User talk:Corinne/Archive 26

Control
Plaese dear Corinne, can you control this text? Some fanatics always deleted it without logic. Can you stop their trolling? --151.67.32.68 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, read also here and note that: the end of marriage was 22 december 2015, but YOU dont' wrote "22 december 2015" but only "22 december" (note YOUR error); Gustavo and Veronica are NOT siblings of Belen and they lives in Milan since August 2015, but YOU wrote that they are siblings and this is NOT true.--151.67.32.68 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne. Just thought you might want to be kept in the loop, see here. It's good to see you have been contacted by this editor. Unfortunately, the editor isn’t aware of the errors they are making i.e. they lives, you don’t wrote, can you control this text, plaese, december, etc. I have asked them to seek assistance before editing the page. With five mistakes in two sentences, you can probably understand why I suggested they work on the Italian page of this article instead. Additionally, the section "Breakdown" should be changed to "Break up". Other constructive edits and corrections I tried to make were deleted by this user, so I'm taking a back seat. Thanks! Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for your comment here and on Mz7's talk page. I think, in addition to the lack of awareness, there is a lack of humility and a certain amount of belligerence. Perhaps the editor is unaware of that, too. – Corinne (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * IP 151.67, I think it's great that you have tried to bring information about Belén Rodríguez to the English Wikipedia, but you have a lot to learn. First of all, your command of English is so poor that you don't even realize the mistakes you are making. I don't even think you realize how poor your command of English is. You really should not make any more edits to the English Wikipedia unless you first ask someone for assistance. Second, you should be careful not to call other editors names, such as implying that Veritycheck is a "troll", by saying s/he was "trolling". You should endeavor (i.e., try) to find out – by asking polite questions – why an editor made the edits he or she made before you get upset. You were wrong to add "2015"; if no new year is mentioned (in the same paragraph) after the year 2015 has already been mentioned, then the day and month are assumed to be in the same year. There is no need to repeat the year. If I made a mistake about Jeremias, Gustavo, and Veronica not being siblings, it could be because the article was so poorly written and nearly incomprehensible that often I was guessing; copy-editing the article was like unraveling knots, or deciphering a puzzle. All you needed to do was to explain politely what the correct information was. Capitalizing "not" ("NOT") is the equivalent of raising your voice, which is considered impolite on the English Wikipedia. – Corinne (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne. IP 151.67 is back with insults and disruptive edits. If you feel like it, you can chime in here. Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Veritycheck's version (see here) is

She started her career as a model, initially in Argentina and then internationally.[7] Belén's younger sister, Cecilia (born in Pilar on 18 March 1990),[8] has also been active in Italian show business since 2008[9] and as a model.[8] Since 2014, Cecilia has been Belén's business partner.[10][11] Since 2015, their brother Jeremías and their mother have lived in Milan.[clarification needed]

MY version (see here) was

Belén Rodríguez started her career as model, initially in Argentina and then internationally.[8] Her younger sister, Cecilia (born in Pilar on 18 March 1990),[9] has also been active in Italian show business since 2008[10] and as a model.[9] Cecilia since January 2014 is Belén's business partner.[11][12] Jeremías, Gustavo and Veronica since August 2015 lives permanently in Milan because they definitively left Argentina.[13]

MY version is VERY SIMILAR than Veritycheck's version, but he always delete MY version. What is HIS personal problem with me? Can you stop the fake news of Veritycheck because his stalking is not admissible? MY version is BETTER than Veritycheck's version. --151.67.47.198 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Now, with the Present Perfect (Veritycheck here wrote that I must use the Present Perfect), it is ok?--151.67.47.198 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * THIS IS NOT NORMAL BECAUSE I USED THE PRESENT PERFECT, BUT VERITYCHECK'S FRIEND ALWAYS DELETE. ARE THEY CRAZY? HIS DELETION IN HIS PERSONAL TALK ARE NOT NORMAL. --151.67.47.198 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * MY VERSION IS CORRECT BECAUSE I USED THE PRESENT PERFECT (VERITYCHECK HERE ASKED TO ME TO USE THE PRESENT PERFECT). CAN YOU REBUILT MY VERSION?--151.67.47.198 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Corinne, what was the problem with this and this and this and this and this my edits? The problem is NOT real: can you rebuilt my edits?--151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Mithraism
 I forget whether you said it is better to use the no-break-space template nbsp than the HTML no-break space  (I'm not referring to within the pairs of curly brackets for a cite ref, where I know I shouldn't use the template), or whether it doesn't matter which is used. What do you think about the use of the HTML no-break space ?
 * Hi, Corinne. You can use either method to create a non-breaking space. One is within a citation template, so that one cannot be a templated nbsp. All the uses of nbsp look okay to me, in that they will prevent any disconnect at a line break. Cheers!  20:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

' ' (Pinging again) – Corinne (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC) What do you think about the other changes in this and the edits just previous to it?

