short but his struggle for love and recognition was long and in the end unbearable. He had to get rid of the mortgage everybody gets from the so-called education you get from your parents and other people in your early-life. Everybody is a prisoner of his time and education.  Vincent, too, but he wanted to do a lot in his own way, as a consequence people didn't understand him, were even hostile to him; this made him sometimes rebellious and he often felt lonesome. But as many people with mental problems, his imagination played a prominent part in the way he believed other people thought about him and his art. Van Gogh is often thought of as a loner, yet during his career he was surrounded by artists. He brought people together, provoked discussions, acted as a mediator between temperamental artists, and encouraged experiments and exhibitions. These artists in turn influenced Van Gogh’s personal and artistic development. During his ten-year artistic career, from 1880-1890, Van Gogh was highly creative. A full 864 paintings and almost 1,200 drawings and prints have survived. He was active in The Netherlands, until the call of France was irresistible, like for so many artists before and after him (like Tavik František Šimon). From 1886-1888 he was in Paris, from 1888-1889 in Arles, from 1889-1890 in Saint-Rémy, where he tried to recover from a mental illness and finally, from May, 20, 1890 until his death, July 29, 1890, he was in Auvers-sur-Oise, in order to recover completely. In May 1890 Vincent visited his brother Theo and his family in Paris and then settled in Auvers-sur-Oise, a little village at the river Oise around 30 kilometres from Paris. The town was chosen because Paul Gachet, a doctor, artist and collector, was living there, he agreed to take care of Vincent. Vincent managed to find himself a very small room in an inn owned by Arthur Gustave Ravoux and immediately began painting the environs of Auvers-sur-Oise. Van Gogh came to Auvers-sur-Oise, on May 20, 1890. “Auvers is very pretty,” he wrote to Theo, “there is countryside all around, typical and picturesque.” Auvers was an artists’ village, where painters such as Armand Guillaumin, Camille Pissarro, Charles-François Daubigny, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot and Paul Cézanne had already worked."

If you can't acces it, this is what it writes. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Throughout June, Vincent remained in good spirits and was remarkably productive, painting some of his best known works. The initial tranquillity of the first month in Auvers was interrupted, however, when Vincent received news that his nephew was seriously ill. Theo had been going through a most difficult time throughout the previous few months: uncertainty about his own career and future, ongoing health problems and finally his own son's illness. Following the baby's recovery, Vincent decided to visit Theo and his family on 6 July and caught an early train. Very little is known about the visit, but Johanna, Theo's wife, writing years later, would suggest that the day was strained and fairly tense. Vincent eventually felt overwhelmed and quickly returned to the more quiet sanctuary of Auvers. During the next three weeks Vincent kept on painting and, as his letters suggest, was reasonably happy. To his mother and sister Vincent wrote: 'For the present I am feeling much calmer than last year, and really the restlessness in my head has greatly quieted down.' (Letter 650) Vincent was absorbed in the fields and plains around Auvers and produced some brilliant landscapes throughout July. In Auvers Van Gogh painted more then 70 pictures. During these last weeks of his life it was only due to his work that he could forget about his illness, and he painted as if possessed. Among the works of the period are a religious work after Delacroix, The Pieta, The Church of Auvers, multiple landscapes and portraits. On the evening of the 27th July 1890 Van Gogh went at dusk into the fields and shot himself. With all his strength he managed to drag himself back to the inn; here he died two days later in the arms of his brother, who had hurried to his side. Besides Theo and Dr. Gachet some friends from Paris, amongst them Bernard and “Père” Tanguy, took part in the funeral."

Also this... Hafspajen (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Vincent van Gogh repeated the motif of peasant huts on many occasions: "In my opinion, the most marvellous of all that I know in the sphere of architecture is huts with their roofs of moss-grown straw and a smoky hearth," wrote van Gogh in one of his letters. The thatched roofs seem to be just as much an organic part of nature as the hills, fields and sky. The hilly relief of the distance allowed the artist to accentuate the dynamics of space, which he reinforced through the use of colour contrasts. The tense, wavy brushstrokes and lines convey the artist's perception of life and the world. During these last few weeks of his life, Van Gogh painted a few portraits but mainly a large number of landscapes among which is "Les Vessenots," the part of Auvers where Dr Gachet -the first owner of this painting- lived. The work is characteristic of Van Gogh's pictorial language at the end of his life, in which he combines very reduced and schematised compositions with a narrow palette of luminous greens and yellows and the use of agitated and nervous brushstrokes which follow a waving and repetitive rhythm. The composition is a horizontal one with a typically raised horizon, grouping together a number of old cottages, some with thatched roofs, alongside extensive fields of wheat and a few waving trees. Although he always painted in front of the subject, the painting is a very personal vision of the landscape. Van Gogh transformed what he saw into something profoundly personal, giving visual form to the emotions which the landscape in front of him inspired in him. The fertile fields around Auvers produced conflicting feelings within him: the sensation of freedom which he had in front of these broad fields was counterbalanced by melancholy and a sensation of loneliness brought on by the sight of the wheat.

And this. Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I welcome the project, but I'll need some help. I don't know how to put in references. I know the ref - ref template but am not sure what to put between the "ref's" Are all these large passages from t f simon dot com, the link you provided, above? Can I work on the paraphrasing right here, or should I work in my sandbox? CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is template for this reference and text. . But the refs are alredy in. Content need to be added, reworded content... Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Hafs How do I get rid of that red "Empty citation" at the bottom of this page? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hafs How am I doing? See User:CorinneSD/sandbox. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting photos
I think you might enjoy seeing the photos at User talk:Crisco 1492. Regarding the two foot-bridges, I had already told Hafs that I don't know if I would have the courage to cross that high bridge. I just saw the other bridge today. My first thought was, "Is that the best they could do?", but then I saw the treeless land and thought maybe it was hard to find wood of any kind around there. Then I saw the great dark and light bands in the rock at the left, and I had to show them to you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great pics, I think I'd cross that bridge just to get a close look at those beautiful rock exposures. But then ... my older sister used to talk me into crossing a neighbors "swinging bridge" only to start making it swing and bounce when we reached the center, scared the bejibbers outa me -- traumatized for life! :) Vsmith (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see the other picture of a foot-bridge? It's on the left side. It looks very high up. I don't know if that's an optical illusion. Maybe the ground is closer than it looks. If it's really that high up, I would never cross it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I thought you were the girl with red hair blowing in the wind. skipping along with hands not touching the cables... And, yes methinks it really is that high. Vsmith (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hotel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinne_Hotel --Hafspajen (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting! But it's not me. CorinneSD (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the image. I love that painting. Where is the Aert de Gelder painting that inspired this one (see image file)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm ... we don't have it - and the internet doesn't seems to have it either. Hafspajen (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for the help! It's really nice to get feedback when you're unsure of the new stuff!

IamM1rv (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) 


 * User:IamM1rv Thank you for the kitten! Let me know if you ever have any questions. CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Signing & Richard Proenneke
Hi CorinneSD! Thanks for the information - I'm massively confused though! I have been signing with "~ ~ ~ ~"(no spaces, 4 x tilda's) using the little link parallel to the insert pull down at the bottom of the editing window, per the tutorial here ... Signatures, is there an undocumented issue with signatures or some "best practice" that you are possibly referring too? IamM1rv (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I saw the dates went from oldest, to newest on the talk page - thanks for the heads up on that one! IamM1rv (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, your signature (with time and date) came out fine here. I just learned something from you. I had always just typed the four tildes using the key on my keyboard at the far upper left corner. I had never noticed the key with the four tildes below the editing window, which of course saves time. CorinneSD (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm sure I've learned more from you! I mainly like adding inline citation, but had to create an account to talk to someone else & make a page that didn't exist. I think categorization is more what I want to do, but there's so much ADHD in me ... :)


 * Just wanted to point out that you didn't sign again. It's a habit you've got to get into. Maybe typing the four tildes, as I do, will help you get into the habit. I hit the right shift key and type the four tildes with my left hand. Just takes a second or two. CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Another question while chatting, ... can i do a:


 * to post automatically to someone's attention?


 * Thanks! IamM1rv (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You can use either or  to ping someone and bring their attention to a page (such as your talk page). You can also use User:User name just to notify them that you have mentioned them, either on your own talk page or another talk page. It's almost the same as pinging them. Put the second half of the "nowiki" template right after the template that you don't want to be a real ping or link. You put it at the end of your question. It worked this time, so I guess it's all right, but normally the second half of the no-wiki goes right after the template. CorinneSD (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fairy tale
 I enjoyed reading the fairy tale on your talk page and looking at the accompanying painting. What country is that fairy tale from? I wanted to point out a typo in the fairy tale that kind of messes up the story a bit. It's minor, but you might like to fix it. It's in the second sentence of the last paragraph of the story:


 * The man told the girl that she had released him from the curse she was under.

I think it should be:


 * The man told the girl that she had released him from the curse he was under.

The man had been under a curse, not the girl, right?

Also, if you want to be really grammatically correct, you'll change "he was under" to "he had been under", because he was no longer under the curse. CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From Germany. You may change it .... Hafspajen (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Sigh...I guess I shouldn't get involved with photos. - CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
Thanks for your work on Houses at Auvers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:7&amp;6=thirteen Thanks so much! I love chocolate cake! CorinneSD (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is (almost) the best. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Christ in the House of His Parents


 I just finished reading Christ in the House of His Parents. I made a few minor copy-edits. I have a question for you. In the section Christ in the House of His Parents, there is a sentence that contains the word "typology". I didn't know if this meant the use of type, that is, printed letters, words and numbers, or something else. I typed "typology" into the WP search bar and it led to a disambiguation page. I couldn't find one thing in that list that would explain "typology". Can you either explain it to me here or create a link to the right article or section of an article? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good picture. FP material. You should try to nominate it. Hafspajen (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, before you go nominate it, ask  - about the file quality - File:John Everett Millais - Christ in the House of His Parents (`The Carpenter's Shop') - Google Art Project.jpg - I got some unpleasant surprises lately whit google files lately. Hafspajen (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ops, it was nominated before. ... hm. Hafspajen (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  I was just looking at your talk page, and at all the pictures you have posted recently (at least two groups of images). I wonder if you are posting them there just because you like them and want to share them or because you think they would be good candidates for Feature picture nominations. I have no idea what pictures to nominate. I found a lot of the paintings in those museums on Google Art Project to be old-fashioned and not very interesting. I've also been reading a little of the exchanges regarding that difficult IP editor. It's a difficult situation. I don't know what to think. CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I put them there because I like them. About IP, they are way to engaged in that editor, because they think they know him and undertstand him better than others... and unfortunatelly disregard the damage he does, but concentrate on his light sides. But that Ip - even if occasionally was treated unfair - still has a rader dark side. And the darkest side is that if they go on like this instead of saying, people you do have a point here - they will get other admins against them. Chillum for example is a guy that has much common sense, and he is not agreeing with them.  It's bad, really bad, and it worries me. Wish they could drop this subject. Do you like Miller? Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about Miller. On the one hand, his technical ability is high. The way he painted that tablecloth in "Mariana" is like the artists of the Renaissance, and the composition in "Christ in the House of His Parents" is superb. However, I feel that he was looking in the wrong direction. He was looking into the past and trying to resurrect it and hold onto it while other artists were looking toward the future. The subject matter doesn't bother me (as many were bothered by "Christ in the House of His Parents"). It's the focus on detail and color at the expense of emotion that bothers me. It's like an illustrator who can paint like a Renaissance artist, but he's still an illustrator. Does that make sense? CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Do you like him? CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes it does. Wery good, very well analized. One should never nominate anything that is not right for one. But we have  already dicussed this one, or you don't like it anymore? Hafspajen (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember discussing Roses, etc., with you. I don't even remember seeing the painting before. It is beautifully painted, but it is so dark! Do you think it was this dark when Ruysch painted it? I don't know whether I like it enough to nominate it. If you think it is a good painting to nominate, I will. Also, thank you for putting that Van Gogh painting there (just above). I had never seen it before, and I really like it. I like the blue of the roof of the house. CorinneSD (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't? This was the back-up for the other one [[File:Bloemen in een terracotta vaas., Albertus Jonas Brandt, Eelke Jelles Eelkema, 1810 - 1824 - Zoeken - Rijksmuseum.jpg|23px]] - if that will fail... Yes, I think so, she did painted this dark. Hafspajen (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it is enough info on that painting to write a little article on the little blue house  too. Co-nom.. bruhahahaha evil laugh. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Others : this or maybe this?  or this? Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  I just saw both of these comments. I don't know why I didn't seem them before. Yes, Rachel Ruysch did use dark colors. I love the van Gogh painting of the women and the one of the woman sitting at a table (Le Tambourin). I don't understand "bruhahahaha evil laugh" after "Co-nom". Why "evil laugh"? I'm missing something. CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember latest van Gogh co-nom? Circus, uproar... and there was enough info  on that Auvers painting to write a little article on the little blue house. We soon go: Co-nom.. bruhahahaha evil laugh...  Hafspajen (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Signpost
Would you be willing to assist me with my role on the signpost? I am no English major and your assistance would be really helpful.. talk→  WPPilot   04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'd be glad to. What is your role there? (I read something about it but have forgotten.) (I did see your entry there, though. What an exciting thing to be part of the first flights of the space plane! That will be in the history books of the future.) Where do you want me to look?


