User talk:Odysseus1479/Archive/Talk 1

Re: edit summaries
You're doing great with edit summaries.. that was just a reminder that's part of the boilerplate welcome message. :) You also now have lots of helpful links in the menu above to help you get your bearings. Don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page if you need help with anything. See ya around! -- &oelig; &trade; 09:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your edits. The article reads much better now :) --XRDoDRX (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Depending on when you viewed the article, it may have been a more recent version by User:Lfstevens, who is also a member of WikiProject Fishes. He or she has a more ruthless editing style than mine, but is likely much better qualified to check facts & sources. Last I looked the editing-in-progress tag was still there. Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Taylor copy-edit
Hi, I have been working extremely hard to get the Phil Taylor article up to GA but the main reason it failed the most recent GAN is because of the prose. I am not that good at copy-editing so I would greatly appreciate it if you would do a copy-edit for me. I'm asking you because I saw the fantastic job you done with Camp Nou. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 10:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m not at all familiar with the subject matter, so I don’t think I’m up to addressing the article’s organization or such larger issues—but I’ll have a go at some of the grammar & style problems. Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, any help is greatly appreciated, thank you so much for offering to help. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 20:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: vectorization
I'm not sure what you mean. I have zero experience in creating or editing vector graphics. In any case, I worked on the original PNG so long ago that I odn't have the file anymore. Sorry.  bahamut0013  words deeds 02:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing quite a few SVG images in User:Bahamut0013/ribbon_workshop, I ass-u-me-d you had some sort of system for generating them. Never mind; sorry to trouble you. Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yakutia map
Hi! Thank you for the new vector map of Yakutia! I just wanted to ask maybe you know how it need to change coordinates at location templates (like Template:Location map Russia Sakha Republic or lt:Šablonas:Location map Jakutija)? Because positioning of new map is slightly different. Hugo.arg (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * No problem—thank you for the honour: my first barnstar! Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Opus dei map
I have indeed no time for it. So, yes, go ahead and make the necessary changes on the Opus Dei map. Regards Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Incase you didn't see my updated comment. I saw what you meant by the IP users edit summary. The replaced content summary happens when a page is completely altered to changed into something else and it happens automatically. So far there isn't easy way for users to be able to change edit summaries, at least not that I know off.--iGeM iN ix 01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I had an edit conflict when I first tried to reply, so I exited, went back in, and saw your update. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Barnstar

 * Thank you, and sorry to disappear from the last drive without notice. I hope to find some time to participate again this time around. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you have time for, that would be great. Thanks for message. -- Diannaa (Talk) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil
Odysseus, sometime ago you helped me a lot by doing a map on Pedro Álvares Cabral's route. I was wondering if you could help again, although this time it would be something far more simple and easy. This map (here: ) has its northwestern border wrong. It should be like in this map or this one. Could you fix it, please? --Lecen (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to respond – I plead RL interruptions as an excuse, but I should have put up a 'wikibreak' notice … Anyway, I'll have a go. I notice concerning the southern border that the latter map excludes modern Uruguay (more or less), while the other two agree in including it. Which is correct? —Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello! Both maps are correct! One has the 1828 borders (before the Spanish-speaking Cisplatina became independent as Uruguay from the Portuguese-speaking Brazil). But don't worry about that anymore, I already managed to fix the map. Thank you very much for answering back and being kind for trying to help me. Regards, my friend, --Lecen (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Something for you

 * Thank you kindly; I’ll see if I can find time to look at your requests re. “Operation” articles.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2nd parachute brigade
Hi

I hope that this will not cause any ill effects, I just wanted to point out some things to you without causing offence. Normally I would only give two or three pointers but, as your work is of a high standard, I will give more to help point you (at least I hope it does) in the right direction.

I reviewed your edits to the article, as I do with many new GOCE members who are new to editing from the requests page (and especially with articles that are up for GA or FA).

The edits are pretty good, though there were some things that I felt were not quite accurate.


 * Commas - you have a good grasp of the commas and how to use them, though there are some points that you may not be aware of. English articles tend not to use serial commas - 1,2 and 3. There are obvious exceptions though, as on the MoS pages.
 * That's certainly not how I was taught! AFAIC the serial comma should always be used, except for the very rare situations where it would create ambiguity—in which case rephrasing is better than merely omitting it IMO.
 * P.S. I just read the Manual of Style section on serial commas, and I don’t see where it deprecates them, although I admit it doesn’t recommend them very strongly either. ’Damning with faint praise?‘ If the preference is stated elsewhere, it should probably be reiterated in that section.


 * Date comma - "In XXXX, this happened." - incorrect. "In XXXX this happened" - correct. There are some discussions here User:Chaosdruid/usefullinks/GOCEconv that may explain that for you.
 * There were several places where the sentences had a breathless feel, having too many phrases strung together without punctuation, and in my judgement these were the best places to pause. (That’s how I recall it, anyway; fingers don’t always obey brain.) I do not routinely put commas in those places, although I was taught that they are required to set off the year in dates that are given month-first, e.g. “On Month (the) XX(th), YYYY, something happened.” (Not pertinent to the style in this article.)
 * The link I gave is to a discussion between another GOCE member and myself where they are reading from the Chicago MOS, in particular the right hand column of that linked page. "On January 1, 2000, this happened ..." is correct - this is because the date format is the full American date style. As this is an English article any dates should be in "1 January 2000" format, where no comma would be required (Surely as we are reading these articles, rather than speaking them, breathlessness is not an issue?).