(a) The change from: "it is sometimes possible to track initiates" to "it is possible to track some initiates";

(b) adding "CE" to "250";

(c) capitalizing "mithraeum", twice;

(d) changing "persons" to "men";

(e) changing formatting of the phrase "those united by a handshake" from boldface to Roman (regular) font in parentheses;

(f) changing "Bridesman" to "Bridegroom";

(g) I noticed that in  edit, the editor changed regular straight single quotation marks to the curly ones, which are deprecated in WP:MOS at MOS:CURLY.

(h) Also, the editor added a phrase (not sure if it needs sourcing), "and poorly-understood", with a hyphen that is not needed (see MOS:HYPHEN Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy)..

(i) The confusing change from a phrase in parentheses to a phrase enclosed in commas, with the added words "or Chronos". If "Chronos" is an alternate spelling of "Cronus", shouldn't that be in parentheses after "Cronos", or vice versa? – Corinne (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Cronus/Kronos (Saturn) and Chronos (Time) are separate deities, albeit with some characteristics & iconography in common and often conflated or syncretized—even in the classical period. For example Kronos’s sickle, with which he castrated his father Ouranos, became the scythe that Father Time uses to mow down the passing years. Personally, I’d rather see it removed, or at least tagged for citation, and I wasn’t impressed with the misleading edit summary (and I agree that the hyphen after “poorly” is unwanted).—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Odysseus1479 for the information and your opinions. Do you have any thoughts about the other edits? – Corinne (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Corinne. Apologies. I forgot all about this stuff. Very absent-minded in my old age. Please revisit my talk page for instant results! All the best, Rothorpe (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Who and whom
Hello. Thanks very much for offering to help out. Thanks also for your kind comments and more general suggestions. I ought to respond more thoroughly to these when time allows. For now, is it OK please if I just run this past you for a sanity check?

An editor seems to be on a crusade against "whom" in contexts where I feel it is used correctly. Whilst I do feel quite strongly that I am right and they are wrong, my miserable history here and my only-sometimes-useful education suggest to me that I should be a bit cautious in my approach and that if I react as I'd like to I will probably turn out to be wrong because it's actually the Oxford Whom or the Dunstable Who or the Luton Case or whatever. I know you've seen my username: it is not, entirely, a joke.

So, some examples (italics mine):
 * Original: His third wife was Margaret Flanagan whom he married in 1963.
 * Changed to: His third wife was Margaret Flanagan who he married in 1963.
 * Original: Sheridan returned to ex-boyfriend Michael Bolton, whom she had originally dated
 * Changed to: Sheridan returned to ex-boyfriend Michael Bolton, who she had originally dated
 * Original: Fabares was a lifelong friend of Annette Funicello, whom she met in catechism class
 * Changed to: Fabares was a lifelong friend of Annette Funicello, who she met in catechism class

Now, I cannot express exactly why, in formal grammatical terms, I feel that these edits are mistaken ... plus, as I say, I am haunted by the possibility that there is some form of Clever People's Ambush lying in wait for me just round the next corner. However, from where I am sitting these simply look wrong. In each case (and they are all effectively the same thing, yesno?) the "whom" was referring to a direct object not a subject and therefore was correct. If you flip it then with the first example you are saying about Margaret Flanagan that he married her in 1963 - you cannot say that he married she in 1963, or not in most standard versions of English anyway.

So, Corinne, what do you think? I know what I think but I guess I am rather pathetically seeking a bit of validation or reassurance here. And, before you ask, yes I have tried to engage (politely) with the editor on their Talk page. They do not wish to speak to me.

Finally ... and I know I am pushing my luck here and I do not really want to be asking for favours which involving my borrowing others' brains because I am too lazy to use my own, but forgive me ... if by any chance I am right about this, can you possibly recommend a source which I can quote in edit summaries? I've tried searching for WP:whom but haven't found a single source that I feel nails it, just discussions. As you can imagine, I feel that it would work better if I could say "see WP:Whom " or something along those lines. But if this is too much of a demand, please ignore it.