 * Regarding the discussion about the Lido Isle photo, I was surprised you put that comment to me there. I mean, I appreciate it very much, but wouldn't it have been better to post it here? But I guess you wanted the other editors to see it. I kind of agree that IP editors shouldn't be voting or commenting there, but don't you think Crisco and gazhiley have enough confidence in their abilities that they would not be influenced by an IP editor's comments? CorinneSD (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The comment was not in any way directed at you, Crisco does have a great deal of experience with Photos and the other editor I am not aware in too much detail. My comment was really in regard to way the two followed the IP editor like a cow in a pasture. Yes I did want other editors to see my comments and the editors should each be more willing to help you continue to contribute, rather then attack your nomination for perceived deficiencies of quality each may have on my work. On Signpost, I for the most part do the briefs for featured photos. I had a long flight today and am a bit tired, but we will go over it tomorrow, and I think you will enjoy the process a great deal. Thank you! talk→   WPPilot   04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/Featured_content is the new draft we will be working on... talk→  WPPilot   04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to engage more new people at The Signpost. It has to be done fast, in a certain style, people who edit know each other, know each others style and there was enough conflicts as it was already, we had a conflict about editing just a week ago, and it is still not sorted out properly. There is always a lot of conflicting editing styles when someone new is starting editing it - and also Adam who is the chief editor, and he copes already with the language and copy-editing - and likes to have things in his own way. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. User:WPPilot I love that photo. I like all your photos. I like the way you can see the different depths in the water from the colors. For some reason, though, maybe because it looks like it was taken looking almost straight down, it makes me feel slightly dizzy. I like the angle of the Lido Isle photo better. I don't live near there. Before I saw your photos, I hadn't realized how many people lived right near the ocean. The weather looks great. CorinneSD (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolute adjectives
Hello, Fylb -- How are you these days? Hope you're doing well. Regarding WP:Featured picture candidates/vG's Bedroom, I thought I'd let you in on a lighthearted discussion I've been having with Rothorpe about absolute adjectives and how they do not normally require qualifiers (quite, really, very, etc.). See the second half of the section User talk:Rothorpe. I also just introduced Rothorpe to FP. You're a good writer, so I think you'll appreciate Rothorpe's wry humor in his comment at vG's Bedroom; I'm absolutely sure, without a doubt, that there was nothing personal about it. (Since many people do use qualifiers, probably myself included, they probably won't even get the humor.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CorinneSD and, y'all are a trip. Hope that remark causes you to break out in allergic hives. I write in Gonzo style, just as I speak. This exercise by the both of you is condescending to say the least. Surely there is something better to do with your collective time on Wikipedia than poke fun at others linquistic mannerisms. I have written op-ed and essays for a living all my life; and have been published by writing Bible verses in text messages. I, even now, test in the 99.9 percentile in languages. I will explain this once again: I have a neurological condition that robs me of the ability to be concise in speech and in writing. Even if you both find it funny peculiar and funny ha-ha, I find it endearing and quaint to have the talent of such quirks that increase my creativity, At least I don't speak Valley Girl, although I am entranced with LolCat speak. Have a nice life.  Fylbecatulous talk 23:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Fylbecatulous I only tease people I like and respect. I'm sorry to have offended you. I won't bother you again. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume teasing is appropriate? Please read the opening paragraphs (lede) of our article: Teasing. Come back to me then and say again that teasing is done to people who are liked and respected. This is highly misguided. I am not a child and this is in public. You know nothing of my emotional boundaries and space. I certainly do not intend to reciprocate in kind; one of the parameters for affectionate teasing.  Fylbecatulous talk</b> 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will also say this. Why did you ping me to make sure I am aware of the mockery going on about me? Disguise it as fun teasing all you want but I could have lived a blissful life on Wikipedia unaware that I am being commented on behind my back by two proofreaders. I could have read 's vote after mine on the FPC's page and accepted that with an innocent smile. I feel this is a rather passive-aggressive way to let me know you have judged my writing and found it lacking. It was a casually stated vote in a relaxed setting, for heavens sake. Please stop watching my edits and seek your amusement elsewhere.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 13:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Fylbecatulous I think it is you who are consumed with anger over something small. I would like to point out that, in actuality, I never teased you. I apologized to you, and I said, "I only tease people I like and respect," but at no point did I tease you. I have a right to discuss grammar with another editor. That is what User:Rothorpe and I do. We are, in fact, both experts in the English language and enjoy discussing usage, including subtle changes in the language over time. We had just been discussing the unnecessary but common use of qualifiers with absolute adjectives when I saw an example, which I pointed out to him. It was not mocking you. Rothorpe's comment on FP contained a kind of mocking, but that would only be apparent if one realized that your use of "very" with "unique" was incorrect. I thought you might be puzzled by his comment, so I thought I'd supply the background so that you would understand his comment and perhaps learn something new, and even possibly join the discussion. Letting you know about our discussion was my only mistake. It seems you have no sense of humor and are unable to recognize an editor who likes and respects you, which is sad. If you have any problems with the comment left on FP after yours, take it up with Rothorpe. I really don't care to discuss this anymore with you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Hafs Thank you for the pie. I love pie. I am so sorry. I was trying to address your concerns without knowing the background to the issues, just speculating on how things might have gone wrong, and I guess I was a little "thick" in not realizing that your comment was meant only for me. I will try to be more aware in the future. You know I like to try and make peace and resolve issues between editors, but it's clear that I failed this time. I hope you'll forgive me. Please don't give up on WPPilot. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Or do as you wish. CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sky
 V, I don't understand the difference in Sky:. CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unneeded parens. Vsmith (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Herbal tea
', ',  Speaking of MEDRS, see this edit to Herbal tea and the two subsequent edits:. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam is full of BULLSHIT. He's claiming all he did was "point out a few things". BULLSHIT. He whole cut a section without even trying to gain consensus. He sees nothing wrong in his behavior though several others do. There's no sense trying dealing with people like that.    HalfGig   talk  20:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:HalfGig Yes, there is. Stay calm, write your opinions clearly, concisely, and to the point, and make clear suggestions. Don't back down. CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cake
 See this edit to Cake. See what this vandal did. Be sure to scroll down in the text. CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (Revised my comment; I had misunderstood that edit.) I undid it as vandalism. CorinneSD (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was rather a mess: a vandalism only account (now blocked) was being reverted by an ip, and the ips reversions were being reverted by cluebot and other users. Page is now semi-protected. I've left a note on the ip's talk thanking them. We do need to agf of ip edits and check closer before reverting. Cluebot needs some sort of filter to avoid reverting good edits also. Vsmith (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At first, I thought I was reverting a single instance of vandalism. Then I looked and saw that it was only the latest in a string of bad edits by various editors. I don't know if I got confused and inadvertently reverted to a previous bad edit or what. Since I was worried about that, I then left a note at User talk:Dougweller (hope you don't mind; I was really worried I had made a mistake). Then Doug protected the article. Then I tried to undo all edits except Doug's back to a good version; I think it was Material scientists's. I don't know if I succeeded. Thanks for responding. CorinneSD (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, Doug is one of the good guys - 'tho seems he has a lot on his plate now. And we all make mistakes ... I know I've reverted vandalism back in a time or two (hopefully caught & corrected 'em all ??). Just "keep on truckin'" ... Vsmith (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cherub
 What's going on at Cherub? Now there is no image at the beginning of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like somebody edited the file name, not the caption, and thus broke the image. I guess it sould be done some kind of notification to the user who is obviously new. But I don't have time. Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Can you take a look at this and not only either tell the editor how to fix the caption or fix it, but also review the caption itself? I don't know which words are the most correct. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been reverted. The image is back. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you ready? Can we proceed on nominating the Blue House? Bruhhahha evil laugh: cos- it is a van Gogh, cos it is a co-nom, cos ... we like van Gogh. Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AH. Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When one of my dogs has to wear The Cone of Shame, they (and we too) consider it to be a very sad occasion. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MMMM. It is, a sad bad occasion. Wonder what would say. Hafspajen (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's what:
 * How many Vans would a Van Gogh go if a Van Gogh could go Vans?
 * Sca (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
about Cucurbita. Sorry that I can't help, I've had enough of that process where all mention of traditional medicine is removed under the MEDRS banner, no matter how carefully and painfully crafted the wording is, even when it is totally in accord with previous discussion and consensus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  I'm very upset that Sminth has blanked his/her talk page and posted a "Retired" banner on his/her user page, and that HalfGig has removed the article from his/her watchlist. Are you following the discussion at Talk:Cucurbita? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is of course an old medicine, it is, I know about it, I would not have questioned it. But Adam doesn't, and it is about finding reliable sources, I guess. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  See above comment from Sminthopsis84. Also see comment in section below, User talk:CorinneSD, from HalfGig. CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating
', ' I don't know about the other edits by this editor, but what do you think of this one to Radiocarbon dating? Do you like the sound of "prior published papers"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded a bit - hopefully better... Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Losing a good editor
 Is there any way you could persuade User:Yngvadottir to stay as an editor on Wikipedia? She's a friendly, helpful, intelligent, multilingual Ph.D. who has done a lot of good editing, and just in the last few weeks has come under attack. CorinneSD (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will also be glad to do what I can to revive the editors spirits but first let me thank you. Your edit to WikiProject Editor Retention/Retention and return team was timely. If you notice on the talk page there, I and  had extensive conversations with  and . I use their shortened names because they have become dear wiki-friends and are an important part of my WP experience. As for the WER page, I'm glad you revived it. The team concept never got off the drawing board as well as any fixed in-place method of contacting editors that are leaving. Much has been talked about in the past two years but nothing concrete has emerged.  is planning some remodeling of WER very soon so change is in the air.  Everything needs a starting point and maybe this is it for a specific plan of action that any editor can follow that needs to call out to a friend..."Don't go. Wikipedia needs you." Thanks again for "bringing" me to the beginning conversations of what has become a special friendship with two wonderful editors. . <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I left a rather long and probably overlong response on my user talk page. I think maybe the most effective way to maybe help bring Sminthopsis84 back might be to help with the FAC, and like I said I can try to find sources to help keep some material in that article and maybe develop some spinout article or section elsewhere. Regarding Yngvadottir, I hope that someone who knows how to e-mail her does what they can, but, without an e-mail address, I am less than sure how to proceed, much as I might wish otherwise. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Buster7 and User:John Carter for your replies. I skimmed the talk page at WikiProject Editor Retention/Retention and return team. (I hadn't thought to look there.) It wasn't clear to me whether those two editors (Petra and Gandy) had definitely left WP. I hope not. I wonder if someone could look at Yngvadottir's talk page to see the exchanges of the last few weeks that led up to her decision to leave. Perhaps she felt she was under some relentless attack and had gotten no support. I would guess that she will look at her talk page occasionally, probably in the next few days. If someone could offer the support that she didn't get, maybe that would persuade her to return. Hafspajen, did you ever have Yngvadottir's e-mail address? If not, do you know anyone who might have it? CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see User:Gandydancer hasn't left. (Hello, Gandy!) I saw the great messages you and User:Buster7 left on Yngvadottir's talk page. That's great! Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne, yes Buster alerted me. It was your strong endorsement of Yngvadottir that led me to believe, even before I had met this editor, that Wikipedia can not afford to lose her.  My best to you Corinne!  Gandydancer (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Buster7, User:Gandydancer Here's another one: User:Catflap08. See User talk:Catflap08. I don't know this editor, but just a glance at the user page and seeing the well-written comment makes me think s/he has probably been a good editor. CorinneSD (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He was and will continue to be in the German wikipedia. He's just been overwhelmed by the problematic editors in English wikipedia regarding the content he has been developing here. There are actually discussions regarding some of the content he's been most working on on both ANI and BLPN right now. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider
 I hadn't seen your page or edits until today, but I was sorry to see User talk:Catflap08. I've been lamenting the decision to retire by two other excellent editors, User:Sminthopsis84 and User:Yngvadottir. Just judging from your user page and your well-written comment, I think that you have probably also been an excellent editor on en.Wikipedia. I would like to urge you to reconsider retiring. The editors with a strong point of view on an issue may think that if they keep wearing down their opponents, their opponents will just stop participating and their versions will remain in the articles. Thus, in order to protect the knowledge bank of the world, and for the benefit of future generations of readers, it is important that you and many other conscientious editors continue to edit. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Links
 Just thought you might be interested in this exchange. I'm puzzled as to who is right. Does Paine need some support? User talk:Paine Ellsworth CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Ordinary WP editors should not worry about breaking metadata redirects. Those who care about metadata links can fix 'em. But, that's far outside my interest range. Vsmith (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dari language
 What do you think of this edit to Dari language? The new version does not sound right for Persian (Farsi) (the way it was does), but I don't know if it is right for Dari Persian. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Eilif Peterssen
 Did you see the template at the top of this article? Eilif Peterssen It has been there since 2012. Look at all the red links, too. Shall we work on this article? I'll wait for you to finish. CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ywah, why not? This is nice, File:Eilif Peterssen - Nocturne - Google Art Project.jpg and this too thumb|. hE's got a better portrait too, google file. Hafspajen (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 This image is much too big. I tried to make it smaller, but I'm doing something wrong. CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OOPS. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I had added "thumb|300px" to the end of the Kalle Lochen image file, but now "thumb|300px" is visible, but no image. I like "Nocturne". Quite beautiful. CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. I removed "thumb|300px". I saw the portrait, too. That's Eilif Peterssen? Nice portrait. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove the ": " - add thumb. Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not Eilif, but Kalle. Eilif painted it, we should use it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. You're the image expert, so I'll leave that to you. Shall I copy-edit the article or wait for a while until you see if there is anything you want to add/change? CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I found another article that could use some expanding: Ludwig des Coudres. CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, Corinne. Hafspajen (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/list.php?m=a&s=tu&aid=4260