 * The changes to this sentence seem a little excessive - "In January 1945, the Brigade was withdrawn from further operations, to Italy." Your edit now reads (by missing the part in commas) "In January 1945 to Italy."
 * I’d be surprised if anyone took those commas to be offsetting a parenthesis, but I take your point. (Note that the original sentence made less sense than your version: “… withdrawn for further operations …;” believe it or not, I was trying to preserve as much as possible of the original wording—i.e. “further operations”, which I thought pleonastic and would have just as soon cut—while clarifying the sense. Unsuccessfully, I guess.) I’ll try and be either more conservative or more ruthless—I just have to figure out which. ;)
 * Lol - I had the same problem, especially with sloppy text. Maybe: "In January 1945 the brigade was withdrawn from further operations and relocated to Italy."


 * There were a few other places where it seems you may have changed the context of the sentence: e.g., Taranto warned of a possible -> Taranto to prepare for a possible (here the editor is making an additional mention of the warning which is removed in your version) & To support them in an independent role -> To support its independent role (Who said they had an independent role to start with? The previous text implies that this was a special independent role, your edit turns the brigade into one which is independent of the army).
 * In the first case, there was no indication of where the warning came from or why it wasn’t just a tentative plan, so it struck me as verging on dramatization or editorializing. (At the very least “alerted” would be more neutral; it strikes me that one’s “warned” about what the enemy might do.) In the second case, I don’t see how my phrasing implies any more independence than did the previous version: we’re still talking about a “role” in the context of a particular campaign. But I’ll have another look at it.


 * "The Brigade left ..." should not be in caps. - "The brigade left ..."
 * I capitalized “the Brigade” wherever I felt it to be a short form of the unit’s name; the article appeared to be doing so already, albeit not consistently. Without the cap “brigade” refers to the formation (or another) as an instance of the class in terms of size or function. I believe this to be an appropriate style for the subject area, but am open to correction; I’ve probably edited as many articles in this territory as any other, but that’s just a drop in the ocean … at any rate, if that B needs lowering, many more should go with it for consistency’s sake.
 * I had this problem some years ago with "The Division" - cannot for the life of me remember where though lol.


 * "Their only casualties being 58" why did you change this to "Their only casualties were 58"?
 * The sentence was incorrect as it stood: a participle can’t function as the principal verb. It would only work if attached to another sentence with the same subject (which it may well have been, at some point in the editing history; I didn’t bother to try and trace it). The only candidate was the preceding sentence and, not wanting to break either up, I felt that all together it would be getting too long. The simplest solution was to change the verb form, converting the fragment into something that could stand on its own. Even when grammatically correct, participles are generally weaker than simple verbs, for the same sort of reasons that passive verbs are generally weaker than active ones.
 * Wow! That is an excellent answer! I am going to have to give you a gold star and 11/10!

Good job though, 95% of your work is pretty damn good. Just try and avoid changing things too much, we are copy-editors, not re-writers :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making here. Anyway, I did ask the requester to check that I hadn’t accidentally changed any facts, and noticed my one deliberate deletion.

Thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to comment in detail.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My intention was two-fold: I can see from your edits that you are experienced in copy-editing, or at least extremely proficient in grammar and usage, and I wanted to draw attention to some minor points, especially where differences between American English and English English (sic) grammar and punctuation styles can cause copyediting problems. I have had many hours of reading MoS and comparing AE and EE to try and learn American punctuation.
 * My second intent, as always when I come across an apparent experienced editor, was to try and dissuade you from getting "too involved" with the articles, many new GOCE editors become embroiled in rewrites rather than simply copyediting. I apologise as I can now see that your comment above, about preserving the text, indicates that you are not one of those types of editors :¬) It was really also a slightly selfish attempt to try and get you more involved with the GOCE requests page, we have so few good editors available at the moment (and quite a backlog!) and I hoped you would be a good candidate for helping us reduce it - obviously re-writing (fixing refs, terms and factual data) is much more time consuming than simply copy-editing (correcting grammar, punctuation, applying MoS and wikiformatting).
 * Understood—but I reserve the right to go off and draw a map or something as the spirit moves me: I guess there are components of both Gnome and Sloth in my constitution.
 * One of my favourite quotes is from at the top of this page User:Chaosdruid/usefullinks, commas are one of our biggest nightmares lol
 * Are you signing up for the July GOCE drive? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but don’t get your hopes up: I signed up for the last one but didn’t manage to actually contribute. :( The bonus for fulfilling Requests makes a nice incentive, though …
 * Anyway, I’m not exactly sure what resolution, if any, we came to on a couple of the above points. I’ll undertake not to insert serial commas in future, except where there’s an obvious improvement in clarity. I’ll ask at the Military History project whether there’s a preferred style for shortened unit designations. In the meantime I’ve taken another pass at the article, pruning commas & whatnot.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only giving pointers, your work is good enough to stand on its own merits.
 * I normally leave a list of points that I think may need fixing on the articles talk page. That way the regular editors can look and see, probably what I would do with the shortenings.
 * I started helping at the requested pictures pages, although the Tikal request I last worked on cost me a few weeks worth of work, over 40 hours before abandoning it with only around 15% complete! something I still mean to rectify this summer :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Architecture of the Song Dynasty Copyedit
Hi there, it looks like you just finished up on AotSD, thank you very much for doing so. I'm going to look over it tommorow, then get back to you. Thus far, just from a quick lookover, I only have one concern, which is the disproportionately large image to the right in the gallery section, which I believe you moved down from somewhere else. Is there any reason that I shouldn't try and find a place higher up in the article for it? I think that the article would look better that way. There might be some MoS things I don't know about, which is why I ask. If not, I'm tempted to remove the Chengling Pagoda image, which is not actually from the Song Dynasty, and move the pagoda in the gallery up.
 * Whatever you think works; I had no better reason for moving it than getting it out of the way—I was trying to keep the image of the manuscript page near the Yingzao Fashi subsection, and the text was getting ‘stepped on’ with so many photos cascading down from above.

