User talk:E.w.bullock/2010

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks
Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. So once again, thanks for your support!-- Diannaa TALK 03:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States Army)
Hello E.w.bullock. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States Army), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''if this move were to be done, other similar articles would follow different conventions. Please use WP:RM instead.''' Thank you.  So Why  19:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs)

Gulfton
Hi! I took a look at your message. The article in question passed the "Good Article" process in 2008 with the general narrative and with the "illegal immigrants" sentence. I want you to point out specific paragraphs and sentences that you think are POV. Or you could suggest how to alter the narrative if other users agree that the presentation of the narrative as a whole is against POV. I am notifying the NPOV noticeboard and the Houston WikiProject so that the community can come together and agree what needs to be done about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your help - I'll continue to look at your changes and see how I can improve things. Currently I'm going through and checking your internal comments and see if there's anything else I need to clarify. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my comments
 * My intent was also to discuss the community, how it developed, and what it is like now. A lot of the reliable sources (particularly Houston Chronicle articles) discussing Gulfton discussed how it rapidly changed in the 1980s.
 * "I was struck by the sense that "illegal aliens" destroyed my community, was the article message." - I was not trying to convey that "sense" at all - So far no other users on Wikipedia who have examined the article for good article or featured article nomination got that sense...
 * In regards to ", after DRG fell behind on their mortgage." we prefer "it" in US English when referring to a company, so it would be ", after DRG fell behind on its mortgage."
 * "Generally, when I read an article about a location it is just about the location, this one seems to me, leans towards the community is destroyed by and outside invasion and greedy builder. That may be true but it is not objective in tone." - We use reliable sources when shaping the narrative of the article, and there are countless newspaper articles that discuss the deterioration of Gulfton in the 1980s, so a large portion of the article will be dedicated to that. Also, though, it was more like "immigrants replaced" and not "invaded" because the previous tenants mostly were already gone.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose
Thanks for your work on this article!! 75.2.209.226 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently the "owner" of the article didn't like your edits. I asked for help because of long and often awkward wording that he kept inserting, and now he's reverted your excellent edits. What to do?? 75.2.209.226 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently 75.2.209.226 is still dissatisfied with the tone, length, detail, and quality of writing of my three sentence paragraph documenting issues of poor research and inadequate editing in Ambrose's 2000 book on the Pacific Railroad. I have tightened it as much as I felt that I could without removing it altogether, although I'm not sure what is left is very useful as readers must now consult the cited sources to find out what the issues were with the book, and what the publisher did about them. You should feel free, however, to restore the paragraph to its former form if you care to as it is now a little thin. Centpacrr (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To say that "75.2.209.226 is still dissatisfied with the tone, length, detail, and quality of writing of my three sentence paragraph" is not only misleading, it's a blatant lie. Please pay attention to the timing of comments. I said that E.w.bullock's edits were fine, but then you undid them, reverting the paragraph to an awkward, wordy, and petty whine. Ambrose didn't give you or your buddies credit for pointing out dozens of inaccuracies. Get over it. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I defer this to Noraft as these are the ways that Edit wars start. I believe that both of you are correct but the question is why are you unable to achieve a consensus? There seems to be some underlying differences in the way that you are approaching the subject. Sincerely Bullock    ✉  00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment and suggestion. It is a puzzlement to me as well as I have tried my best. (See here and here) Beyond that I am at a loss. Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You two certainly have a bit of history, I don't think I will be able to affect change in either party and am saddened to see that two obviously intelligent, well intentioned editors are unable to achieve consensus. I hope the edits that I did move the article forward and wish both of you happy editing. I wish there was more I could offer but as in any personality conflict those involved must find the equilibrium. Very Respectfully -- Bullock    ✉  02:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding. I had never run across this anonymous IP editor (whose contributions page indicates less than two months experience) before four days ago, and his/her only means of communication with other editors with whom he/she disagrees on anything no matter how small is to post multiple "warnings" on talk pages and "trouble" tags on articles, making blanket accusations of vandalism in edit summaries, etc, when he/she finds anyone is in anyway at odds with his/her personal views on grammar, word choice, level of detail, context, reliability of sources, etc. When I called him/her on this on the one paragraph I added to the Ambrose article, he/she decided to "parachute in" to the LZ129 Hindenburg article (on which I have been working with a few other editors for two years) and make wholesale changes presumably to "teach me a lesson." Some of his/her edits are fine, but there seems to be no middle ground here for him/her. As you can see I've attempted to establish a reasonable dialogue by posting a long comment on his/her talk page which he/she deleted less than two minutes later. All I have gotten in return are gratuitous and ad hominem attacks and more "warnings" dispensed from a shell of complete anonymity. Centpacrr (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Warnings occur when you repeatedly revert perfectly good edits (WP:OWN), when you willfully flaunt WP:MOS after repeated requests not to do so, and when you intentionally insert inflammatory and inaccurate history into articles. I have never made an ad hominem attack on you. My comments have all been about the writing in the articles. You are the one who has been wikistalking me, looking up my IP address and scrutinizing my history of edits. Well, two can play that game. It appears you have a four-year history of warnings, even blocks, for edit warring and owership issues, which is exactly the behavior you've exhibited on the Stephen Ambrose article. E.w.bullock stepped into a tricky situation with the article, made some excellent edits, and what did you do? Revert them. The evidence speaks for itself.
 * Thanks, E.w.bullock, for your edits and your bravery. I, for one, will now stop bothering you. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here I am. Give me a little while to gather what's happened. What I'll leave all parties with in the meantime is my mantra, in haiku form:  ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noraft. I read your long, well thought out, and insightful comment on this matter (which I see, as with a similar comment of mine, that 75.2.209.226 promptly deleted) as well as his/her interesting response. I think you understand the situation perfectly and see what I have been dealing with for the last five days. Thanks for taking the time to make your cogent and spot on evaluation and posting which well documents this kerfuffle! Centpacrr (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat
Looks good so far. I recently added something about the drawing style, and I wanted to get your feedback on it. Does this sentence need any changes? (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