John Lavery
 In John Lavery, there is a painting on the right with the caption, "Hazel in rise and grey". Since I thought "rise" might be a Scottish word, I looked up "rise" in Wiktionary and found no definition remotely related to a color, or a dress, or fabric. Look at the noun definition in. Do you think it is possible that it should be "rose" (ie., pink)? Or could it possibly be a Scottish version of the word "rose"? Shall I ask an editor who edits articles related to Scotland? CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Meijer de Haan
 I just read and edited the article on Meijer de Haan. The Biography section has very little information about his life. The first two sentences are as follows:


 * He was born into a successful Jewish family of biscuit manufacturers, close to the study of religion, music and art. He had already had some success in the Netherlands as a painter of Jewish genre works.

First, he was born. But, because of the verb tense (had...had), "he had already had...success" sounds like he had had success before he was born. Presumably the success was a bit later in his life. If you have time, maybe you could find more details about his life to add here. Also, do you see the red-linked artist further down? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but I am still not done with Pettersen yet. Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arr, but this is English. YOU are the English-Expert. If you think he had to much succes before he was born, just fix it. Hafspajen (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Corsan Morton
 Hafs, there is no painting in the articles for these artists of the Glasgow School: Thomas Corsan Morton, Harrington Mann, Jessie Newbery, or Ann Macbeth, or Eleanor Allen Moore, Christian Jane Fergusson, James Nairn, George Pirie (artist), Hannah Frank. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure they are free? I mean you know we can't use pictures that have copyright. Hafspajen (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, Morton is free. Hafspajen (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I am done with Eilif Petterssen. Go on, copy-edit it. The other guy can't be fixed,: Ludwig des Coudres, cos he has no other pics on commons. But Morton yes. Hafspajen (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean NOW I am ready. Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I will go over the Petterssen article tomorrow. I'm too tired now. Did you see my comment above about the image in John Lavery? CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, it was ROSE and gray. Hafspajen (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is perfect. And I don't wanted more trouble, that's why. Hafspajen (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Maine
' and ' I've been reading the articles about the New England states, and I just finished reading the article on Maine. I have two questions for you:

1) About two-thirds of the way through the section Maine is a verse from a poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay. I noticed that there is no punctuation at all in this verse, and I'm wondering if there is any in the original that should be there;

2) toward the end of the first (long) paragraph in Maine, the same phrase is used twice. The phrase is:


 * where his ancestral roots first took hold on English soil".

I don't know if that was deliberate, but if not, perhaps another phrase (such as "put down roots" or "settled") should be used for one of them. I think overall, the sentences are fine. It's just that repetition that I don't think is needed. Any thoughts or suggestions? CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, the original does have punctuation, so it should be included. I'll put it in.


 * 2. I'm inclined to think the second sentence is an accidental repetition and could just be removed. Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

same
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Stolen_Kiss_%28Fragonard%29&diff=651806434&oldid=651806177 Hi, Corinne. Do you think my last edit is OK?] Hafspajen (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, no edits from Corinne since the early hours of the 15th. I fear a computer malfunction. Come back soon/Welcome back, Corinne! Rothorpe (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I blame myself. It is so much shit arround me always, that sometimes I wonder if I am cursed ot what. --Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have driven her away if that is what you mean. Rothorpe (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope not. Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ', ' I'm back! No, Hafspajen, it had nothing to do with you. Rothorpe was right. I had a problem with my computer. It started around the 15th, and I decided not to use it at all until it was checked out at a computer store. I got it back today, all fixed. It was some kind of malware. It was a difficult week not being able to get on Wikipedia. I missed all of you. Now I will look at your edits as you asked me to, above, and then catch up on my watchlist. Thank you for your messages. CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for the gooey pumpkin cake. Yum! CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought you don't wanted to nominate that van Gogh any more ... or - antipathy was contagious. so I nominated everything among earth and heaven just to make time pass... When I was not messing arround with celibacy. Hafspajen (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw your note about a week ago that you thought the article on Houses at Auvers was ready to be nominated as a co-nomination (you didn't say who the co-nominators would be, but I assumed you meant yourself, me and 7 and 6 equals 13). However, I thought, since 7 and 6 had been doing more work on the article than I had been, s/he ought to have the option of nominating it first; then I would add my name. Also, it kind of looked like you and s/he were still working on the article. So, I was just waiting, and then my computer got the problems. CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi John
Hi, Corinne. Do you think my last edit is OK? Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course! Your edit is a definite improvement. CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and welcome back for real! Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Morus (plant)
Does this edit to Morus (plant) look right? The first part, especially, does not look right to me. CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Loren Eiseley
' and ' What do you think of these edits to Loren Eiseley? . There are quite a few. Be sure to scroll down. CorinneSD (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first group are no improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving
 I just saw your edit summary, "Archivated", which accompanied your archiving of some material on your talk page. I just thought I would point out that the correct form is "Archived" (or "Archiving"). Here is the link to the Wiktionary entry for the word archive. Look at the forms for the verb. The past tense, archived, and the past participle are the same.


 * Past tense: I just archived some material from my talk page.


 * Past participle: I have just archived some material from my talk page. / That's archived material.


 * Present participle: In this edit, I was archiving some material from my talk page.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! In Dutch, we say "gearchiveerd". So, I guess it's a "Dutchianism" (from "Germanism"). Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A project for us
Hi Corinne. First off thank you for your support, as you are learning the politics here are difficult at times. You are correct in that I should have better tempered my words, and I have settled everything down so as to get back into a productive mode, sorry you were dragged into my frustrations. When I come under fire, so to speak I tend to regress and just go out and enjoy the many things that life has to enjoy, it always helps. As you saw there are all types here, and you just have to take some things with a grain of salt. I am also btw experiencing some serious medical issues that can cause me to get a little more frustrated then normal as I am facing a serious surgery in the near future, so often acquiring the content I get is also a painful process, literally speaking. I suggest that we redo the photo placement on the Reno Air Racing page. As you may have noticed in the other comments, I had loaded it up with some photos I took last year, and others had issues with the quantity of photos I was using. Perhaps we can work with and get that page up to snuff, I would love to submit a section as a featured page, and perhaps that one, with the collaboration of the three of us might be the first one. Before I came to that page it was really really bad, frankly speaking as it was only about the crashes that have sadly taken the lives of the brave men that fly in that race. I did strip some of the photos out, but it is really stale now without them. LMK. talk→  WPPilot   17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for the invitation to work on another project and your nice comment. I couldn't respond for almost a week due to problems with my computer. I got back onto WP yesterday afternoon and spent the evening catching up on both e-mail and my WP watchlist. Today, I didn't do as much work as I usually do. I just wanted to let you know so you don't think I was ignoring you. Tomorrow I will look at that article and respond to your suggestions. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Swallows and Amazons
 I was looking at the infobox and book cover of Swallows and Amazons that User:Rwood128 added to a comment at Talk:Great Expectations and then I looked at the article on the author Steven Spurrier (artist) and it wasn't there. I wonder what you think of adding the book cover to the article on Spurrier. CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did looked, but know for little about the issue. Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WHAT issue? I just wanted to know if we could add the image of the book cover to the article on the artist who painted the book cover. CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

 * Oh, I am just involved in the next scandal. ‎ Halleluja. Hafspajen (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hafs, I read the discussion. It was interesting. I was sorry you got upset. I don't think you needed to get so upset. There is a difference between, "You are (or were) sexist" and "This statement is sexist." I don't believe at all they were calling you sexist. Also, (a) people have different perceptions of what is sexist (and that can certainly be discussed), and (b) people might inadvertently say or write something that might be perceived as sexist by some readers (so the editors – in a time pinch – made an editorial decision not to use it in order to avoid problems. All your questions are valid ones, but I think you should calm down and try not to take their editorial decision personally, and ask your questions in a calm manner, even if it is after the Signpost was published. Everyone can learn something from a rational discussion so perhaps a better decision is made the next time. If you were upset that they didn't discuss it with you, that's another issue. Perhaps you should enable e-mail, perhaps a special e-mail account that is just for Wikipedia. You wouldn't even have to reveal your real name. Maybe I take the time to write all this to you because in some ways you remind me of myself. I sometimes find it hard not to take little slights (such as being ignored, or getting brusque responses) personally. I just think you will get farther – that is, gain more respect, be consulted more, learn more, get more done – if you stay calm. There is nothing wrong with asking questions or asking for explanations, just do it as calmly as you can. Adding a bit of humor (as you do) won't hurt.