Thanks again,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all; let me know if it needs any touching up, or if you’d like another pair of eyes to check any further revisions or additions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. I haven't had the time I thought I did, so I need to read it all over now.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

CatScan
Hi

I think I have solved your mystery User talk:Diannaa :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit "Boron Group"
Hello, thank you for the wonderful copyediting you did to boron group. I really think that you improved the article so much. I truely think that the article is ready for GA review. Thanks again! :)--Geo7777 (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I second that, a very good and thorough job indeed.
 * The difficult part is reviewing lol. You can see some changes I made in the diffs from the article history. using : and ; can be tricky, try this and that - I use these sort of sites regularly to check up on myself, though I would tend to go with one such as Sussex Uni. if I had to pick.
 * I am in no way saying your edits are unsatisfactory but, having learned so much myself from the following recommendations, I would urge you to give them a try. There are exercises on advanced copyediting here User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, with basic ones at User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. Commas are often used too much by editors, rearranging sentences often fixes that User:Tony1/Comma workshop.
 * Anyway, aside from my "punctuation Nazi" comments (someone called me that a couple of years ago lol), good work! Chaosdruid (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the suggested reading, which I’ll have a look at when I get back from vacation. I didn’t much like [this edit], specifically the repetition of “with” and the use of the semicolon with a conjunction, so I tried another paraphrase.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder regarding copyedit of Coat of arms of Singapore
Thanks for expressing your interest in copyediting the article Coat of arms of Singapore! Ten days have passed since then and you have yet to edit the article. Have you forgotten or are you simply busy? I do not want to rush you, but I do hope this article gets a good copyedit so its second GA nomination succeeds. Enjoy copyediting this short, but interesting article, and support the quest to counter systemic bias, in the process! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to get to it. The writing wasn’t bad at all; I mainly tightened it up in a few places.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copyediting the article Coat of arms of Singapore! My other copyedit request, for Pathlight School, was handled by Demiurge1000, but you may be interested in reading that short, but interesting, school article (and commenting at its ongoing peer review). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New Zappa project
A new project from Frank Zappa has been proposed and we need as many users to join a possible. Go here to join. Thank You. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FIBA basketball key
Exactly, you found the one I was talking about. Thanks you for your future contribution! AirWolf (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Expression "prima facie"
(This is meant as a polite correction in reference to your revision of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style at 20:05, 20 October 2012.) The expression "prima facie" is from "prīmā faciē", the form in the ablative case of the Latin noun phrase "prīma faciēs", where the noun "faciēs" is of the fifth declension. The inflection of "faciēs" is shown at facies. Nouns of the first declension have the ending ae in the genitive singular, the dative singular, and the nominative plural, but no form of any noun of the fifth declension has that ending. —Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I should know better.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comets
With respect to your comment "I note that there are many more comet articles currently using the en-dash", this is solely due to them incorrectly, and without discussion, being renamed recently, in what I refer to as the great endash folly of 2011. Apteva (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That’s as it may be, but I still don’t think it’s appropriate to put up a ‘test case’ when there are evidently quite a few editors who agree with the “folly”. IMO some sort of consensus needs to be reached and reflected at WT:AT.


 * Have you sought an opinion from the Astronomy project? (If any editors from there have been involved in the other recent discussions I haven’t noticed them identifying themselves.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This was not intended to be a "test case". I checked Wikipedia talk:MOS and the last post on the issue was that it should be a hyphen, and two weeks later there was no response. So I figured it was a settled issue. I don't think anyone at WP:AT disagrees that it should follow common use whatever that may be. It is only the folks over at WP:MOS that were promoting an endash. Apteva (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks
thank you dear Odysseus for your explaning and help. i just have sent a message to dr.Izady, he did agree the non commercial using of the maps in WP, and we will do that soon.

happy new year Sagapane (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Same to you, and you’re welcome!