Thanks, sorry to take up your time, and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Please do not think you are bothering me with your questions. I enjoy helping people understand English grammar. You are, of course, perfectly correct that "whom" is to be used in the sentences you listed above, not "who", and you seem to understand the reason, or at least the structure of the clause. However, "whom" (replacing the object of the adjective clause that has been placed at the beginning of the clause) is now considered formal, and many people simply use "who" or even "that" (personally, I don't like using "that" to refer to a person), especially in speaking. The only time when you can't use "who" (or "that") is when the relative pronoun is replacing the object of a preposition (a person/people): for whom, with whom, to whom, by whom, etc. Writing tends to be a little more formal than speaking, and I would say an encyclopedia is one place where formal English should be used, so if I see an instance of "who" or "that" replacing the object of a clause (a person/people), I usually change it to "whom". I have found a few places on-line that might help:


 * Oxford Dictionaries


 * I also think the Wikipedia article Who (pronoun) is helpful. I just made a few changes to the article. We'll see if they stand or get reverted, but either way, you may find the article helpful. I'll keep looking to see if I can find additional information.


 * There is also the problem of deciding whether a clause is restrictive or non-restrictive. I'll explain that tomorrow. – Corinne (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Corinne, thank you so much for these kind and useful replies. I'm still catching up with myself a bit so I shall respond properly when I have a moment. The who/whom content above is great, thank you. I've got a bit of a sinking feeling when you say the problem of deciding whether a clause is restrictive or non-restrictive ... is that the that/which business, or something similar? I still get headaches over that one ... it's one of the things that (?which) helped me to feel that I don't understand my own language. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 *  You can know your own language very well and not be able to break it down and explain it. In fact, I am certain that you know this if you are a native speaker of English. It's just part of knowing one's own native language. It helps to learn a little about the grammar, though, to be sure you get the punctuation right. Here are links to some pages that I think explain the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses pretty well. Don't get confused by the term "relative clause". A relative clause is simply an adjective clause, so it functions as an adjective and modifies a noun or noun phrase. There are other kinds of clauses. Besides an independent clause (which can stand on its own), there are these subordinate clauses (which cannot stand on their own; they must be attached to an independent clause): adjective clauses, adverbial clauses (which modify either a verb (action) or an entire clause), and noun clauses (in which the clause itself functions in a sentence as a noun – and thus can be the subject of the sentence, the object of the sentence, a predicate nominative (follows a form of be), or the object of a preposition). A clause has a subject and a verb. A phrase does not. For the word "restrictive", you could substitute "limiting", "identifying", "defining", or "essential". For "non-restrictive", you could substitute "non-limiting", "non-identifying", "non-defining", or "non-essential". If the information in the clause is needed to limit, identify, or define the noun it is modifying (and is following), it is a restrictive clause, and it is not set off with commas. If the information in the clause is not needed to limit, identify, or define the noun is is modifying (and following), it is a non-restrictive clause, and it is set off with commas (one right before it, and, if it is not the end of the sentence, one right after it).


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Please ask me if there is anything you don't understand, or if you have additional questions. – Corinne (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Léal Souvenir
Thanks for the edits, none of which I disagree with. Its such a small, *seemingly* simple painting, but was it was incredibly difficult to write the article. I have needed a lot of eyes and input! Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