 * By the way, I tried to find the article or paragraph in the Signpost where that statement would have been, but couldn't find it. Where is it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

..And some shades of blue in fact are green. Shall we nominate that van Gogh? Feel like doing something else for a while. Hafspajen (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I should be a co-nominator on the van Gogh painting since I don't think I did much editing on the article, but if you think I should, of course I would be glad to. I think either your name or seven and six's name should go first, though. CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ? . Hafspajen (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm not clear on something. I thought that the co-nominators should be the same editors who worked on the article that contains the painting. A while ago, at your suggestion/request, I started editing Houses at Auvers. Then I saw 7&6 working on it all the time, so I stopped working on it, which was fine. Overall, I think 7&6 and you did more work on the article than I did, but if that is not important, then I'd be glad to co-nominate the painting/image. Just say the word. Do you want me to co-nominate first? If so, just tell me and I will. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This section is about. Hafspajen (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I will try to comunicate a bit and see if I can make myself understood. Editorial decision, you say. Yesterday, I was spending my Saturday that in fact I intended to spend a very diffent way, by editing the Singpost. Circa eight- nine-ten something hours. Chech here the section marked Article status. Featured. I did it because  was working all alone and I got pinged. Adam said go take a break, and than he got the flu, or the cat was sitting on him or whatever but he never bothered to say a word that he can't do nothing on this issue. So I was sitting up to dawn fixing the Featured  section, puting up the next issue and when finally ready .. and the next thing I am met with s like YOU sexist this* and * that* removed your filthy comment. Try to feel it, and tell me how you feel. Hafspajen (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. So you are saying that you were actively editing on WP all night and the others say that no one could reach you? Hmm. You didn't mention that in that discussion I read. I looked at all the links you provided me, and even went back a few edits in each one that was a link to a revision history, and I didn't see anything like, "YOU sexist *** removed your filthy comment." Where was that? I'd like to see it. You didn't mention that in the discussion, either, Hafs. I was going only by what I read in the discussion. My comment here would have been different, and I might have joined the discussion (in support of you) if you had said these things before. CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The part "YOU sexist *** removed your filthy comment." - is a poetic exaggeration. Hyperbole, if you so wish. But it felt like this. It was on my talk page this afternoon. First message I got. It said:  In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. I was rather expecting a hey we did it, it was good of us - note. Hafspajen (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And I did ASKED how come that they did this decision among them and they said they discussed it but they couldn't afford to discuss it with me. I could most of the time accept the decisions Adam made because he had the courtesy talking them through with me. I think if you are asked to work in a team than people shouldn't treat you if you were inferiour to them. I don't treat my employees like this. If they worked with me and for me and worked hard - I let them take their own decisions and if I want to I question it or I want to make any changes in the work they did to me, I discuss. Otherwise they will not work well next time. Hafspajen (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is all about to administrate others, and how to manage them. Making things like this doesn't pay off. It is elementary leadership. Hafspajen (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but who was the leader? It wasn't clear to me. Even an editor who is selected as leader may not have good leadership skills. Hafs, you don't need to defend yourself so much with me, and you don't have to correct every last spelling error, either. I pretty much understand what you're saying even with the mistakes. Did you see the comment I left there? I think you should try to keep your comments shorter and more to the point:
 * The "leaders" are the ones who removed comment. Editors-in-chief Gamaliel and Go Phightins. They are the new editors-in-chief, instead the older ones, came as editors-in-chief like amoth ago. The others never interfered like this. Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There. Do you see? Then the burden is on them to respond. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arr. I belive it is a mistake of me editing Signpost. I will not do it any more. They can cope. I don't exacly feel that anyone from the FP team has expressed any support or even responded in any constructive ways in the latest issue, a week ago.  This, the newest - they just keep away. I am happy to work with people but I want them to back me up to, at least.  Probably old fashioned values. Maybe they think we just let this pass, Hafspajen will be back anyway. Hafspajen always does that ... but then those times when I did changed my mind it was because so many people were standing by, supporting me.  Probably I came from an old fashioned environment where they treat things differently, and ignoring others is considered rude.   Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I want you to co-nom, we found the picture, we made an article, 6+713 made the DYK. Nominate, yes. me made nomination. Me added, me put you as co nom, you sign, me Indian chief big Bear. How (greeting) Good night. Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Check Featured picture candidates[edit]. Hafspajen (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

More

 * Sign and add, we waited enough. Hafspajen (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nomination ready. Check, sigh and add. 7+6=13 made a DYK of it. He plans going even for a GA, we nominate, come on. Hafspajen (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy Mother of God, I am tired and start getting grumpy.


 * Corinne, I add nomination it as it is, I have to have some rest. I add it as it is, you go and sign when you are back with the dog, or from shopping. Hafspajen (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Hafspajen. Last night I was tired so logged off. I just signed at FP. CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why MEDRS?
 I saw your comment on Paine Ellsworth's talk page, so out of curiosity I looked at your essay, "Why MEDRS?" I read the first half carefully and skimmed the second half. I just wanted to tell you that I thought it was brilliant. It is clear, well-written, and logically organized, and it has a good tone and is generally at the right level for non-experts in science or medicine. I don't know if you want any feedback from me. Though I have an interest in science, I am not an expert by any means. I have, however, copy-edited Epacris impressa, Radiocarbon dating, and Oil shale in Estonia as they were, or are, being prepared for FA status (see the peer review or article talk pages, including archives of those pages). I would not change much at all in your essay. It is really quite good as it is. I just have a few suggestions, including a few minor changes in wording, phrasing, or punctuation, if you're interested. If you are, please tell me where to make my suggestions:


 * on the as-yet-uncreated talk page for your essay;


 * here; or


 * in the actual text -- I could use the "small" template for my comments/questions so you can easily see them -- and remove them.

Let me know. CorinneSD (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * that is super-nice of you! you can feel free to edit it directly or leave comments on its talk page.  thanks again. ( i apologize for it being so rambling....it is very draft-y) Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just writing link here for convenience. User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS? CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Houses at Auvers
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I am removing the Dickens articles from my watchlist so I wont see any response to previous posts there. I am going to miss seeing your improvements to articles outside of that area. I did need to point out that your misconstruing my posts were hostile was out of line IMO. If you take a look at this Talk:Laurence Olivier you will see what hostility actually is. I never even came close to to reacting like the posts there. I know coming here is petty of me so my apologies and please feel free to remove this - even unread if you wish. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  Right from the beginning of your comments at Talk:Great Expectations, your tone was mildly belligerent and accusatory in tone instead of emotionally neutral and collegial (that is, the way colleagues –equals – talk with each other). I would be glad to get to know you better and engage in discussions with you on any topic, but I think it would a good idea to take my criticism as an opportunity for reflection and self-examination. The best way to persuade others to your point of view is to offer reasons, logical arguments, and pertinent supporting information in a courteous tone, assume that others are not doing what they are doing from any negative intent, and respond to others' specific arguments and concerns. Rwood128 is, in my experience, one of the nicest, politest and most careful of editors; he also responds carefully and thoughtfully to others' comments and concerns. I suggest that you turn over a new leaf. Forget the past and start fresh today. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)



Marsh
 I was looking at the latest edits to Marsh and I wondered about them. I thought "habitat" was used correctly as an uncountable noun before it was changed to a countable noun ("a habitat" and "habitats"). I asked Apokryltaros at User talk:Apokryltaros. He thinks the edits are fine, but I don't. I wondered what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Corinne: I think they're okay too; in fact, I would probably change the first instance of "Marshes provide a habitat" to "Marshes provide habitats" as well. We biologists refer to "habitats" regularly! (Of course, perhaps we're just using the language incorrectly...) Re: the prairie pothole section, I think "these" is probably appropriate, as there are several types of prairie in the prairie pothole region (including both shortgrass and tallgrass prairies, for example). MeegsC (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * MeegsC Thanks for your reply. Of course I have to defer to you since you're a biologist. I just thought the uncountable use was more common, but I guess not. Here is the paragraph containing the "landscapes" item:


 * Prairie potholes are found in the northern parts of North America. These landscapes were once covered by glaciers, and as a result shallow depressions were formed in great numbers. These depressions fill with water in the spring. They provide important breeding habitats for many species of waterfowl. Some pools only occur seasonally while others retain enough water to be present all year.


 * Regarding "these landscapes", because the phrase is plural, it would normally refer to a plural noun or to several different landscapes previously mentioned. There are two plural nouns in the previous sentence ("prairie potholes" and "northern parts"), so one would think "these landscapes" refers to one of them (but since there are two plural noun phrases, that creates ambiguity). That's why I asked Apokryltaros whether a prairie pothole could be considered a landscape. I didn't think so. To me, the landscape is prairie, or a prairie, and the prairie is distinguished from other prairies by containing potholes. I don't think "northern parts of North America" is specific enough to be referred to as a landscape, or landscapes. So, to me, "these landscapes" is unclear. Perhaps if a few words were added to it, it would be clearer, something like:


 * These prairie landscapes..., or


 * These prairie pothole landscapes...


 * I am really puzzled by the use of "habitat" as a countable noun, particularly using it as a plural noun, "Marshes provide habitats for..." To me, a marsh is a habitat, just as a desert is, or a forest. You're saying that, in a marsh, there are more than one type of habitat. Do you mean (a) in the tall grass, (b) in the mud, and (c) in the water? CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are different types of marshes (and forests and deserts): for example, in your paragraph above, some of those prairie potholes are vernal (i.e. temporary) while others are not. For a biologist (and anything that lives in them) these would not provide the same type of habitat! MeegsC (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh... Well, how about my other suggestion just above? CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Corinne, I agree with your objections. This is a copy edit, as well as a biological, matter, and if there are a variety of landscapes within the Prairie Pothole Region the biologists should fully explain this. The plural "landscapes" is confusing. Likewise, "habitats", as used here, is equally confusing to a non-specialist. One of the biologists in fact admits that they may use language incorrectly. And why was Yellow-headed Blackbird changed? Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Habitat" is certainly a count noun to a biologist. See the lead section of Habitat which correctly says that the human body provides a large number of habitats for different organisms. The whole of a marsh might be a habitat to a large mobile animal. A plant might only grow where the water is less than a certain depth, there is little shade, and the pH is within a certain range, so its habitat would be smaller than the whole marsh. Another plant might grow only on bare mud. A spider might only be found where there is vegetation of certain height. And so on. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in this sentence: "Marshes provide a habitat for many types of plants and animals that have adapted to living in flooded conditions", the plural "marshes" indicates that it is marshes in general, and the word "habitat" used in its uncountable sense ("Marshes provide habitat...") would also be general. If you say that in a marsh there can be a number of small habitats, then "Marshes provide a habitat" is wrong. It would have to be "Marshes provide habitats", as MeegsC suggested. But I still think that there is a use for the word "habitat" used as an uncountable noun – habitat in general, a place to live and flourish. "Marshes (in general) provide habitat (general) for many types of plants and animals that have adapted to living in flooded conditions." The various mini-habitats can be explained after that. CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't disagree, I think, but the similarity of meaning is between "habitat" (mass noun) and "habitats" (plural count noun): "marshes provide habitat ..." ≃ "marshes provide habitats ..." (c.f. "I like cake" and "I like cakes" versus "I like a cake [if it's not too sweet]"). I read "marshes provide habitat for many types of plants and animals that have adapted to living in flooded conditions" as meaning that this is one of the habitats that marshes provide, since the "a" here shows it's being used as a count noun. So you could write "marshes provide habitats for many types of plants and animals, including those that have adapted to living in flooded conditions and those that require exposed mud". Equally you could write "marshes provide habitat for many types of plants and animals that have adapted to living in flooded conditions or on exposed mud". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for your reply. Of the last two sentences, the second one is more concise. I'm wondering, though, whether "or on exposed mud" is really necessary. I would think that in any flooded area, there must be areas of mud along the edges of the water. "A flooded area" necessarily includes wet, muddy land along the periphery. I think "or on exposed mud" adds a detail that is unnecessary at this point. Couldn't the detailed information of which organisms live entirely in the water and which live along the edges be given later? CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean these sentences as replacements for any existing text – sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just trying to clarify how biologists use "habitat" as either a count or a mass noun, using marshes purely as an example. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Oh. I saw "habitats" in the first sentence and "habitat" in the second, but I guess I might have focused on the wrong part of each sentence (the end) in my reply. At the risk of annoying you, I still wonder: if "habitat" and "habitats" can be used interchangeably in this type of sentence, why not use "habitat" in the article? I don't understand the choice of the plural over the uncountable. CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I wrote, I don't see much difference in meaning between the mass noun "habitat" and the plural count noun "habitats", so I personally would be quite happy with either. The odd one out is "a habitat". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen
You can add that category to your userpage if you like. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Santiago Atitlán
 I was just looking at the latest edit to Santiago Atitlán: I was just wondering if "Tropical savanna climate" could apply to a highly mountainous, high-altitude area such as Lake Atitlán and the surrounding volcanoes. (And on another minor issue, why is "savanna" spelled without the final "h"? It's usually "savannah".) CorinneSD (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tropical savanna seems like it could fit at that low latitude and high altitude, I'm no climate expert though. Savannah redirects to savanna. The Savannah spelling is often used as the name of female humans ... except for my 15 year old granddaughter, Savanna. She gets a bit indignant when folks spell her name wrong with that h on the end. Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  I was searching for an editor who knows something about climate and found your name. Can you answer my question? (See just above.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Corinne, but I'm actually not sure,  is a bonafide climatologist and might be able to answer your question.--The lorax (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  I just noticed that at the end of the third paragraph of this article there is a website. I don't think it should be there, should it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to an external link. Vsmith (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Shepherd
 The correct spelling is "shepherd", not "sheperd". It comes from "sheep" + "herd".