"a simple drawing style, which Crumb employed to make it easier to tell stories"
 * Suggestion, a simple drawing style, Crumb used to facilitate his story telling. You may or may not need the comma depending on where in the sentence this break occurs. Facilitate is a big word, but probably the most accurate for this use. Sincerely Bullock    ✉  23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All done, hope you like the changes. We had a bit of a edit conflict (editing at the same time) but I worked around it. Best of luck Bullock    ✉  23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Tanzanian history
Thanks very much for the copyedit of Timeline of Tanzanian history, and for the hidden comments you've added, I'll take some time to act on those. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  10:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Bullock    ✉  15:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

European windstorms
Hi,

I have seen you have added an orphan phrase to the European windstorms article. Although Foehn can be very strong, they are very localized. I don't see how it could be considered in that article which only deal with synoptic extratropical cyclone affecting Europe ? Pierre cb (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please delete. I have no ownership of the line. Just trying to save information and it did not fit in the article I'm CE. V/R Bullock    ✉  03:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I thought you might have a particular reason for that edit. I will transferred the info to the See also section in that case. Pierre cb (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Severe weather
Hi E.W., I've noticed you making significant chances to the severe weather article. This article has been of significantly lower quality than I would like to see, since it is the main article for WikiProject Severe Weather, so I greatly appreciate you putting in work on it. I'd like to help you out, so I'll be making some edits of my own, now that I finally have the time. Did you have any goals in mind for the article? Thanks again! - Running On Brains (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually just now noticed your GOCE notice on the top of the page...could you please let me know on my talk page when you are finished with your major edits? Thank you. - Running On Brains (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the question. It is the article with the name of our project, so I guess that makes it our key article. The article needs a lot of help in format, facts, and grammar, so you fix whatever you feel necessary. Ideally we'd want it to eventually be a Featured Article, so it will likely undergo one or more future overhauls anyway. - Running On Brains (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy Edit complete. V/R Bullock    ✉  04:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick
Hello, thanks so much for copyediting Joseph Merrick, I really appreciate it and the article is much improved. Just a couple of things to watch for future reference: Firstly, you changed spellings from British English to American English. This is unnecessary per WP:ENGVAR, but also undesirable in this case since the subject is very much a British one. (WP:TIES) Secondly, you've moved some citations inside punctuation (eg. father. → father. According to the manual of style (specifically WP:PAIC), the citation should go outside the punctuation. I had one query, regarding a hidden note you left, do you really think it would be necessary to specify whether his uncle was maternal or paternal? Isn't that obvious from his name? Anyway, other than that, thanks for the good job. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and thank your for the great feed back, it is nice to be able to improve each time.
 * Regarding the British English, I do understand the intent. I left all the "...our" words intact. I will add travelled, fulfil, realised to my "British" repertoire, I had been unsure of those spellings. When you hear a language very infrequently, it is difficult to understand the nuances. There was one specific usage of "lodged with" that I wrestled with, before changing to "live with", I felt that it simplified and flowed a little better.... thank you for having tolerated my missteps.
 * Thank you for pointing out the placement of the punctuation. I have been doing this wrong in my own writing for a year! And no one had corrected me, I looked it up in "A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations" by Kate L. Turabian, which we refer to as the "Turabian Guide" and wow, I've been doing it wrong on my term papers too. So thank you very much for that redirect.
 * Ok, that was a DUMB question, at the time I guess I was hoping that it had been his maternal side. But hello a flash of the blindingly obvious.
 * I reviewed the article and I'm sorry for the half dozen typos. I hope that the overall effect was what you were looking for though. —Sincerely  Bullock    ✉  16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC) (PS 58,000+ edits...wow, again thank you for the mentoring)  Bullock    ✉  16:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you found the feedback useful. Don't worry about typos, they're so easy to introduce, I think if an article's being worked on a lot, it needs proof reading several times anyway. As far as the English goes, I don't know if you use a spellchecker or anything, but I use Firefox, and I use a spellcheck addon for British, American, Canadian and Australian English that's easy to switch between each one. So, I just click on which ever one's appropriate for the article in question. It's not infallible, and some spellings have different degrees of acceptability, but it helps a lot. Looking through, I may change a few minor things back that have a slightly different meaning now, I hadn't noticed the "lodged with"—I'll think about that because it means something specific. But, don't think that I'm not pleased, because I am very grateful for your work. I'll take it to peer review next and then, hopefully GA. (And don't worry about the uncle thing - I wasn't sure if I was missing something obvious!) Thanks again, -- Beloved Freak  16:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read your last comment - you're welcome, but that's 58,000 edits probably including thousands of typos! Happy to give any advice that'll help you, copyediting is a really important service/job on Wikipedia, and one I'm always appreciative of. I recently joined the guild of copyeditors to try and improve my own writing, but I still find it difficult!-- Beloved Freak  16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok just added the British, Canadian, Ausie, and Spanish dictionaries and figured out the right click, language, change language. I'm ready for my next Copy edit challenge. Thank you again Bullock    ✉  18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, cool... good luck! -- Beloved Freak  19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)