 * I’m afraid a non-commercial licence for the map will not be sufficient. I’m not expert in these matters, but my understanding is that the only conditions acceptable to WP are 1) requiring attribution and 2) that further copying or distribution is to be done only under a compatible licence. That is, the strongest protection offered to contributors is the Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. This does not forbid commercial reuse, but it does require that the author or creator be credited. I hope Dr. Izady will be amenable to granting such a licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much for your answer. happy new year !!!Sagapane (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Copy Edit of Campaign of Danture (1594)
Thank you good sir, Thank you very much. I really appreciate your valuable contribution to the article. I was amazed by the effort and critical thinking that you have put into the copy edit. Above all, I learned a lot from you. Better words, better phrases, better ways to link sentences etc. So once again, thank you very much. (According to our customs a proper thank should have three “Thank you”s)

At the same time I think that I owe you an apology and some explanations from my part.


 * Regarding “Lascarin”, cross-reference links, map captions and Bible rock. I agree with you.
 * Portuguese names: I’ll ask a Portuguese editor to look in to the names.
 * Choices of quote or cquote: Actually the reason is bit naïve. I wanted to make the Kandy terrain photo more prominent since it describes the terrain better than the text. Former quote template attracted less attention. (See, naïve.)
 * Regarding Kekiri: A huge negligence from my part. I’m ashamed. Thanks for saving my honor and credibility.
 * Vanguard: Again my fault. I should have described it in the text. Referring to a battle in 1557, Fernao de Queyroz state that, “…According to the practice in Ceylon due to the paucity of soldiers they called it (vanguard) the advance guard (dianteyra) and called the center (batatha) the vanguard, thus altering the military terms.” But it won’t make a much difference. Although historians like Paul E Peiris and S G Perera used the altered military terms to keep the historical authenticity the newer scholars like C. Gaston Perera and Channa W’sinhe are using the classical terms (vanguard, canter, and rearguard) to avoid confusion. (Same reason you mentioned)
 * Year in the article title: Actually I personally believe the year should be mentioned in a battle title. You’ll understand when you see the list of Battles involving Portugal. Titles with a year make better sense as it gives the feeling about the era. So I have decided to keep the year for the moment and I’ll take other editors opinion at Wiki project Military history.

Once again, Thanks.Nishadhi (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words, and for the interesting article in an area that’s not well covered in popular histories.
 * Regarding the Portuguese “vanguard”, that’s a detail of which I was quite unaware. It might well be worth restoring, especially for the benefit of those readers who may be motivated to further reading in the period. Perhaps the contemporary terms (are they Port. or Sinhala?) could be used, in italics, with a parenthetical explanation where they’re introduced. This might also be worth bringing up at MilHist, while you’re at it, to see how this issue has been treated elsewhere (if at all).
 * As for the quotation, while I see your point about distraction I might counter with the general observation that a stronger break in the flow of text can encourage the reader to pause and look around. OTOH in this particular case there’s already a section heading immediately above, giving the quote a certain prominence even without the ‘decorations’.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Great picture
Hallo! Thank you for added historic FIBA key at Wikimedia Commons. Your picture File:Basketball keys.svg is much better than mine File:Basketball keys.png and this file: File:Basketball key.png. I express my respect! Very good job! :) Thanks again! Best Regards  Mariusz Swornóg  ( talk ) 17:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all; since I already had done drawings for the courts, per a vectorization request at the Illustration Workshop quite a while ago, it was easy to extract the elements. (This demonstrates one of the advantages of SVG & similar formats: that parts of a drawing can be isolated, combined, or modified much more easily than can be done with raster images.) Anyway, I’m glad you approve of the result. I already have a couple of illustrations on my to-do list, but if there’s anything else I can help with—and you’re not in a hurry—feel free to ask.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. You're very nice. You're right. SVG graphics are better. I'm really interested in basketball terminology and FIBA rules of basketball. I'm always very happy, when somebody add good basketball graphics. If I have any question, I will feel free to ask. I wish there are at Wikipedia more users like you. :)  Mariusz Swornóg  ( talk ) 09:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE
Thanks for the copy edit. Moagim (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Heylo,
Thanks for your feedback at #Carry over from #New_template thread.

I took a look at your user page and noticed that you had declared yourself a PowerPC Mac user. If this is still the case you might find Linux MintPPC to be of interest. It did wonders for a 333MHz G3 iMac my Mom had.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, but offhand I don’t see what benefit there would be to changing my G5’s Tiger OS–what exactly do you mean by “wonders”? I can already run a variety of ’nix applications from a terminal or under X11. The main reason I chose that machine, rather than waiting a few weeks for its Intel-based successors to come out, was so I could continue to run “Classic” Mac applications, especially FreeHand. Although it has some problems with ‘new-fangled’ Web content and Microsoft documents e.g., the G5 still does OK here and at most of the other sites I frequent.–Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the G3 333MHz iMac (w/ 320 MB of RAM) was unable to run Tiger (OS 10.4). But obviously that's not a problem for your G5. Come to think of it, It was after I added the Enlightenment (E17) GUI that things really came together. While still not spry, it became usable. LXDE had been lagging on such meager resources.