 * Hafs, I don't understand the point of the category that JJ suggested I add to my talk page (in section above), "Talk pages decorated by Hafspajen". Is there a particular reason for it? CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. No. I am depressed. Hafspajen (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  What's wrong? CorinneSD (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

. But at least is going down with four votes, not only three. Maybe can be renominated some day... unless a miracle not happens in the last second. Hafspajen (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Messier 81
' or ' I liked the image of Messier 81 so much that I added it to my user page. However, I saw some unusual information in the licensing section under the file name, and I'm wondering if I need to list any particular permission next to the image on my user page. CorinneSD (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on this. Hafspajen (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a pending OTRS. The mail is sent (as the creator mailed me) but I am waiting for a volunteer to update it. I think you need an attribution as I had here..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Amer Fort
 In the article Amer Fort, which I was looking at after seeing the Featured picture nomination, I couldn't make out the image at the right in Amer Fort, so I clicked on it to get a better look. Here's the image:

.


 * It looks like the image is upside-down. Am I seeing it incorrectly, or is it really upside-down? If it is upside-down, can you turn it right-side up?


 * Also, I'm puzzled. In the nomination made by  at WP:Featured picture candidates, the caption says, "A view from Amer fort", but the caption for the same image (to the left of the upside-down image, in Amer Fort) says, "View of Amer Fort". Also, other images in the article show the large, red building that is below the summit of the small mountain as the fort. So the caption at FP might be wrong. CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, is it really upside-down! But I think there is some way of rotating it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GOSH, they really USE this in the article, how silly. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rotation requested — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well...It was my father who shot the pic and I uploaded it. I wasn't aware (may be you too) that the picture don't have Amer fort in its frame. It was shot from  the fort in the hilltop. I'll change the file description...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 01:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  Well, actually, I was a bit confused as to which was Amer Fort – the big reddish-colored building below the summit or the smaller fort all the way at the top, but I have re-read the article (after copy-editing it) and see that the bigger building (complex) is called both Amer Fort and Amer Palace, and the smaller fort at the top is call Jaigarh Fort. CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84
edited today! Jippie!! Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great! (Now I know you're Swedish! You pronounce "j" as "y". We spell it "Yippee!") By the way, did you ever see the movie I Remember Mama? It's about a [sorry] Norwegian family in San Francisco. It's one of my favorite movies. I thought of it because "Mama" also pronounces "j" as "y". But of course I got the sentiment behind "Jippie!!" CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haffy did it on purpose..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 02:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya, yoost like Sonya Henie in this movie! Sca (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * However doubted until now I was Swedish ... hum? :( Hafspajen (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't doubt it. Are you feeling better today? You said yesterday you were depressed. CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, well, I mean - really, I nominated the German guy who is soo damn totally unknown - with the Alp-landscape - and is passing - and I nominate a seriously famous picture from a famous Italian guy and people don't even BOTHER to check.... And it is not getting featured because a photo-team guy make an oppose - like it have been a photo - saying it is too dark. It is so seriously wrong. This is a GREAT artwork, a RARE depiction of the object, a wonderful piece of art and nobody cares. --Hafspajen (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you wait a few weeks and nominate it again, it will be promoted. What do you think of my idea of a colorful icon that can be placed on the main page and on one's talk page to make it easier to get to FP? Also, and this is a separate issue, I noticed that after you vote and save the vote, you go back to the main candidates' page, but you have to scroll down through all the instructions and then a few candidates to get to the next one. After a few times, this gets tedious. Maybe people get tired of doing that and stop after the first few images. I wonder if there is a way to separate the current candidates from the long instructions so that it takes less time to scroll down. CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that after you vote and save the vote, for going back to the main candidates' page, but you have to scroll down through all the instructions and then all the above  candidates to get to the next one. I did, and I guess it is irritating. You should be back were you were, on the candidate you edited ... at the same place in the cue. About the the main page, I am not too sure, it might attract vandalism maybe. DYK articles sometimes are heavily vandalized because they appeaser on the main page too... and vandalism stops when they are removed. I think FAs are generally routinely protected under the time they appear on the main page. Hafspajen (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Well, maybe just an icon-link to FP that one can put at the top of one's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

La Laguna Cathedral
 I just finished going through La Laguna Cathedral (again) since more material had been added. I believe non-native speakers of English (probably Spanish speakers) have been working on this article. I left a note on the talk page offering to help clarify unclear spots. I noticed a red wiki-link to Juan de Miranda about two-thirds of the way through the article. I know I had seen that name before, so I thought I could clear up the red link, but I see that there are two Spanish artists named Juan de Miranda. It's got to be the one who painted a painting called (I believe) The Last Supper (it is mentioned near the red link in the article). Can you figure out which Juan de Miranda is meant, and fix the link (if there is an article on him)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture this
talk→  WPPilot   17:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What a beautiful photograph! It's a nice-looking house, and it's a beautiful, clear day, and the blue trim on the house and the purple flowers in front show up clearly and add color to the picture. Also, since mining is an important part of American history, the photo has encyclopedic value. Is it in an article? I think it has to be included in an article for at least a week before being nominated. CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, great picture. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Yes I am aware of the preq. for use of 7 days before nomination, I just knew you would enjoy the shot so I thought I would share. It has been used on Park City, Utah and the house itself has a lot of history to it. It really deserves a Wiki of its own as a historic landmark in Park City.. talk→   WPPilot   03:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Climate change
' and ' I'd like to offer my support to NewsAndEventsGuy in his quest to remove the hyphen between "climate" and "change" in the phrase "climate-change fiction", the second phrase in the article Climate fiction, but before I do, I'd like your opinions. See Talk:Climate fiction (first comment only) and User talk:Paine Ellsworth. I don't think all noun phrases that are then used as adjectives need to be hyphenated, do you? (Of course, feel free to weigh in on those discussions.) CorinneSD (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the hyphen. 'Climate change' is a well-known phrase. Rothorpe (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest the very idea of an article on Climate fiction seems odd (absurd), let alone climate change fiction. I won't ask if it's a genre!
 * I agree with Rothorpe. Rwood128 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This has led further – as you have probably seen – and after "series" comes "fiction"! The question of genre and the word "fiction" has been something that keeps cropping-up. Rwood128 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at the talk page in a while, but I see. I agree with you that if "cli-fi" is to be spoken about in relation to both literature and films, it ought to be called a theme rather than a genre. I'm sure you'll find sources to back you up. I am amazed that the discussions on that page - a topic I never heard about until now - (all in March) have gotten people so worked up. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes more "Talk" than article by miles and I'm guilty too. Fiction needs attention before this minor article. Undoubtedly climate change (rightly) raises emotions. Rwood128 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Howe Island
 Have you seen the interesting photos of geological features in the article Lord Howe Island? Look in Lord Howe Island and Lord Howe Island. Also, from there I looked at the article on Guyots. I noticed (unless it's there and I missed it) that there is no explanation for the flat tops of guyots. There is a sentence at the end of the article that expresses Hess's theory, but no real explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are great images. And yes, the guyot article could use some work ... like thousands of others... Vsmith (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why all caps all of a sudden?
I just made an edit to Edna Ferber undoing an edit. I selected one of the standard edit summaries from the drop-down list at the bottom. After I saved the edit, I noticed that all the edit summaries on my watchlist had changed to capital letters. What happened? Can I get it to go back to the way it was? Do I have to undo that edit to do that? CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It changed back after another edit or two. Thanks, anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, iv'e changed the template stating that you have been helped. LethalFlower (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mica
 I just finished reading the article on Mica, and I made a few copy-edits. I wanted to ask you about something. What do you think of the sentence with the long list of adjectives (indicating qualities, or characteristics, of mica) about a third of the way through the first paragraph in Mica? While they may all be true of mica, the sheer length of the list may overwhelm a reader. A reader's eyes may begin to glaze over after the first five or so. Also, right after the list, specific qualities are discussed in detail, which is more informative. If you think it should stay, that's fine. I just thought I'd ask you what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be better presented as perhaps a bulleted (and annotated list) rather than the present form. The sentence beginning: It has superior electrical properties ... also could be broken up/improved. Vsmith (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by annotated. When you say a bulleted list, I assume you mean one adjective per bullet/row. Shall I go ahead and make the bulleted list, and you can add whatever information you want to the items, or do you want to take care of all of it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That'll learn me :) OK, in my too quick of an assessment I was thinking of a list of those terms (characteristics) with brief explanation from the following text. But that gets rather involved. Also, the entire paragraph is copied from the USGS 2008 Minerals Yearbook with only trivial changes. To me, that's cheating - but as it is in the public domain, OK per copyright stuff... arrgh. My typical reaction here is close the browser window and find something else to do. To me a complete rewrite is in order - but not now, already closed that window ... maybe tomorrow. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Now you probably dread seeing a ping from me. You know it will probably be something that requires some work. Did you see the other note I left you, below, on Stroma, Scotland? CorinneSD (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, future pings are fine ... may run from work tho' - the weather is fine and the woods beckon. Vsmith (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Stroma, Scotland
 I left a question about an edit to Stroma, Scotland on Prioryman's talk page. See User talk:Prioryman. However, I don't know whether I should just revert that entire edit, or just add the hyphens that were taken out. Two links were added in that edit, and I don't know whether they should stay or not, and I don't want to bother Prioryman again. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hmm.. wasn't aware of that language difference. I'd say fix the hyphen bit with an explanation (ed summary) and don't revert the whole edit. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And thanks for that ping, hadn't seen that article previously. Interesting read. Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Attiriontes
Looks like the guy who named the file couldn't spell much .... File:Antoine de Favray - Portrait of the Countess of Vergennes in Turkish Attireontes of Vergennes in Turkish Gown - Google Art Project.jpg - it wasn't me this time. Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe Crisco could correct it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * People just nominate but never vote for others.Hafspajen (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the correct spelling? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  Are you referring to me? Are you saying I'm not voting often enough at FP?
 * Nobody votes enough. Except Cris and me. Two perfectly wonderful noms are going down the drain because nobody cares. People just put their noms up, watchlist it and hope it will be featured. But who is going to do that. Hafspajen (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Corinne and - at least read what I wrote as a  last straw nom that is going out in like a couple hours. Feels like nobody cares. Hafspajen (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Too few users vote on FPCs. The usual suspects.
 * Generally speaking, I only vote on noms I really like, or dislike. (Same for WP:ITNC.) Sca (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  I'm so sorry, Hafs. I will read it in a minute, but just wanted to say that I was kind of avoiding voting on photographs because it seemed like I wasn't knowledgeable enough. Recently, I have only been voting on a photograph if it looks like a really good one. Also, just in the last few days i've been pretty busy and only get to WP late in the day. I will look at all current nominations, and your "lasst straw nom", now. CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FPCs needing feedback is that needs feedback. Looks like people never scroll down only to the first five noms. If they want to oppose it is fine, sure, OK, but at least somebody could care a bit. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about putting an eye-catching link to FP on the Main Page and on the main page of Commons? That ought to attract more people. Also, on another topic, why is it taking so long for them to decide which image is the Featured picture of the year? Round 2 was over a long time ago. CorinneSD (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As a readily accessible interactive feature (quite the buzzword these days), WP:FPC should indeed be promoted – but perhaps not too prominently, in order not to attract riffraff casual readers. Perhaps a small notice or link at the bottom of each daily FP – or a listing in the (small-type) "interaction" box on the Main Page?
 * I've been on WP since '04, but I didn't know about the FP nomination process until a couple years ago. (Some may wish I'd never found out.) It can be quite fun discussing noms with other users, and one learns a good deal from eds having academic or technical expertise. Sca (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Turks
 I don't know what it's supposed to be. Perhaps: Turkish attire. After "attire", I don't know. By the way, I enjoyed looking at the photos of Indonesia on your talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I see it now. Will fix. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  I saw you fixed the file name. Can you also fix the Title in the Summary below the image? CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd guess some sort of diminutive derivative of attire. Sca (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My money's on a fusion of two variants of the title, from the elision of the middle of an excessively long two-version name. That is, the word in question is just “attire“ (rendered as “gown“ the second time around) followed by the remains of “Countess” and the rest of the second variant.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Edna Ferber
' and ' What do you think of this edit to Edna Ferber? . I don't understand the removal of the word "strong". CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it cries out for an edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean an edit summary accompanying a revert? Do you have any suggestions? CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the edit the editor made should have had a summary. But I agree with Rwood, immediately below. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You should revert and give your reason as "no explanation given for the previous edit". Rwood128 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted and used one of the standard edit summaries from the drop-down list: "Unexplained content removal". CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't know about drop-down lists. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/M 81
If you liked it, you could have voted for it.. Canvassing you.. ..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 08:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this was nominated at about the time that I decided not to vote for too many photos because I felt I didn't know enough about image quality, but if you think it's all right, I'll vote occasionally. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus
 Hello, Jytdog! Judging from the essay you wrote on MEDRS, I believe you have a background in medicine. Would you mind reviewing these edits to Diabetes mellitus and those just previous to these by the same editor? I can't judge the content or formatting of section headings, but I wonder about the sentence that contains "must" twice.