posting user warnings
I noticed you reverted some vandalism on James Brooke‎ but you didn't post a warning on the vandal's talk page. Those warnings not only help the editor in question understand they need to stop those warnings also become necessary when an admin decides to block that editor. I appreciate your help with countervandalism, regardless. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 11:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 *  Hi, Chris - Thank you for the information. I didn't know I was supposed to, or even allowed to, post warnings to editors. I thought that was the prerogative of admins or those with special privileges. If I am allowed to post warnings, I certainly will do so in the future. Can you provide me with a link to warning templates? Should I post a warning only when undoing obvious vandalism, or also for test edits? – Corinne (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Admins block vandals but they don't carry the brunt of reverting and warning; that usually falls on those of us regular editors. WP:WARN lists all the warning templates, including those for innocent test edits. (Twinkle makes this very easy.) While assuming good faith, we issue warnings to educate primarily, warn when necessary, and create a paper trail so that we as a community can take action about the editor. Messages on talk pages are the first step to resolving differences (unless you count edit summaries). If you'd like to learn more about countervandalism generally, check out the Counter-vandalism Academy. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ' Thank you for the information and links. Speaking of warnings, I just happened to notice the edit summary with ' to Dignity. Shouldn't the editor have been warned at the time of the edit? Is it too late for that now? (If you think the editor should be warned, would you mind doing it? I want to stay away from that type of editor.) – Corinne (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sort of thing would absolutely deserve a warning but, because it's an IP, whomever was sitting at the computer when that was typed is probably long gone by now. The warning would not reach the intended party so there's no point in leaving it. I can understand not wanting to tangle with the crazies. You've been doing plenty of good editing so I wouldn't want to take you off task. Issuing warnings when you revert vandalism is helpful. If you see a mess you're not comfortable getting into you can always ping me or someone else that's doing countervandalism. You can help in this field if you're so inclined. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ' Chris, I haven't had time to look at the pages you linked for me above. Would you mind looking at ' to Mary Anning? The editor rightly undid an instances of "sneaky vandalism". Out of curiosity, I looked to see if a warning had been placed on the talk page of the vandal, and nothing was there, so I looked at the user contributions and saw only one other edit that was similarly reverted because it was also vandalism. I wonder, if you have time, if you could place a warning on that editor's page. I promise I will get to reading up on warnings and the templates soon. – Corinne (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Feel free to ask if you have questions about my rationale. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Small c/e request + opinion
Hi Corinne, how are you? Hope everything's well. I was looking through some of the more recent "small" articles I made, and I noticed Dilaram Khanum. Would you perhaps be able to make a small copy-edit on it? It reads so tough/not smooth in its current state in my opinion. Also, I have a question regarding another article of mine, namely Sack of Shamakhi (1721). It's been a very long time since I nominated an article for GA. Would you think, in its current status that it'd be eligible for GA? Or would it require at least a copy-edit and some pictures as well, for example? Any opinion is appreciated. All the best - LouisAragon (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  I want to apologize for not getting back to you or carrying out the copy-edit you requested. Every time I log on, I get distracted – by things on my watch list, by discussions on talk pages, and by copy-edit requests at GOCE. When I read your post, I went to the article and started reading, but then looked at a linked article and started copy-editing that! So, I promise I will get to these articles, hopefully later today. Best wishes, – Corinne (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  I have finished copy-editing both articles. I'm sorry, but I am not very familiar with the standards for GA articles. I only know what I've seen in reviews. I found this page, which might help you: Good article criteria. Good luck, and if you have any further questions or other article's you'd like me to look at, let me know! – Corinne (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot for the help! Will def do. Take care - LouisAragon (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Just saw this. You're welcome. I hope you don't mind that I've continued to make edits to the article. I hope the continued copy-editing doesn't make the article "unstable", which is not a good thing when being reviewed for GA or FA status. I'll leave off making any more edits unless I see something really ungrammatical. I wanted to ask you something. I see you have Iranian tomans linked, but the link is piped, with "tumans" appearing after "tomans". I was wondering why you did that. I've always heard the word pronounced "toman(s)". – Corinne (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Now I'm starting to wonder if the ping is working since you did not respond to my question just above. I have another question: just now I saw that you had added a link with "Vali (governor)", followed by a pipe and "wali". I wonder why you added "wali" instead of "vali" there. "Wali" is the Arabic pronunciation and "vali" is the Persian pronunciation. Since the article is about the Safavid empire, which was I believe a Persian empire, why wouldn't you use the Persian pronunciation? – Corinne (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - Nah, it won't make it unstable, I will guarantee. :-)