 * There might still be some advantages, for you, to having MintPPC as a dual boot option though. On a separate hard drive would be simplest, but it can also be set up to share a disk with Tiger. It would deal with "‘new-fangled’ Web content", receive current updates for most packages, and likely run 'more spryly' (demand less CPU and RAM). Especially with the Enlightenment option. Document software (like LibreOffice) could be installed to handle modern formats.


 * Really depends on how comfortable/savvy you are with computers as to whether I'd advise you to give it a go. One doesn't have to be any sort of Jedi guru or anything, but some understanding (vocabulary) beyond that of a casual app user is needed. I suspect that you already have such.


 * I'd be happy to share more detail from my experience and advise as I can if it's of further interest to you. Might be best WP:talk_page etiquette if we shifted to a subpage (or email) for that though as it's not directly Wikipedia related.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and thanks again. It wouldn’t hurt for me to learn something about Linux … I‘ll think on it some more and drop you a line if I get serious about the idea.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I copied the above dialog to PowerPC Linux#Initial Conversation. It occurred to me that if I get around to adding some links and some more notes that I may well end up with the base of an article. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Heylo again, I noticed your WikiGrahpist icon...
I was about to email you regarding a few more Linux on PowerPC thoughts when I noticed your "WikiGrahpist" icon.

I've got some experience using the GIMP to alter photos (fun example here) and such, but no experience doing vector graphics for charts or the like. Anyway, if folks need help with cropping, color tweaking, editing out (or in) details, etc, I may enjoy helping out the WikiGrahpics project.

Do you think my skills might fit in? And what's your own experience been like?

p.s. I went ahead and skipped the email and opted for picking up the PPC Linux topic on a sub of my talk page at PowerPC Linux#Morning Musing I've kinda' become hooked on wikimarkup. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven’t been around there much recently, as I’ve got a bit of a backlog of drawing projects. If you’d like to help with raster images, check out the Photography Workshop. The requests posted there range from simple cropping, level adjustments, or removal of extraneous markings, to extensive restorative work. All three boards (the other two are for illustrations and maps) have a Top section, which is a template populated more or less automatically with straightforward or routine tasks taken from a queue; below that are individual requests, often more complicated, with related discussions. IME most requesters are quite appreciative, and of course editing in these areas is usually uncontroversial.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Just the sort of answer I needed. Photography Workshop sounds like the place for me. Both to contribute some GIMP skills and as an 'uncontroversial editing' refuge when words get tiresome. Thanks much. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of links
Hi Odysseus. Please do not  simply  remove links from  pages as you  did here without  taking  a moment  to  find where the linked page or tool  server stats have gone. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not remove it, just tagged it as dead, as I got a 404 error. Where a server or domain still exists I do generally try searching or browsing a site-map to see where something may have been moved, to repair the link instead of tagging it (or deleting, if it’s in the “See also“ section of an article and not a cited source). But I have no idea how to search the tool server, and “ec” seemed a very unpromising search-term anyway. I would appreciate it if you could point me to an explanation of how that’s done.—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  01:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My bad, you  did not  remove it -  that's just  a custom  template I  use. Many  tool server links got  changed recently. You  opted in  for this yourself so  you  can check  back  and see how it's done   here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have used that tool (well, often just tried—it seems only slightly less likely than not to time out, but that’s different from getting an immediate 404), having found its link on my “Contributions” page. The essay already links to the edit-counter several times with the hypertext “pie chart”, so in context I thought something “in addition” must be, well, somewhere else. Anyway, what I don’t follow is how you get from “soxred93” to “tparis”, or from “ec” to “pcount”. Is there a list of tools with descriptions somewhere, from which I would have been able to infer that the same one must have been meant?—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  04:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a list at WikiProject edit counters but I  have no  idea how the toolserver works. I  do  know that  X! tools were teken over by TParis so  they  will  have different  URLs. I  wrote that  admin  advice essay  quite a while back and I haven't  updated it  much  since,  so  I  only  get  to  know about  issues when someone like you  points them out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Identifications
[consolidated from previous locations]

I see that you commented on the talk of sub pages, sorry as this page was not created due to my absence, but If you wish, I can identify them for you. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * [from User talk:Bugboy52.40] Thanks for your offer (several months ago now!) to help identify insect photos. Here are a couple from a suburban environment near the Aegean coast of Turkey: [dead link] (something like a shield-bug, fairly large: about 25 mm long) and [dead link] (a scarabaeus? of similar size). Please advise also whether or not you think they’d be useful (i.e. of adequate quality and not duplicating existing shots) if I were to upload them to Commons. Can you identify arachnids as well?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be glad to help you, even though I don't remember that I said that (probably because it was such a long time ago). Also, its not to difficult to identify arachnids as I have a few text that include them, and I've written a few articles. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I finally got around to collecting some of my photos: please look at these images when you get a chance, and let me know if you think any (that you can identify) could be used in articles, or at least would be worth uploading to Commons.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't pick up on this when I got the chance, but unfortunately it seems whatever pictures were there are no longer. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem; thanks for checking back! The link above should be working now: please try again.–Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your message. Yes, best to remain vigilant but not jump to hasty conclusions. I read the guidelines and think I was overreacting on what is only a hunch. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LQ
Re your comment at Stfg's page "Fowler and, AFAICT, Hart disagree with CMOS":