Also, I haven't seen much work on your wonderful essay. Have you forgotten all about it? Did I do too much copyediting to your draft? If so, you can always undo my edits. CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am on it! I have paid mind to your comments and have been thinking about them.  i really appreciate the time you took to copyedit and give feedback.  i will try to get back there today or tomorrow.  i am pulled in so many directions here these days... :) Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Geology
', ' What do you think of these edits, and the ones just previous to them by the same editor, to Geology? Vsmith, you can judge the content, but regarding wording, my impression is that the later versions are less direct and more wordy than the earlier versions. CorinneSD (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I echo your second sentence there. Less idiomatic too. Rothorpe (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded things a bit, don't know if I covered your concerns ... just did some fixing. Vsmith (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Stratigraphy
(1) ' and ' I have just started reading the article on Stratigraphy. I want to ask you about something in a sentence. It's the first sentence in the second paragraph in the section Stratigraphy. Here is the sentence:


 * The first practical large-scale application of stratigraphy was by William Smith in the 1790s and early 19th century.

I just wonder about "in the 1790s and early 19th century". I think the combination of two dating formats in the same phrase can throw a reader off, making him or her have to stop and think about it. I wonder whether it would be better to use the same dating format, either


 * in the 1790s and early 1800s

or


 * in the late 18th and early 19th century.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite so. The last is the neatest. Or perhaps I prefer the decades. Vsmith can decide. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to early 1800s for consistency ... Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(2) Vsmith I want to ask you about another sentence. It's the second sentence in the second paragraph in the section Stratigraphy. Here it is:


 * Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios vary with time, and researchers can use them to map subtle changes in the paleoenvironment.

I know this is probably clear enough to you, but I'm wondering if it would be clearer for the average reader if "that occurred" or "that took place" were added after "subtle changes". (I believe the paleoenvironment is the very ancient environment of the rocks and rock layers, right?)


 * Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios vary with time, and researchers can use them to map subtle changes that occurred in the paleoenvironment.


 * Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios vary with time, and researchers can use them to map subtle changes that took place in the paleoenvironment.

– CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(3) Vsmith Here's another question:

The section Stratigraphy has a link to the article Lithostratigraphy and starts, "Lithostratigraphy, or lithologic stratigraphy,..."

The section Stratigraphy has a link to the article Biostratigraphy and starts, "Biostratigraphy or paleontologic stratigraphy...". Does it matter that the first section has the two-word phrase and the second section has the one-word phrase? Or is there a good reason for that? CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(4) Vsmith and  The last paragraph in the section Stratigraphy is:


 * A gap or lacuna in the geological record may be caused by erosion, in which case it is called a vacuity, or by non-deposition, where is known as a stratigraphic hiatus. It is called a hiatus because deposition was on hold for a period of time. A physical lacuna may represent both a period of non-deposition and a period of erosion.  A fault may cause the appearance of a hiatus.

I thought italics were used mainly for non-English words or in order to provide emphasis. I believe "lacuna" and "hiatus" are English words, and I don't think emphasis is needed here. Is there a reason why these words should be in italics? I was thinking of changing them all to regular (Roman) font and putting "on hold" in quotation marks. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree again. Maybe there was a confusion with 'words as words', which WP says should be italicised. Rothorpe (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reword w/ another ref & left out the obscure lacuna as unneeded jargony. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(5) Vsmith I was reading the section Stratigraphy, and in the first paragraph I came across this phrase: "detrital remanent magnetism (DRM)". I have two questions:

(a) Since I had never seen the word "remanent", I thought it might be a typo for "remnant". First, I looked for it in the article Magnetostratigraphy (a link is provided at the beginning of the section), but I didn't find it. Shouldn't it be there?

(b) Then, I looked up the word "remanent" in Wiktionary, and I was surprised to find it there. It is indeed a word, so I guess it's correct. Is there any way to provide a wiki-link at the word "remanent" to the definition? I know an external link there is not right; is there a way to provide a wiki-link?
 * Added remanent w/ pipe. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) And then I discover remanence (discover heh, but I see it's on me watchlist). Vsmith (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by something. It seems as if "Lithostratigraphy" (or "Lithological stratigraphy"), "Biostratigraphy", and "Chronostratigraphy" are all activities or fields (that, of course, employ techniques or methods), but "Magnetostratigraphy" is a technique or method. Am I misunderstanding something? CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Made it a subheader of Chronostratigraphy as it is one technique used in chronostrat. Vsmith (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
I wanted to reach out and say thank you for your comments. Don't be sad, I am not going away, and I am not going to discontinue to nominate photos I take in FP. It can be frustrating sometimes, from a creative standpoint I tend to lean towards the creative aspects of my contributions and it requires a thick skin at times to just overlook some of the random comments my photos often provoke. Frankly speaking it is exceptionally complicated to manage, as I do, the cumulative assets and skill sets that are required to contribute much of what I have placed here. IMHO it would be far more balanced if the voters were, in some way vetted and had some photographic background. You are welcome to also nominate my photos any time. I truly enjoy the art of photography, and appreciate your kind words and support. Cheers! talk→  WPPilot   03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WPPilot Thanks for your note! I agree with you that those who vote on photos should have a basic, or more than basic, knowledge of photography. Have you proposed that somewhere? If you haven't, and if you decide to do that, I would have a list of criteria and a suggested selection process to propose right at the start. It would give the others something to think about and give direction to the discussion. I would be glad to nomination some of your photos but don't know if I have a sufficient knowledge of photography. I can only judge a photo as to composition, clarity (to the inexpert eye), and interest, not the finer points. If you think that is sufficient, can you tell me where to look for your photos, so I can choose one? CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @ I keep a selection of them on my user page, so just click on WPPilot and take a gander. Note that the first few are just over the last few days, and will not qualify until next weeks FP (photos need to be on a project page for at least a week before consideration), so what I suggest is that you find 3 you like, and lets work it through and nominate them together. I would be more then happy to give you my objective consideration, as well look forward to having your thoughts considered, prior to a actual nomination. I am willing to bet that Hafy would be more then happy to join us.. talk→  WPPilot   19:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed looking at the photos on your user page. I love the pictures of the orchids. I hope you will take and post more photos of them. I prefer a natural background, in focus or not, to a stark white background; I think it gives the image some depth and provides clues as to the size of the flower(s). As you suggested, I chose three images that I think are exceptional:

I wanted to ask you about a caption:
 * In the middle of the photos of Newport Beach there is a photo with the caption "Balboa Pier". However, all I see is an expanse of green grass and a row of tall palm trees. Is the pier behind the palm trees? I don't see the pier. Also, all the image files say D Ramey Logan. Is that you? CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I am flattered. The photo that I perhaps have miss labeled is the park that is in the photo of the Balboa Pier of the park and palm trees is next to the pier. I am doing video work right now, but lets explore the pics over the next few days, ok. Some of them have already been nominated and were not promoted, and I will show you now how to look at the history of each to do some research before we nominate one of them ok. Here in the EN Wikipedia we only see a short summary, under the photo when you enlarge it. Click on the button under the photo and review more information first, then we need to notate the pics that have been nominated, and figure out why those did not receive enough votes before (perhaps it is something that can be changed/fixed) and narrow the list down some. I am going to let you make the final nomination btw, so perhaps you might want to also include a caption for the reasons you see each qualifies as a Featured Photo (one of the best images on the "English Wikipedia project". BTW, yes I am: - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">D Ramey Logan a.k.a. WPPilot &#10032; unicomm 123.0  >



What are your thoughts on that photo? talk→  WPPilot   17:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Wow, I can see why you said you have to have a thick skin on FP. They have pretty high standards for photos. When I saw the comments that the Avery Fisher Hall photo is not completely in focus, I thought, how can you get a photo of such a large building completely in focus at night? I guess they're looking for an urban Ansel Adams. When I saw the comments regarding the space ship plane, (oversaturated, out of focus) I wondered what they meant. I don't know what "oversaturated" means. Does it mean too much color, or too dark, or both? I really like that photo. I like the colors, and it looks in focus enough, to me. Is the oversaturation something that could be fixed using software? When I saw the comments regarding the sakura flowers, I was just puzzled. The flowers looked in focus to me, and I didn't see anything wrong with the background (the comment said, "What's with that stripe in the background?"). A lot of these were nominated before I got involved in Featured pictures, or I would have voted for some or all of them. Regarding the sailboat, I like the angle of the mast and sail, and the background. The only things I can think of that editors might have objected to are (a) the fact that the clouds are almost the same color as the sail, so the sail doesn't stand out as much as I might have; (b) there is a white reflection (probably from the sea foam just under the bow) on the side of the boat and the lower part of the sail, and, since it looks like a partly cloudy day, the white there, and even the yellow higher up on the sail, is puzzling. Regarding the last image, the regatta, (Star boats), I think it's all right, but I have a feeling it will not be successful. I think it is partly that it is such an overcast day, and partly because it is not clear which is the point of interest, the sailing boats/race or the red buoy. But you can always try. Of course I'll be glad to nominate the Lido photo. It's nice and clear. (I can't believe how many houses are jammed into such a small space, the little island and the surrounding land.) I will take some time to look at the background of some of the other photos, as you suggested. It sounds like you are busy right now, so no need to reply. Whenever you have time. CorinneSD (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not forgot about you :) just been busy. I suggest that you write a caption for the Lido Island photo above and lets submit it. If you do not already read the signpost I suggest you review it and the featured section that I contribute to. The current edition has one of my photos, on the cover: Wikipedia Signpost. That launch of SpaceShipOne was one of the most remarkable events that I covered and many of the related photos, IMHO are well qualified to be FP on the site. Please go ahead and nominate the Lido photo, LMK if you need any help or direction with the nomination. Cheers! talk→   WPPilot   15:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You will have seen that I have nominated the Lido Isle photo. How did I do? I was just glancing at your latest edit to your user page (I only looked at the last one), and I saw an error that you might like to fix. It's in this:


 * I am a editor on the weekly publication Wikipedia Signpost.