 * - The reason why I used tumans, even after the pipe, is because I quoted certain sources, and all of them use "tumans" instead of "tomans". Anyhow you are correct, its correct pronunciation is toman(s). Hadn't it been for the used sources, I would've obviously used tomans.
 * - Yep, vali is indeed more correct. Will fix it now! I've gotten so used to reading wali instead of vali, that I made a small mistake there. The reason behind that is because in many contemporary Safavid-related sources, they prefer using the Arabic "form" of the words. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Corinne, given that you have made most c/e's on the page, would you perhaps be willing to address the first point raised by the reviewer here? Perhaps it'd be a good practice (in response to your words @ KB's talk page, where you said you'd like to be more bold regarding c/e's) for you as well? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mount Erciyes copyedit
You left off copyediting the article on the 17th, saying that you would resume it the following day. Are you planning to continue the copyedit? I'm trying to clear January from WP:GOCE/REQ. All the best,  Mini  apolis  18:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Miniapolis. I'm sorry. I've been kind of busy, and when I do log on, I get distracted by things on my watch list. Even though I'm interested in geology, the details of a volcano are not as exciting as I thought they would be. I'll get to it. Thanks or the reminder. – Corinne (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hadrian
Dear Corinne, I would be very  pleased if you were to take a look at Hadrian in order to copy edit it. I have been preparing the article to be upgraded for a new try at a GA nomination. Thanks in advance. AffectionatelyCerme (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for your confidence in me and your kind request. I've been avoiding editing the article since you said you would be working on it. I see you've put in a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, but it's still pretty far down the list. I can pick and choose to some extent which articles I want to copy-edit there, but I really ought to go somewhat in order. When Hadrian gets closer to the top of the list, I will try to accept the assignment. There is always a chance, though, that another GOCE editor may accept the assignment before I get to it. Best wishes, – Corinne (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm puzzled as to why you have no user page. I hope you can receive pings. You can really be creative with your user page. See User page design center. You don't have to reveal much about yourself if you don't want to. You could just post an interesting image – a painting, a sculpture, or a photo, and maybe a few user boxes, and you don't have to complete it all at once. – Corinne (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Corrine,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Porträtt, Rudolf II som Vertumnus. Guiseppe Arcimboldo - Skoklosters slott - 87582.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on March 16, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-03-16. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Curtis P. Iaukea
If you have time can you possibly copy edit Curtis P. Iaukea. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, KAVEBEAR, for your confidence in me. Have you put in a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests? The list is quite long now, and I normally go more or less in order. Is there a particular reason why you need the copy-edit done soon? – Corinne (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's on the request page #2 but I personally don't have confidence in the the user who took the request base on few tries to copyedit which not extensive enough in my opinion and still not finished.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually checking the request page again, he quit the request just now apparently. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Carl Sagan
 Ooo, thank you for the link to the Carl Sagan video. I was a great fan of Carl Sagan, and the images, words and music in that video are wonderful! I'm going to leave the link there. – Corinne (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that you might like that. Now, whenever you want to locate it you will more easily find it! Carl Sagan was one of my favorites - his Cosmos series inspired me to return to study and then on to university. Thanks for your valuable review of Dire wolf. A little later on, I might call upon your assistance with its northern cousin, the megafaunally adapted Late Pleistocene Beringian wolf. The time is not quite right yet, there are two major research papers due out shortly on it that will help me finalize that article and offer it as a candidate for GA review. It is half the size of Dire wolf at the moment but the key points are exactly the same - apart from the fact that last year, in a remote area of China, the researchers found some genetic descendants! (I think what we know about wolves is about to be turned on its head. That also means the same for the dog!) Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  09:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
...once again for your effort on the Sack of Shamakhi (1721). Its a GA now. Would have been much more difficult without your assistance. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Proof of the Truthful
' and/or ' I'm in the middle of copy-editing Proof of the Truthful. I'm up to the "Necessary existent" subsection of the Proof of the Truthful section, first paragraph. There is a sentence that contains the verb preponderate, used transitively. I looked it up on Merriam-Webster on-line and see that:


 * the transitive meanings do not apply or make sense, and
 * the intransitive meanings are both archaic.

Way down below there is a section headed "Law Dictionary", and one intransitive definition. This definition, while not transitive, seems to be the intended meaning as the word is used in the article, and the examples seem to bear that out, but I wonder:

(a) is it a problem that the word is used transitively in the article while the definition shows it as intransitive, and

(b) is this definition too academic or obscure to warrant the use of this verb here in this article? Shall I attempt to re-word the sentence or find another verb? – Corinne (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes to all three questions :-).  Mini  apolis  19:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Using the word "preponderate" in a Wikipedia article without explaining what it means is anti-reader. It is either discipline-specific jargon or an incorrect word. Either way, there should be a better way to express the thought in question. Even the author of the cited source puts the word in quotation marks! That means he knows he is not doing it right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Don (2006 Hindi film)
Hey! Thanks for taking up the article. I wanted to tell you that while copy editing the plot, you somehow edited out important plot points. So I have written it as I had not written the plot, which was mostly done by the IPs. So, please take a look and give the plot section a copy edit. Thanks. Krish |  Talk  14:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 *  Please understand that my copy-editing is done very carefully and thoughtfully, so removing certain details from the plot summary was not accidental. According to WP:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". I worked step-by-step and slowly to get the plot summary from around 4,500 words down to around 2,500 words. It is still too long, so I was going to cut more. Not every detail of the film has to be given. In fact, if you give every detail, you ruin the experience for someone who has not seen the film but might be inspired to see it by your article. I recommend that you undo your edit in which you added back much of what I took out. – Corinne (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  My apologies. I just realized that I had confused characters with words. I used a counter tool that counts characters, not words. I just counted the words and got about 704 words, so it's on the upper limit of the MOS-recommended length. I'll leave it the way it is now (but I'll read it once through to be sure there are no grammatical or spelling errors). Someone else later on, say, in a GA or FA review, might say something about the length, but you can wait until such time to decide what to do. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just looked at your revision, Krish!, and I smoothed out some sentences and removed some unnecessary wordiness. However, I still think you have included too many details from the film in this plot summary. I will now continue copy-editing the rest of the article. Jonesey95 and/or Miniapolis, do you have any thoughts about this plot summary? (See not only Krish!'s recent changes but my earlier work to reduce the length of the summary. Even though I confused characters with word count, above, I still thought the summary was too long and I would have stood by my more streamlined version, but Krish! obviously wanted it longer.) – Corinne (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMPLOT, plots should generally be reduced to under 700 words, although this movie sounds intricate and confusing enough that the current 795 might be OK.


 * The last two sentences of the first paragraph could be shortened to one brief sentence. The second paragraph shouldn't be too hard to shorten and make more comprehensible by linking some of the ideas together. The third paragraph is not yet written well, with apparently incorrect names and pronouns that have unclear antecedents. And I will admit that by the last paragraph, I lost the trail of all of the double-crosses and mistaken identities and faked deaths. Some editing might be able to clear up this deliberately deceptive plot. I do get the sense that all of the main plot points are present in some form, and it sounds like an interesting movie. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions, Jonesey95. Just in case you didn't go back into the revision history,  is how I left the summary before Krish! worked on it again. (Maybe missing a few of the details Krish! wanted in there, but well written.) Krish!, next time, please just let me know in a comment on my talk page what details you want included in the plot summary (or any other section) and let me add them. When you added material to what I had written, you made it so I had to revise and copy-edit the whole plot summary again. I'll go back and work on it some more tomorrow. – Corinne (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and Jonesey that it still needs streamlining; 700 words is an upper limit, not a default. With prose like that they might get a free pass at GA, but certainly not at FA. All the best,  Mini  apolis  03:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to your edited version – it was very clear and concise, answering all of the problems I outlined above. The only thing I would have changed was the line at the end, The movie ends with a surprising twist. Per WP:FILMPLOT, Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers and without using disclaimers or spoiler warnings in the article. I believe that it is standard practice to simply lay out what happens in the film. In other words, tell us how the plot ends – the twist is an "important event" in the film.


 * If I were you, I would ask to stop editing the article until you are done with the copy-edit that was requested. Krish's modifications (I should use a stronger word) of your edits made the prose much worse and defeated the whole purpose of requesting a copy-edit. If Krish refuses, I don't think anyone would blame you for declining to edit further. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks, Jonesey95, for the suggestions (and thank you, Miniapolis, for your earlier ones). – Corinne (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  I would appreciate it if you would refrain from editing Don (2006 Hindi film) until I have completed the copy-edit you requested at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. If you have any questions or concerns before that, please post them here. – Corinne (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just completed the copy-edit. I decided to put the plot summary back to the way I had left it (link given just above) at 01:13 on 6March 2017. I then added in a sentence at the beginning and fixed the ending. I had completed the copy-edit of the rest of the article yesterday. – Corinne (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for your copy-edit and for cleaning up the plot summary. I think this version is fine. Thanks again! Krish |  Talk  12:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination
Hello Corinne:

Just a quick note to thank you so very much for your kindness in nominating me for Editor of the Week. I do appreciate the recognition.