 * From New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press, 2005): "In US practice, commas and full points are set inside the closing quotation mark regardless of whether they are part of the quoted material ... This style is also followed in much of British fiction and journalism."(p.155) GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * From Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2004): "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to sense. If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise."(p.646) GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I’m pretty sure the original Hart's Rules did not address “US practice“ at all, because its first publication was intended for use by the OUP. I agree, however, that your quote from the modern version indicates agreement with CMOS. OTOH Fowler’s “according to sense” and “but not otherwise” directly contradict them both.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point about the contradiction. From my reading, it seems that the full entry on quotation marks in Fowler's advocates a situational approach, rather than a one-size fits all rule, i.e. Fowler's seems to contradict itself. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite the way he’s sometimes caricatured, as a rulebook-wielding prescriptivist, Fowler’s positions are usually quite nuanced, albeit opinionated. BTW quite a lot of the recent “Fowler‘s“, including the QUOTATION MARKS article, is actually by Burchfield; it’s become something of a franchise like the various “Webster’s” dictionaries (or the “Roget’s” thesaurus that’s ordered alphabetically instead of conceptually, missing the entire point IMO). I’ve seen Fowler fans on Usenet refer to the third edition of MEU in such terms as “the Burchfield abomination” (but not because of this particular issue AFAICT). Anyway, where do you see a contradiction?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a contradiction between what reads like an unequivocal prescription: "If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark", and what seems like a situational editor discretion advisement: "If the quotation is intermediate between a single word and a complete sentence, or it is not clear whether it is a complete sentence or not, judgement must be used in placing the final point." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that can be resolved by interpreting that “extract” in the introductory section as the portion of the original text you wish to quote; the matter of judgement in case (ii) is whether or not to include the terminal punctuation in said portion. But I may be reading too much into the choice of words.
 * FWIW Fowler himself covers the question in much less detail; aside from discussion of examples, and the summary recommendation I quoted on Stfg’s page, his description of LQ is pretty well covered by “put [stops] outside except when they actually form part of the quotation.“ He doesn’t address the ‘corner case’ where a quoted fragment ends with (or, depending on how you look at it, is followed by) a stop. My own inclination, as you might infer from my comment at WT:MOS, would be to put a period inside the marks either where the quotation could stand as a complete sentence or when I let it finish my own sentence for me, so to speak, but outside the marks otherwise.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you regarding Fowler's ambiguous use of the term extract. However, if by extract he exclusively means a complete sentence, then the statement is embarrassingly redundant with the whole of the entry, which explains in detail that a quoted complete sentence should include the full stop within the quote marks (perhaps this speaks to your above point regarding Fowler's recent move towards the Webster/Roget business model), but who would even argue that a full complete sentence quotation should not include the full stop where the original source had placed it; isn't that one of the more obvious editorial choices? Also, Fowler elaborates to some length that the issue is not resolved in the sense that editorial inconsistency and variation are common amongst publishers. My main issue is that he is obviously in the minority in that regard if you look at the multitude of style guides that outright disagree with him. Nice chatting with you, BTW. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  06:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise! But no, I don‘t think Burchfield’s “extract” is necessarily a complete sentence; it could be anything from a word to several sentences. And terminal punctuation is left out in the middle of a framing sentence: “I shall return” was MacArthur’s slogan. LQ in general, whether Hart‘s, Fowler’s, or Burchfield’s version, is at odds with most current style guides, as many discussions at WT:MOS will show—including some recent agitation for its restriction to articles that otherwise use British English. I don‘t think it’s a matter of national English varieties myself, but we‘ll see what happens …—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  06:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that this is not really a WP:ENGVAR issue per se and I also agree that it will most likely boil down to that for most. I am all for globalization and respect for national writing styles, but in the end the Wikipedia servers are in Florida, not London. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Axial precession
Thanks for trying to provide a citation in the Axial precession article. However, in an article chock full of numbers, a meaningful citation would have to give the exact page number, and probably the equation number, to lead a reader to the part of the source that actually supports the claim. This is particularly the case in an article where an editor has been inserting small numerical changes with no comments. It is necessary to have in black and white that Capitaine et al. say the period of precession is 25,772 years, not 25,770 or 25780. Thus this citation is not really adequate. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * After looking through both the Wikipedia article and the cited article more, I've found the relevant expression and modified the citation to point to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This should probably take place on the article’s Talk page, but briefly:
 * The detailed citation should probably go with the calculation under Values, not in the general discussion. It‘s on page 581, equation 39 (first coefficient of pA). Sorry, I don’t know how to make a specific page-number & equation citation, without implying that all the other refs using the source are for the same point; if you do, I’d appreciate it if you could update it for me.
 * The sentence in question need not give a high- (or medium-) precision figure IMO: the 26,000-year approximation, as in the lead would probably be fine.
 * This is all about varying levels of precision: for two figures we have not only the aforementioned 26,000 a, but the ‘traditional’ 50″/a → 25,920 a being pushed by the IP; for three figures my RASC Observer’s Handbook gives 25,800 a (50.29″/a); for four figures [Wolfram] has 25,770 a (citing Beatty et al. 1990) … take your pick.
 * Finding an explicit, precise presentation of this value in astronomical literature is unlikely, because it has no physical significance except as the inverse of the instantaneous rate at J2000.0. Even by now the rate will have changed slightly; with a little WP:OR on my pocket calculator I make the period 25,770.0 a, for the epoch of J2013.8. This is one of those cases where a less precise figure is actually more accurate.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  06:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have adopted your suggestion to use the approximate value for the sentence in question. I moved the article citation to the bibliography (which didn't have its own section until I created one) and placed footnotes that refer to the exact page and expression. This way the exact page and expression are given in the footnote, while the page range for the entire article is in the bibliography. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks good.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi Odysseus1479, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 09:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha
You are doing a fine job, but its not intentionally you are making a mistake by deleting the edits on Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha. He is truly a famous and loving poet so, give me and to my nation a favor in the form of this poet. Please undo your changes. I hope you will consider my explanation. Further will be provide if needed. Umar Taha (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I believe you have mistaken me for someone else: I have neither edited that article nor participated in any discussions about it.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of private informaton
Apologies, I got as far as the emergency stuff before skipping over that box. Will read more carefully in future. --Jameboy (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of Writkeeper's view on me do you most agree with?
Hi, Odysseus. It is good to get the participation of newcomers at my RFC/U. It would not be obvious to you, but the vast majority of those commenting there have tracked me for months saying "block, block, block" all the way. They don't come to the RFC/U because they normally participate in RFC/Us. Rathe, they've watchlisted my talkpage over my protests and follow me to a new place where they can say "block him" some more. In my opinion that's a strange way to participate in Wikipedia. Anyhow, I'm interested in which part of Writkeeper's view you most agree with. Is it that I've done a minority of my block evading for things other than seeking unblock? If so, you have to consider that I was an avid editor, almost completely a content editor, who once made several hundreds of edits a year. So to just turn that off is not that easy. I've made maybe 24 non-unblock-seeking edits over like 18 months. Well maybe at some of those occurrences I revert flash reverts so it might be literally more than 24 edits, but it was about 24 distinct editing occurrences or groupings. If there is anything I can do to assist you in understanding my actions enough to support my unblock, then let me know. This is Colt on Co5mic. 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the article?
Should there be another article about Oannes, because basically it would be hard to developpe on the Oannes side which interest me (and not Adapa), if there is disagreements on Adapa and Oannes relationship. The relationship exist on the fact that Adapa is a half God, that means that he has a half perishable (Adapa side), and an unperishable side Oannes. But the unperishable side is common to all other Gods in history, and there lies my interest on the article. I don't care much of the Adapa side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On reading the article (which I confess not having done before commenting on ’s page), it appears that modern scholarship has demonstrated the identity of the Babylonian Uanna and the Sumerian Adapa in the context of the original mythos. I think your area of interest does belong in another article, but its title should make clear it’s not so much about the character in the Mesopotamian texts as it is about the meaning of his myth in a psychological or theological context. How do your sources tend to introduce or encapsulate the topic? It might start as a section in an existing article about archetypes, individuation, or the like, but I‘m not well acquainted with what may exist in those areas. You might ask for suggestions at WT:WikiProject Mythology, although it doesn’t seem very active.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  23:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's because he is compared with the fisher King in the legend of the Holy Grail, and Christ is called both the fish and the fisher. What the Jungians consider as both the unconscious (under water) and the conscious (above sea levels). Regarding the Armenian name, I agree with you, but note that an Armenian varient was already in the article, which I had replaced with the more original Armenian (my edit was reverted though) version which was closer with the Oannes name. The reason is that it is the only varient of the name John which still match the original. I did find Oiannes, another varient, but don't know the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