 * Since "editor" begins with a vowel sound, the article just before it should be "an", not "a". CorinneSD (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  I didn't tell you before, but my father was a pilot in WWII, and he kept up his flying after the war; he owned a Stearman biplane for a while. CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Stearman is a fantastic aircraft. It was invented by Lloyd Stearman, I was best man in his great granddaughters wedding (Daughter of Dr Ronald Stearman from Texas).. Did you ever get to fly in the plane? If so you were a lucky girl! talk→   WPPilot   03:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tanks..


What do you think about this edit? I don't get it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw that and wondered about it, too. I don't get it, either. What's wrong with "Missions work"? If that's not all right, then something better has to be found. Let's ask  what he thinks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And anyway, Francis was not really a missionary, was he? CorinneSD (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Missions work, don't they? That's mission's work, or is it missions' work, the work of how many missions? There's a grammatical ambiguity about the phrase which is unsettling. Rothorpe (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * if:A missionary is a member of a religious group sent into an area to do evangelism or ministries of service, such as education, literacy, social justice, health care and economic development - well, no, not a missionary. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose "Missionary impulse" refers to his efforts to travel outside of Italy to bring the Word of God, as described in that section. I think I'm going to have to say that I can't make a decision on this because I don't know enough about it. What do you think of the caption to the painting on the left side in that section? Here it is:


 * Saint Francis Abandons His Father. Francis of Assisi renouncing to his father and his patrimony, laying aside even the garments he had received from him in front of the public.


 * Should this read, "Francis of Assisi publicly renouncing his patrimony in the presence of his father, laying aside the garments he had received from him"?


 * Can a person renounce his father? How about "breaking off his relationship with his father and renouncing his patrimony"? CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I think - if you check the latest changes, it is that it is wrong to put Clara to mission. Yes, one can renounce his father - or mother is the person is crazy.   Hafspajen (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, Hafs, I forgot to thank for for the chocolate bunny. I love chocolate. Thank you! I don't understand why you gave me a link to the edit window at Francis of Assisi; how can i see changes in the edit window? Also, I don't understand "it is that it is wrong to put Clara to mission". Do you mean "the poor Clares"? I don't understand "to put...to mission".


 * When you wrote, "Yes, one can renounce his father - or mother is the person is crazy," I thinking you mean "IF the person is crazy", right? That's why I don't want to say, "he renounced his father". "Renounced his patrimony" makes sense, but not "renounced his father". If you think we should say something about the father, then I suggested, "breaking off his relationship with his father", but perhaps it is not necessary. CorinneSD (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, added your caption. yes, if it is a crazy person Looks like it doesn't work, that link. If you go in to latest edits before this user made their lasts, push previous; edit and click show changes, down you'll notice s/he changed the heather, and put the whole material iof The Poor Clares and the Third Order under Missions work - and that is wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this? In this edit, the editor moved the information about the founding of the Poor Clares and a third order (of laity, etc.) to a subsection (Founding of the Friars Minor) under the larger section Francis of Assisi. Since the Poor Clares was founded in 1211, only one year after the Franciscan order was founded, this organization makes sense. It's not under "Missions work" (now "Missionary impulse"). CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Got that now. Revered to his-her version. But missionary impulse sounds crazy to me.Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ' and ' Can you think of a better section heading than "Missionary impulse". I know what the editor was thinking. It's just that that phrase is a bit strange. If you read the first two paragraphs of that section, you'll see that Francis was moved to spread the Word of God outside of Italy, and made several trips and attempted trips, but he didn't really spend much time as a missionary. So he was moved, or motivated, to be, well, I guess it's not really a missionary but rather an evangelist, for a short time. Would "Evangelism" or "Early evangelistic efforts", or something like that, make more sense? CorinneSD (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Or 'Evangelistic impulse' indeed, or does that sound odd too? Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, while it may be true that Francis was acting on a type of impulse (to spread the Word of God outside of Italy) when he made (or attempted to make) his few trips, I don't think it's the best word, partly because the paragraphs don't discuss anything about the internal workings of his mind; they merely describe the trips, and one attempted trip. I'd like to hear what Rwood128 and Hafspajen think. CorinneSD (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I cannot do anything now, but will try and look at this tomorrow. Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bog
 Do you agree with this edit to Bog and the ones just previous to it by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Hafspajen (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll work your magic on the article. (If you need to consult anyone on content, ask User:Vsmith.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Or, forget that last comment. I just remembered that you are a landscape architect, so you must know about bogs, and I can see the work you are now doing on the article. CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One should leave significant illustration in article if enough place, and that article was well illustrated. Put back some, moved gallery to end. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ÖÖö, content? I am still a landscape architect... should know a bit about bogs... Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I remembered after I wrote that. CorinneSD (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir
' and ' I was looking at the latest edit to Pierre-Auguste Renoir. I wanted to see if the change was made due to a desire for political correctness or for accuracy. If I read the article correctly, in 1867 Renoir was not married, so I guess "mistress" could not be correct. However, I feel that, even if "lover" is more correct, the way the sentence is worded places too much emphasis on it. I thought if I reverse the name and the phrase, it would de-emphasize "his lover at the time". I would change from:


 * Renoir had his first success at the Salon of 1868 with his painting Lise with a Parasol (1867), which depicted his lover at the time, Lise Tréhot.

to:


 * Renoir had his first success at the Salon of 1868 with his painting Lise with a Parasol (1867), which depicted Lise Tréhot, his lover at the time.

I also think this order, giving the name first, shows more respect for the woman. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be precise, Renoir had so many woman that he didn't really had any ... lovers - not in the meaning that he was inloved with them, he had sexual partners, yeah. Manet had a lover. Renoir had several women at the same time sometimes... I don't know the right definition of the word,  a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship is probably not. But he was severely promiscuous. Lover sounds .. to nice. Hafspajen (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. I think the word "lover" can be used even if the relationship is brief. I may be wrong, but I thought the word "mistress" is used for a lover of a married man (ie., not his wife), but if I'm wrong, then perhaps "mistress" can be used here. CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Corinne. Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I am not an English expert, I guess you are both right. Hafspajen (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, "lover" is O.K., then? What about my other question about re-ordering the words? CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In both respects. Sorry, I was being brief after a couple of ecs. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On another topic, I don't understand the comment about the painting of Gaudioso at FP. I would agree with him only if the claim is being made that it is an accurate portrait of Gaudioso, but I don't think that is being claimed, is it? CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it certainly isn't. Strange comment. Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it certainly isn't. Strange comment. Hafspajen (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ' and ' I forgot to tell you: about two weeks ago, I was driving on a highway and I saw about sixteen turkeys just at the side of the road! I had never seen so many in one place. There were about three adults, and the rest were all young. (Turkeys seem to know to stay off the roadway.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Curly Turkey would have been ecstatic. Hafspajen (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! It's been a long time since I've seen the folks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you people interested in writing an article? here, check,  - this is a good painting. If it had an article - could easily be a FP.  Are you interested ?  Hafspajen (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind writing the article. I'm not particularly crazy about that painting (I"d like to see more of his paintings), but he seems like he was an interesting person with varied interests. Is that text with the painting what needs to be paraphrased? CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Check John Brett. Yes, that needs paraphrasing, try start here - User:CorinneSD/John Brett - The_Stonebreaker ... Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That painting is an important work.... Hafspajen (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... The one I like best is "Near Sorrento". I'll work on the paraphrasing tomorrow. Too tired now. What about my comment below? We need a picture of young turkeys in the Turkey (bird) article. CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)



Hafs, there is no picture in the article on Turkeys that shows young turkeys. Can you find one? CorinneSD (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Also, in your comment at Gaudioso, you might want to fix a typo. You have, "In he above reasoning". I think you mean "In the above reasoning". CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Must I find a young Turkey? I like them big... Hafspajen (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're talking about turkeys here. Young turkeys are cute. They also look different from adult turkeys. CorinneSD (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't look young enough here... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Meleagris_gallopavo Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is only one photo that shows a young "poullet", but it's not a clear photo. What do you think about adding this one to the article?



Society of Jesus
 I was looking at this edit to Society of Jesus. I thought other Wikipedia articles are not to be used as sources. Also, I noticed that the entire paragraph is unsourced. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * True, other Wikipedia articles are not to be used as sources. Unfortunately know nothing about Jesuits in USA. But you who live there could easily find sources... Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Pollarding
 Do you agree with this edit to Pollarding? I don't know whether it's important here, but I notice that it's unsourced. Also, even if the statement is all right, is it in the right place? If you approve of the sentence, I will fix the sentence structure a bit.
 * Yes, that is fully OK.

Also, did you see all the edits made just before that by an unregistered editor (red user name)? CorinneSD (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Check (I) Hafspajen (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki
See this.] Sca (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Thanks for the link to the video. I enjoyed watching it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-arranged talkpage
Hi Corinne. I did some re-arranging; only the welcome-message is still not okay, I think. If you don't like all this, please revert. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  Thank you, Joshua! It looks very nice. (Perhaps the image of the purple painting is a little large; I have my screen zoomed to 150% so it is very large on my screen.) That's a very interesting painting by Mondriaan. Not only had I never seen that painting before, I had completely forgotten all about Mondriaan, so now I'm going to read the article on him. I don't understand why you put the tag "Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen" if it was you who decorated (that is, re-arranged) my talk page. Does that phrase simply refer to the fact that Hafs often puts various images on my talk page? If so, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It refers to Haf's decoration service, indeed. I'll resize the image. Which of the two headers do you prefer? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added MiszaBot. This automatically archivates threads at your talkpage. I've configurated it for archivating threads after three months, with minimally 10 threads left. when an archive grows larger than 200K, a new archive is automatically started. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but could you tell me what a thread is? Also, JJ, it's archives, and configured. In both words you added an extra syllable, "ates" or "ated". Those syllables appear in other words, like ruminate, laminate, contemplate, and percolate. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A thread is an item on a talkpage, like this subsection. Did I use the wrong word? Ah, yes: my "Dutchanisms" again - "gearchiveerd," "geconfigureerd." Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Isamu Noguchi
' and ' What do you think of this edit to Isamu Noguchi? If you think it's all right, a missing space needs to be added. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourced and looks OK. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, I thrust Rothorpe on this one. Hafspajen (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier
Hi Corinne. Thank you for your comments there. You said, "I thought William Avery did a pretty good job of summarizing your points", but perhaps you meant me? Alakzi (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Thanks for pointing that out. I immediately fixed it in my comment. Since I hadn't read all the preceding comments, I guess I misunderstood some things, but I had read earlier comments on the same page about two weeks ago. I also don't think the comment to which I was responding was especially clear. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do generally try to disengage after a couple of replies when people seem very passionate - for want of a better word. The points the editor has made appear to reflect a certain ideology, which might be difficult to challenge at this time and in this setting. Wikipedia is often not the friendliest of places, and, when it comes to infoboxes, people have learned to assume the worst. Alakzi (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  Thanks for your thoughts. I was distressed by all the sniping and nasty comments on that page. It's so unnecessary and counterproductive. I personally like infoboxes. What I think people who oppose infoboxes don't understand is that people like to get their information in different ways, and not always the same way; it depends upon what they're looking for and how much time they have to spend at that moment. I don't find infoboxes distracting at all. Sometimes I don't even look at it and go right into the article. But I'm not going to argue over it. There are many other less stressful things to do. I'm just curious – why don't you register so that your user name will turn blue, and then you can create an interesting user page. CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am registered - I've just not got around to creating a user page yet. I'm quite secretive by nature, so I've had a bit of trouble deciding what to put there. Maybe I could link to some of the music I've been listening to. :-) Alakzi (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that. Why don't you spend some time looking at various editors' user pages? They're all different, and some are quite creative, and you could get some ideas from them. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Corinne, thanks for "try to disengage" and user page suggestion, a topic not discussed for the first time, see? - What do you think of the project of the outcasts, with as many active women as men, and (dangerous) thoughts about infoboxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