All the best,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Gibraltar & Admiral de Grasse
Hi Corinne, per, I have added two missing/requested citations to the article on de Grasse. I also looked at HMS Gibraltar and added some detail on the ship herself from Winfield. Having an unexpected snow day helps. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's great, Acad Ronin! I usually don't concern myself with content, but whenever I see a "citation needed" tag, I like to try to get rid of it by finding an editor who can add a source (or remove the sentence). Enjoy the snow day! – Corinne (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing stats
 I just noticed that the line of statistics that runs across the top of my talk page is no longer there. What happened? Why isn't it there? – Corinne (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What line of statistics? What was in it? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * About four or five things. I only remember number of page viewers/watchers and my total edit count. – Corinne (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like some sort of gadget. Do any of those listed at look like they describe what you have lost? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Redrose64. I only just saw this now. Thank you for your reply. The problem resolved itself by the next day. – Corinne (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Two c/e requests
Hi Corinne! I have two more articles that I'd like to nominate for GA soon. Yusuf Agha (Circassian) and Zeynab Begum. Yusuf Agha (Circassian) is a small one, and yup, thats basically all the information that there is to be found about him. Would you perhaps be able to copy-edit both of them whenver you have time? Thanks much - LouisAragon (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Caption for British monarchs
 I noticed that an editor is going through the articles for British monarchs and removing the name of the monarch from the caption. See ', ', ', and '. I'm sure there are others. She seems to be edit-warring. What do you think about this? – Corinne (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See MOS:CAPTION "in a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone"; but note also "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged" at WP:CREDITS, so these captions could be trimmed further - or removed entirely. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Corinne, tks for asking my opinion and sorry for my belated reply... I don't know that I'd call it edit-warring in all cases (because not all were challenged) but I'm not sure I agree with the changes either. I don't think there's much point in captioning an undated portrait of the subject alone, but I think it's always good to say when a shot was taken (at least the year, if not month and year). If we couple that rationale with what  says above then it seems to me the simple and informative way to caption would be "Queen Victoria, March 1882" or some such. I would only expect the picture credited if it was a famous portrait  in its own right, or a particularly well-known artist/photographer. I'm used to captioning the military bios I write with rank, name and date (and position held or location if known/useful) and can't recall a complaint about them in reviews. I realise that the average reader will probably assume any royal portrait we choose for an infobox is from the time they were monarch but the date is important too, so it suggests we ought to have some sort of caption. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ian Rose, for your detailed reply. Judging from the edit summaries, the editor seemed to feel that the image in the infobox was already "captioned" by the heading of the infobox. I think, for a famous person, and maybe especially for a monarch, it is helpful to the reader to indicate in what year the photo was taken, or the portrait was painted. So, if I understand you correctly, I agree that the image deserves its own caption with at least name and year. Since I started this thread without pinging either editor, what do you suggest now? Notify them, copy the discussion on the article talk pages, or just forget about it? – Corinne (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Social contract
 I was just about to resume copy-editing Social contract, and had even put the "GOCE in use" template, when I decided to look and see if any edits had been made since I last edited a few days ago. (I've been rather busy lately.) I saw  edit, and several ones just previous to it. As I went back, step by step, looking at each edit, I became concerned that the editor who added the material may not be a native speaker of English. When I got to the first in the series, I saw that a paragraph was added without a source. (A sentence, in quotation marks, is added later, with a source – an encyclopedia, but I believe the source applies only to that quote.) I wondered whether you would consider this added paragraph to be original research. If so, I guess it either has to go or a "citation needed" tag needs to be added, right? If not, then shall I just try to smooth out the prose? – Corinne (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wu wei cite in the diff should be wikilinked, not referenced; WP, like all wikis, is not a reliable source :-). Although in practice all sections should be sourced, not every paragraph needs to be. If I come across something that makes me go "hmm", I tag it as needing verification; sometimes if I'm wading through a sea of woo I get exasperated and remove it, but that can be a slippery slope. Smoothing out the prose is fine; it's not like a suspected copyvio or plagiarism, where copyediting might muddy the waters. All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

More than one bird
I happened to notice the above TAFI note while gadding about this page. My suggestion would be to change the title of the article to Birds (plural) of Prey, as the article is about various species, not just one. (So happens I live about 30 mi. from the World Center for Birds of Prey, hence familiar with the phrase.) Sca (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 *  Yes, it would sound more natural, and of course it sounds right in the name of the center, but, according to WP:TITLEFORMAT, the singular form is to be used except for certain types of nouns. – Corinne (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see such a rule applying to specific species or perhaps to genera, but not a large grouping like this. Perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule? Sca (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know. You might want to raise the issue at WikiProject Birds. – Corinne (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)