User talk:Lhynard

Supplied requested citation
Hi Lhynard,

FYI: I have made an edit to Eusebius of Caesarea to supply your requested citation. The text from which I got the citation suggests that it wasn't Eusebius's creed that the council accepted, but an alternative which was more pointedly anti-Arian. Needless to say, I added that fact to the article. I removed the citation tag, and am informing you in the hope that it meets with your approval. Muzhogg (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome
Hi Lhynard,

Thanks for your kind note on my contributions to the Eusebius page. Evidently they were helpful, and I'm very pleased.

Obviously, you got the use of the talk-page right!

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your merger suggestion
See Talk:Hebrew grammar. Mo-Al (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sri Adhinathar
Message for you on the talk.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for copyedit!
Hi, I'm curious if you would be interested in copyediting the Boys in Red accident article? It's an article that is pretty much finished but needs a good and thorough copyedit before being pushed off to FAC! Thanks for reading this and hope you are willing to help! --Kuzwa (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it's a long article, so it might be a few days before I have the time to edit it. I have a real life newletter to edit by Wednesday first. :) Lhynard (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the advice as far as editing a new page goes. I am interested in contributing to wikipedia but still trying to learn the ropes. Pole to Pole (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem; it certainly is confusing at first. Lhynard (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Trans-Siberian Orchestra
Hi Lhynard,

Thanks for help. Slowly getting up to speed.

NightCastle-Megafan (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2011


 * No problem. The most important thing for you to learn is to use the "Show preview" button before accepting changes to ensure that nothing is broken. Lhynard (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Lhynard,


 * I am confused. This page (among others) is so filled with misinformation that it sometimes borders on fiction. For example the band has explained in countless interviews the 1990s onward the bands connection with Siberia but someone kept putting up the exact opposite and when taken down would put it back up asking that someone else fill in a citation. How can you fill in a legitimate citation that does not exist? Worse, while looking for legitimate citations I found numerous articles quoting Wikipedia word for word with completely wrong erroneous facts. Use any search engine and type in Wikipedia Accuracy and you will see the depth the of the problem. I have corrected numerous mistakes to have them immediately replaced for no or minor reasons. Just sticking to TSO, in a world where musicianship is dying and more kids are opting out of music, TSO is showing them it is still a viable career choice. The article over the years has been vandalized to the point of nearly being useless to any music student trying to understand how the band was formed, grew and thrived. Too many people, both students and professionals, use this as the first place they go to. I really believe that Wikipedia can be a world changing tool for the better but I am really starting to get frustrated. I know you are trying to help but there must be a better way before Wikipedia becomes so undependable as to be irrelevant.


 * Would really appreciate any advice as my I only have tonight off and really wanted to try to make a dent in this.


 * Thanks


 * NightCastle-Megafan (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I trust that you are trying to make improvements, but you need to learn how things are done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a list of policies that can be found here. While you are trying to correct what you consider to be factual errors, you are violating numerous policies yourself.


 * It is good that you wish to correct factual errors. So do all of us here. But things have to have trustworthy and 'specific' sources for everyone to believe that they are true. Let's take your example about the name being said incorrectly to have no connection to Siberia. The fact that it was labeled with a  inline template tag is proof that others have doubted that statement as well. The tag says, "Hey, whoever put this statement here, prove that it is true." In this case, you have convinced me that it is not true. However, initially, your replacement statements did not seem true either at first, because they were not sourced well. I have now allowed your deletion of the infactual material, since your new material seems more trustworthy. But this was a 'process'; that's how Wikipedia works &mdash; it's a refinement, and your changes as is required multiple modifications before they were of quality high enough to be included. Wikipedia strives for quality as well as facts.


 * However, it is not just about facts or even quality; you should at least try to follow the proper procedures and policies. When you posted one revision, for example, in addition to spelling, layout, and gramamr issues, you violated all of the following policies:
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:VERIFY
 * WP:WWIN
 * WP:ENC
 * WP:WEASEL
 * WP:LEAD
 * WP:DASH
 * WP:NAMES
 * WP:DISCUSS


 * In short, although I trust you have good intentions, your edits could be considered disruptive.


 * My best advice to you is to post the problems you see on the page with your suggested corrections, so that the community can discuss it before making changes yourself.


 * (One final note, the problems on the Trans-Siberian_Orchestra page &mdash; and I agree there are many &mdash; are not what vandalism is; vandalism is always intentional. See WP:Vandalism for more information.)


 * Good luck.