He's done it! Alakzi (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ' Thanks for your comments and for the links. Those are interesting pages. I guess I'll join the project. Your "thoughts about infoboxes" page is succinct and very nicely organized. ' I'm glad you made a user page. Congratulations! It's a good start. Just a suggestion (you don't have to follow it, of course): My first reaction when I read, "Greetings, stranger,..." was that I was no longer a stranger, so "stranger" was jarring. I think that even your friends might occasionally visit your user page, and they might be taken aback by "stranger". How about just, "Greetings"? CorinneSD (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite right, thank you. Alakzi (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Noo, **** - and it's cruel!
Pollarding All WRONG. Hafspajen (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No way you use plums, absolutely NOT. NO WAY  using that. No Junipers, (Juniperus spp), generally not dogwoods (Cornus spp), but theses were in the article already. Someone must look through that.


 * None of theses are typical or used at all. NOT very typical, sweet chestnut  Castanea sativa(?), ahem Aesculus but not Castanea, ...plums, cherries, peaches, nectarines, apricots and almonds????  (Prunus spp) err, ...  they are prone to bleeding sap, sumachs -well, - about - birch (Betula spp), not too sure. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * !! Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ash, yes, willows yes. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What 'Cotoneaster spp, brooms (Cytisus spp)?? What Clematis, and Wisteria?? - Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * !Hafspajen (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a reliable source, https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=156
 * Found the edit that added the plain bullshit. This must be removed because it is plain wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This source is used all over Wiki articles, but I never heard of this author or book. 'HDRA encyclopedia of organic gardening by Pauline Spears - ??? Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In Spain and Italy Castanea sativa is pollarded, a lot, I don't know why. These images are typical of chestnut orchards. On a lighter note, apparently the author's name is Pauline Pears, as on the book cover! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think pollarding is cruel to the tree. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have a point there. It's typical for Dutch "knotwilgen," though. I didn't know that "lei-lindes" also fall into this category. We've got four of them in the front-yard; I think they're very "burgerlijk," and would like to replace them by "meidoord" and the like.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "meidoord" are good; they bite back if someone tries to cut them, and the wood is very hard. Mispel, Crataegus germanica are good too, such as 'Dutch giant'; makes wonderful jelly that seems to work synergistically to be even better with cream cheese. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, indeed. Can't say I am an expert on Castanea sativa, we can barely manage to make it survive here, much less start pollarding it. The main reason why it was done here to obtain those thin, strait willow branches, to use it making different structures baskets and soon - and to feed it to animals, sometimes, too. Why on earth is he using Pauline Spears if she is called Pauline Pears? Hafspajen (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypercorrecting what someone thought was a typo?? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir
Thank you for your message. Frankly I am shocked and devastated. I had no idea about this, unfortunately I was out of communication since January. She is wonderful and always will be. Again, thank you for letting me know. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC))

Cucurbita
Can you look at just that section? Various people reworked it. No need to ask me about changes, I didn't write it so feel free to just change as you see fit. Thank you. HalfGig  talk  01:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  As you can see, HalfGig has asked me to copyedit a section of the article on Cucurbita. (I had already done a lot of copyediting on this article a while ago, getting it ready for FA; there has already been a peer review, and I believe it has been promoted to FA.) Early in this section I saw the word "antihelmintic". Since I had always seen "antihelminthic", I thought it might be a typographical error, so I clicked on the link and saw that the WP article is titled "Antihelmintic", with that and "antihelmenthic" given as alternate spellings. Is this a British English/American English difference, or is "antihelmintic" really the more common spelling. I'm just puzzled. CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * American English. See top of talk page.  HalfGig   talk  21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  What's American English? Which one? I read the entire talk page and didn't see anything related to this. The first comment at the bottom of the page has two alternate spellings but not the alternates that are now at the beginning of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to the talk page and search for "This article is written in American English ", it's the second box on the page, right under the article milestones box.   HalfGig   talk  22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  Which spelling and pronunciation would you consider to be American English: antihelmintic or antihelminthic? (See comments just above.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * well, neither! I would go with with NLM's MESH term, "anthelmintic".  This is the same term the Merck Manuals use ( see here for example) and for whatever it's worth, what our article is called: Anthelmintic.  sorry that is orthogonal to the choices Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

' and ' I was going to put this on the article's talk page, but I don't want to overwhelm anybody (except you guys), so I'll post it here:

Folk remedies

I know that because sentences are paraphrased from various sources, it is not easy to form a cohesive paragraph in which the sentences flow smoothly from one to the next, but I thought I'd ask for feedback and/or suggestions regarding the section Cucurbita. I noticed that the verb tenses change from sentence to sentence to such an extent that the sentences do not flow well and the paragraph has a choppy feel (and it's not just the verb tenses). I'm looking right now at the first paragraph in that section, and I will copy it here with the verbs highlighted in boldface so that they are easy to see. I have also numbered the sentences for ease of discussion.

(1) Cucurbita have been used in various cultures as folk remedies. (2) Pumpkins have been used by Native Americans to treat intestinal worms and urinary ailments; this Native American remedy was adopted by American doctors in the early nineteenth century as an anthelmintic for the expulsion of worms. (3) Seeds of C. pepo were used in southeastern Europe to treat irritable bladder and benign prostatic hyperplasia. (4) In Germany, pumpkin seed is approved for use by the Commission E, which assesses folk and herbal medicine, for irritated bladder conditions and micturition problems of prostatic hyperplasia stages 1 and 2, although the monograph published in 1985 noted a lack of pharmacological studies that could substantiate empirically found clinical activity. (5) The FDA in the United States, on the other hand, banned the sale of all such non-prescription drugs for the treatment of prostate enlargement in 1990.

(1) The first sentence uses present perfect tense (have been used) but gives no indication of when, how often, or to what extent. It's quite general. Presumably, the sentences which follow will supply the details, and they do, but notice the tenses.

(2) The second sentence has two clauses. The verb in the first clause is in present perfect tense (have been used), with no indication of when, how often, or to what extent – and since this sentence is giving examples supporting the first sentence, it really should give more of such an indication of time. The second clause (following a semi-colon) gives one detail of how this Native American remedy was adopted by American doctors in the 19th century. However, the present perfect tense in the first clause allows for the possibility, and to some extent suggests, that the use of pumpkins by Native Americans has continued up to the present. (However, the use of present perfect tense ("have been used") could also mean that pumpkins were used just a few times in the past.) Thus, the second clause "adopted..." is not about how Native Americans used the remedy; it is about the use of the remedy by [North] American doctors. Only by inference do we learn that Native Americans used the remedy in the 19th century, but it doesn't say anything about the centuries before or the century after. (The phrase "for the expulsion of worms" is not really necessary because an "antihelmintic" (or antihelminthic) means a remedy for the expulsion of worms.) If the sources support it, I suggest adding the adverb "long", but it would really be better to use a more precise phrase:


 * Pumpkins have long been used by Native Americans to treat intestinal worms and urinary ailments.

(3) The third sentence switches to past tense (were used). Since this sentence is another example of the use of Cucurbita in various cultures, introducing a use in another part of the world, I recommend putting the place first in the sentence: "In southeastern Europe, seeds of C. pepo were used..." However, the verb is in past tense, which suggests either that it was a one-time use at some time in the past, or that it was used in the past but no longer is used. If the remedy is still used today, or up until recently, the verb should be in present perfect tense ("have been used"). If the remedy was used in the past, some indication of the time when it was used would be helpful. To say something was used without giving the time leaves the reader wondering, "When was this? How long ago was this?" and "Why "was used"? Was it used only once or was it something that was common in the past but is no longer, and if so, why is it no longer used?"

(4) In the fourth sentence, it says pumpkin "is approved for use", but it doesn't say that it is used, so it is a little different from all the other examples. Also, the adverbial clause beginning "although": "although the monograph published in 1985...", qualifying the status of "approved" in the first clause, mentions "the monograph" when no monograph has been mentioned. To fix this, either "the monograph" needs to be changed to "a monograph" or a phrase explaining which monograph this was needs to be added (something like "the monograph published in 1985 that led to the approval").

(5) The fifth sentence states a fact, that the FDA "banned the sale of all such non-prescription drugs for the treatment of prostate enlargement in 1990", indicating a contrast to the German approval for that condition. It would be nice (and would support the first, or topic, sentence of the paragraph better) if there were some indication of the use (and status of approval) of any species of Cucurbita for treatment of any medical condition in the U.S., not just pumpkin and not just for treatment of prostate enlargement.

I know this is a rather detailed analysis, but if someone has the time and patience to follow it and knows the subject matter, some small tweaks to address the issues I've raised would probably produce a better paragraph. CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And folks, that's what passes for an "improved" paragraph on wiki. I already fixed their atrocious referencing formatting, or more accurately lack thereof. Someone that's good at copyediting should do these fixes. Thanks Corinne, good catches.   HalfGig   talk  21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can do the one or two minor ones, but I can't supply missing words, phrases, or information. CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, if past tense is used, the time when it occurred should be given. If present perfect tense is used, either a starting point should be given ("Since....") or the length of time should be given ("For X years/centuries,..") OR that sentence should be followed by examples giving specific times. CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Call in the people that created this mess of an "improved" section.   HalfGig   talk  02:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  You are probably aware of what happened a few weeks ago at Cucurbita. See Talk:Cucurbita. In the course of that discussion (and, I suppose, accompanying edits), two of the editors who had worked very hard for months on that article to get it promoted to Featured article status – User:HalfGig and User:Sminthopsis84 – were so upset they gave up on the article, and Sminthopsis84 actually left WP for a few weeks. I recently got a request for help on copyediting the section Cucurbita from HalfGig. See User talk:CorinneSD. I read the section, made a few minor copy-edits, and then wrote up a detailed analysis of what was wrong with the prose of the first paragraph. I felt it just needed a little work from someone who understood both my comments and the subject matter to fix it. Then I realized that HalfGig was so disgusted by what had been done to the section by other editors that s/he didn't want to work on it. See replies at the end of my comment on my talk page and additional comments at User talk:HalfGig. I don't fully understand why HalfGig and Sminthopsis84 were, and still are, upset, nor at whom, but since HalfGig suggested I ask for help at WikiProject Plants, that's what I did, and I found your name on the list. After reading all this, could you do whatever needs to be done to improve the prose and the reference formatting in this section of the Cucurbita article? I don't know what else to do. CorinneSD (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. I wasn't aware of any of this. Need to digest this, which will take a bit of time and think about what to do next. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok - have a better idea of things now. Will have to hope offline for a bit though. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fburg
Why is it I don't see your Flensburg question on my talk page? Sca (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because I added it to a section on Flensburg that was already there from a while ago. I guess I should have pinged you. It's at User talk:Sca, fairly high up on your talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)