HETHERINGTON
can you please stop giving out false information about Hetherington. The structure of the name isn't corrected as its not English. The name is of hundreds of branches of Hetherington. not just English, there is Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish and Norwegian origins as well. The most common is either Irish or Scottish. so please leave it alone or not give non exact information. please. Plus not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.216.139 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it’s vandalism, just non-compliance with policy. The problem is that we have reliable sources for the statements in the article, and we can’t accept unsourced claims. As it happens, the only Hetheringtons I know personally immigrated here from Lanarkshire—but my own anecdotal experience, like yours, carries no weight against the cited reference works. Moreover, even if there were very few Hetheringtons left in England nowadays (in fact several of the notable people listed appear to be English), that has nothing to do with the origin or etymology of the name.
 * This discussion, being about content, should probably take place on the article’s discussion page. I would be happy to continue it there.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  23:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC) P.S.: I’ve started a topic there now, with a few of my own thoughts on the question. 01:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In re PP edit controversy
…see interspersed italic comments, and final proposal at. Written at the time, and just discovered as not posted. Cheers, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: How is your French?
Aloha. Regarding the past discussion on Anna's page, I have placed a snippet of the text I need help with in my sandbox. Let me know if you can help. The English represents the Google translation. There's more, of course, but I'm trying to avoid copyright violation. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Those passages sure don’t look like they came from fr:Mérigny! (BTW sorry not to get on that sooner, but I want to survey some of our articles on similar topics before starting, to see how they‘re organized; the French version contains quite a bit of detail that seemed rather trivial to me, making it as much a matter of selection as of translation.) Anyway, some of this material is considerably less straightforward, and I‘m more likely to ‘get the wrong end of the stick’ without context. So I’d appreciate it if you could include links to any of the sources that are available online. Meantime I’ll have a go at a few of the worst Google efforts.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're right, this is a different subject, but still a request for help. The source is here.  I guess I'm just frustrated by my inability to easily translate documents.  It's 2014 going on 2015!  I was under the mistaken impression that this would be easy. Rather than having you invest time in this, I'm much more interested in good strategies going forward in the future. After all, Wikipedia editors around the world at some point will need to rely on sources outside their native language. I find it hard to believe that Google translate is the best we can do.  What exactly is the technological hurdle preventing us from communicating with each other in different languages? Wouldn't it be amazing to have a single entry to Wikipedia, where everyone could communicate and write in any language they desired, but still be understood based on the user language preference of the reader?  Why is the idea of a universal translator still science fiction? Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It’s a deeply difficult problem. For one thing, despite recent advances in neuroscience we have little idea of how our brains acquire & process language—so there’s no good model to emulate. And even if an auto-translation can adequately capture the semantics of a text, using ‘legal‘ syntax, there‘s a much greater hurdle of producing idiomatic prose that‘s consistent in style & tone with the original. I suspect we won‘t have parity of machine & human translation until we have true artificial intelligences, such as could pass a Turing test.
 * Thanks for the link: I see that’s basically the whole thing. But just knowing it‘s a book review helps.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just the first page. I'm going to experiment with Word Lens on the second page and see what happens. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to self: do not use Word Lens to translate a JSTOR document. :) Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I’ve given what’s there a once-over—I‘ve been pretty literal, but I hope it makes a little more sense now.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. When I have time, I'll upload page two. If there's anything I can do for you, please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Disregard that last email. I just sent you a Dropbox link to the JSTOR article.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, neither has shown up. I received the daily auto-notification of your posting here, so the mail provider can’t be blocking WP generally … they’re not in the junk-box either. There is, however, a sort of reverse 419 scam I hadn’t seen before. … Hah, belay that, now I see the invitation: well sleuthed! Unfortunately that account’s tied to my work e-mail, which they want me to verify for some reason, and which I never bothered to set up at home. So unless I happen to be on that side of town this weekend, I won‘t be able to do anything about it until Monday. But I presume there’s no rush …—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does the word "rush" mean? I'm on Maui time... :) Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI... a thorough search of my email reveals that your Wikipedia email account rejected both of my emails unread. It isn't clear if you received the dropbox link to the JSTOR article at your other email address that you sent me. Please let me know if you did. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it's been about a week of me going back and forth with you, without being able to get a direct answer as to whether you received the file I sent you or not, here is a direct link to the file. Please download it and then let me know when I can remove it from dropbox.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappear on you—crappy Internet where I was. I got your DropBox invite and downloaded the PDF on the 11th (thinking DB might have notified you of same). I don’t know what’s up with the email: I continue to receive various email notifications from WM projects, including those of your postings here, so it can‘t be that my address is incorrect or improperly registered. I went to my preferences to disable and then reënable “email from other users“, in case the setting needed refreshing for some reason, but I can’t think of anything else to try.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can use a different email address. Anyway, where are we on the translation? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * —well, let’s say .—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>pending changes reviewer</tt>" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I just added a portion of the translation you did last year to The Exaltation of the Flower. Please review and thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merde&thinsp;! I never did send you the rest of that review, did I? I‘d finished it but set it aside to reread afresh … well, I can certainly do that now! It may take me a day or two to dig up, but I‘ll get it to you ASAIC.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. I just added a "translator note" to the talk page.  Please review. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add more from the Picard translation, particularly the lesbian connotations (or sapphic as they would say at the time) made by Hampe that Picard criticizes. However, if feels strange not knowing what Hampe actually argued about the work and relying solely on Picard's criticism. Any suggestion on how to approach this? It would be good for the article to touch upon the interpretation dispute (daughter and mother or two lovers). Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The nearest dead-trees copy I can find is in Vancouver, about halfway between us … Spanish Google Books will only show me a couple of paragraphs, although I might be able to add to that with a series of searches … meantime I did find & download another, shorter, review in French. Will keep looking.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you feel confident adding something, please do so, however, it would be nice to have more than one "Hampe said x about y" source.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reflecting
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 52em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)