 * Lhynard (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Roborovski hamster
Hi! I just noticed that you copy edited this article. I am trying to make Phodopus a good topic and I have already got Djungarian hamster to GA and I am shortly going to nominate Phodopus for GA. I was hoping to improve this article after I improve Campbell's dwarf hamster, so I would appreciate when I start working on it in a while any feedback you can give. Thank you.  Puffin  Let's talk! 23:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you are ready, and I'll give it a thorough copyedit. (I am a hamster lover and owner, but I don't know too much about the zoology, so my comments will likely be primarily grammar- and style-based.) ~ Lhynard (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, in the meantime, I've tagged some contradictions I've noticed and left clarifications for you within the article text as HTML comments. Good luck! ~ Lhynard (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Turn of the Century Project
But since when was 1889 the turn of the 20th century? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Since as long as the 1900s have been the 20th century. (See Turn of the century for more info.) However, I usually find the phrase unnecessary and actually prefer your recent edit on Ludwig Wittgenstein to mine. (I've been trying to only minimally change things.) ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Um yes, but turn of the century says 1890 - 1914? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Again, I prefer your deletion of the phrase; I was not the one who originally put "turn of the century". ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was me actually (= talk page stalker!) As his birth date is stated in the opening sentence, there's no need to refer to it again, in any terms, later in the introduction.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. We all agree. Still unsure that the family really was "one of Europe's wealthiest families" - how many are in that list exactly? But if that's what Duffy says, then ... Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, Ghmyrtle; I didn't see your name in the middle of Martinevans' edits. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Phodopus
The article is written in British English, please remain consistent when you copy edit it. (Colour not color). Thank you.  Puffin  Let's talk! 19:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not changed any British spellings, nor have I spotted any yet, but I'll keep this in mind. ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A mild suggestion for the future: If you have any articles for which you care very much about the spelling, consider placing  on the talk page. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also concerned about some of the copy editing you did on it. "As a comparison, the well known golden hamster is 13 to 18 centimeters (5.1–7.1 in). "Well-known" is a peacock term and should not be included in the article, according to the GA criteria. "(The main articles for each species include further color variations.)" I am wondering why this is here. I thought that the main article banner was enough to be slightly self-explanatory as to what would be included in them. "(roughly 7 to 10 centimeters (2.8–3.9 in)) " I was told earlier that it's better not to include averages but to state later in the article the specific measurements. I appreciate that you are trying to help and I thank you for that but I do review GA articles and I know what to look for and when I saw these things, I had to notify you. I have removed the peacock term to be safe. Thank you.  Puffin  Let's talk! 20:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fine with removing "well known", though I don't think it is necessarily a peakcock term (while it certainly can be).
 * Re: "(The main articles for each species include further color variations.)": It is my opinion that without such a statement, a reader might assume that there are not alternative color variations, but if others agree to remove it, it is fine by me.
 * Re: "'(roughly 7 to 10 centimeters (2.8–3.9 in))' I was told earlier that it's better not to include averages but to state later in the article the specific measurements.": I think you mean "abbreviations", not "averages"? Yes, it is true to avoid abbreviations after a first introduction. However, if one introduces a range with the word "from", it is best practice to spell out "to" (instead of using the en-dash) and the abbreviation. For example: "from 10 to 15 millimeters" vs. "10–15 mm". Since you had the word "from" there, I expanded everything.
 * As an aside, please give me a chance to finish copyediting before making any changes so that our edits don't overlap. Thanks!
 * I think it is turning into a good article; good work!
 * Lhynard (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, can you be more specific as to what is so technical about the skeleton section? The words that are wiki linked are explained in the articles they are linked to and I have clarified two more details that were not wiki linked. The terms which may be technical have been explained in enough detail in my opinion, why do you not agree?  Puffin  Let's talk! 20:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, such matters are subjective, but I have a PhD in the sciences, and not all of the statements are immediately clear. Don't take it personally. :) I like your clarifications; thank you. After I finish copyediting, I'll go back and see if I can make it less technical, but it does not hurt to let others have a stab at it; in fact, on Wikipedia, such things are preferred. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, but I do not see how comparing to a Syrian hamster is most appropriate. I mean, the genus is Phodopus and the syrian is in some other genus. It would be easier to explain, that their common name (to pet shops etc...) is Dwarf hamsters, as implied by Dwarf, it implies that they are small, rendering the statement self explanatory. Also, things mentioned in the lead must be mentioned in the rest of the article, which is part of the GA criteria, I would suggest just leaving it, I see you have looked at Djungarian hamster which I improved earlier and there was no issue there so why does there have to be one here?  Puffin  Let's talk! 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point about "dwarf" being self-evident. But, again, I was simply placing myself in the shoes of a normal reader; I see "smaller" and I immediately think, "How much smaller are these things compared to a 'normal' hamster?" I was not aware of the need to repeat every fact in the lead later in the article. I hardly think that means to repeat every single thought though. The lead mentions size, and you mention size again later. To me, that fulfills this criterion.
 * I have looked at Djungarian hamster, yes, but nowhere near as thoroughly. The points I raise are all simply suggestions that I think would be helpful, nothing more.
 * Lhynard (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Phodopus (2)
Lhynard: You have added some useful things to Phodopus, but could I request that in future you please check the history and talk pages of articles before undertaking extensive work on them, and that you especially take care not to reverse stylistic decisions made and applied consistently by previous editors. Had you done so, you might have noticed that: Nikkimaria and I had been working with Puffin both during the peer review and afterwards; a GOCE copy edit was already done merely a day before yours (indeed, you have kicked that into the long grass on the talk page); that Oxford commas were consistently NOT in use before you arrived, a decision I made that is an option accepted under the MOS; and that I had applied spaced ndash, not unspaced mdash. Please see paragraph 4 of WP:MOS. It is wrong to trample on others' work like this. I would appreciate if you'd get rid of the Oxford commas, please, since I cannot without being subject to accusations of edit warring. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey,


 * I apologize for changing things. I did check the talk page &mdash; as is evidenced by how I reverted some of my own edits &mdash; but I did not even know of peer reviews. Sorry about that. I was aware that you and Nikkimaria had made edits, but there was no WP:GOCE copyedit finished tag on the talk page. However, you will note that I gave you credit for the copyedit in the tag I left, because I am in no way trying to take credit for all the work. I only made such a large edit myself in the first place because User:Puffin specifically asked me to (as can be seen above on this page).


 * I'll certainly go change things to the styles you all desire. I am well aware that Oxford commas are optional. However, they were not yet consistent, so I tried to make the whole article consistent. I am also aware of the two methods of dashing. Again, I only saw one in the whole article, so I could not build a basis of consensus and went with my preference. I did not know a decision had already been reached.


 * In short, I'll gladly fix the commas. I in no way meant to "tramble on" anyone else's work; I was only trying to fulfill Puffin's request for me to copyedit.


 * Regards,


 * Lhynard (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done and done
 * I think I got them all. If not, no one will accuse you of a copy war if you fix it. :)


 * As an aside, re-reading above, I see that Puffin only asked for feedback, not a copyedit. Oops. I seem to have been over-ambitious in my desire to improve things. :( ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That was a very kind reply. I hope I didn't bite too hard (and sorry if I did). --Stfg (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, that's what Band-Aids® are for! In all seriousness, though, thanks for helping me be a better Wikipedian. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A token of recognition

 * Hey, thanks! ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

skeleton pictures
Thank you for the external links but the only seem to be of the Campbell's dwarf hamster.  Puffin  Let's talk! 09:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh an also some of them are mongrels, not giving a pedigree idea of what a skull should look like.  Puffin  Let's talk! 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TBR1
Hi, I'm working with Grant Van Der Voort and Patricia Stiklickas on TBR1. We weren't sure whether we should be/are allowed to be making the changes you suggest in your review or if we are supposed to leave it as it is while you review it. Please let one of us know. Thanks. JaimeeDavis (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be easiest for me if you do not make any changes until I am finished, but please feel free to ask questions or give answers here or on the article's talk page. I'm trying to update the review page as I go so that you can watch the process. So far, it reads very well; I am impressed!


 * Thanks for asking.


 * Lhynard (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit the article to your hearts content while I do not list a status of doing &mdash; such as now. I'm finished for the night and will continue tomorrow. ~ Lhynard (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as your comment about changing the cortex, it should be cerebral cortex, so should we change that now or wait to do that as well. Also thank you for updating it as you do it. We are enjoying being able to read your comments. JaimeeDavis (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll fix cortex now.


 * no problem Re: my minor edits


 * Lhynard (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that you have finished assessing our article, are we allowed to make the changes you have suggested? JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly! good work ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Lhynard, thank you very much for reviewing our TBR1 page, your suggestions are great. We will edit our article today (Dec 7). We appreciate your help! Grant.vandervoort (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack?
What attack? Where? 74.56.51.128 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * here ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not an attack. That was kindness because he was so angry and domineering. 74.56.51.128 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I defy you
To find anything that shows I've harassed anybody, anywhere. I am holding legitimate discussion with people just like any of you, explaining matters and situations. Since when did "disagreeing" give anyone grounds to threaten a ban? Look at the facts. Don't fall bias to the registered user just because they're registered. It's so obvious that's what's going on here, from the start. Wait, now is THIS post going to be smeared as "disruptive", too? Unreal. 74.56.51.128 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE barnstar, January 2012 drive

 * Thanks for your positive comment on my talk page concerning the backlog drive. It's really important that we maintain good relationships between editors. I have looked at a lot of talk pages, various conflicts, and I see how we all react to praise and blame. It's always great to get a compliment. The vast majority of us are doing the best we can. Thanks. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Beta designation
I note that this article says that the beta designation is because of the position of the carbonyl in relation to the nitrogen. However, the "lactam" page says that the greek letter designates how many carbons in the ring. This needs to be resolved between the two wiki pages. Howard Woods (FrodoGem@AOL.COM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.29.21 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There isn't actually a conflict; they are equivalent. I can edit the Lactam page to add a section on explaining the nomenclature better, if you'd like. ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)