User talk:Onel5969/Archive 5

Archive 5: April 2014

Westchester
Thank you for your copyedit of the Westchester County article. I understand why you may disapprove of the three segments you removed, especially with their poor wording and lack of citations. Nevertheless, I believe that the information is worthwhile.

The first removed segment, about Westchester Square, is perhaps the only place on Wikipedia that links the neighborhood to the town, and is also an important piece of information about the Town of Westchester, which lacks its own article.

The second segment, about municipalities, isn’t worded as well as it could be, but is straightforward in stating that all area in Westchester is incorporated, whether into a village, town, city, or combination. Westchester towns take up large stretches of land that may not even be inhabited, and therefore have borders more like regions than like municipalities.

The third segment, about development corridors, makes sense once you read through it. It details that municipal development follows corridors, like how cities develop on the US east coast. In Westchester, I can’t speak for all of these areas, although it’s reasonable to agree that most towns are along these major transportation routes. I can speak for my hometown, that Briarcliff Manor has developed around the NY and Putnam Railroad, and meanwhile, the separate development corridor of Route 9 enhanced the development of the distinctly separate community of Scarborough, even though both communities became one municipality in 1906. The two transportation routes led to separate developments within one municipality.

I would suggest that the information is added back. Thanks -- ?    (talk)  15:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the email. Okay, I get your point about Westchester Square.  I think it needs to be worked, however, so make it clearer.  I deleted it, since it was unclear, and is not that important to Westchester County article.  I'll look at later and re-add it in some form.


 * I can't make sense of what the sentence is attempting to say, particularly in context of the information around it. Feel free to try to have it make sense in the context of the discussion of villages and towns.


 * This is where you and I disagree the most. Having spent quite a bit of time in my younger years in and around Westchester, I understand the intent of the paragraph.  However, it is way too detailed and a bit convoluted.  To me, right now, it reminds me of the descriptions of boundaries you find on land titles, full of information and very confusing.


 * I'd propose something like the following: "Transportation routes have been responsible for the county's development patterns, with city and town growth being most pronounced along these corridors. There are five mostly north/south corridors and three which traverse the county in the east/west direction. The north/south routes are (going from west to east):  S. Route 9/Albany Post Rd/Broadway Corridor; the Saw Mill River Parkway Corridor; the Sprain Brook Parkway; the Hutchinson River Parkway; with the most eastern corridor being the I-95/New England Thruway.  The east/west corridors are, from south to north: the Cross County Parkway; the Cross Westchester Expressway/I-287; and the U.S. 202 corridor."


 * Will be interested for your input.Onel5969 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can add back the Westchester Square information, that would be good. I'll look at rewording the second segment. As for the third segment, your wording is great, and I'd recommend adding it to the article even if it isn't yet cited. You could at least cite this for the list of routes:


 * Thanks -- ?    (talk)  21:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool. Made the changes to the Square and Corridors.  Put a cn tag after the first sentence, because I feel that still needs to be cited, and used your reference to cover the rest of the corridor paragraph.Onel5969 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Conversation moved
Hi Onel5969, I've moved your reply to a copy-edit request from the Requests page here to the recipient's talk page; I'm about to remove it for archiving. It can be found here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't apologize, man!
I'm sorry if I came off as angry or anything in calling you back to the review, but don't sweat it! I figured you'd either forgotten or weren't sure how to proceed, you'd just seemed to approve the article without moving it, so I wanted to get the review closed is all. Thank you for reviewing it! It's an article well on its way to FA status, and the GA promotion is great for it.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  10:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. You didn't come off angry, simply puzzled.  As I said, I'm still a bit new to it, and didn't realize that I was the one who needed to move it.  By the time I had done it for another article, I had forgotton about this one.  So you're prompting was greatly appreciated.Onel5969 (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I'm glad I didn't come across that way, I wasn't meaning to. Thanks again, and it's been a pleasure!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  11:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE
Could you please add the GOCE template to the Murder of Joanna Yeates article. So that users knows it has been reviewed by a member of the project. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Onel5969 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for peer review in February
Hi, I want to offer my sincere apologies for failing to thank you for the peer review you wrote for Bonnie Tyler. I've since addressed most of the issues you raised - I was so happy that someone actually took the time to add their review after the first nomination failed to get any readers despite my requests. Is it still possible for the article to be nominated for C/E work or not? Thanks again. And again. And again! Bonnietylersave (Liam) (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I added it as a request on the Guild of Copy Editor's page.  Will let you know when someone does the c/e.  There's a bit of a backlog.Onel5969 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have any spare time for another film GA review...
An article I did a lot of work on, The FP, is currently up for review with no replies thus far. Based on your thoroughness and excellent work ethic for Lone Survivor, I'd be flattered if you'd review that article. If not, I completely understand, and thank you all the same!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  23:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just opened up the review process.  The article is in good shape.  Will go over it section by section on your talk page.Onel5969 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comments as thoroughly as possible, and I think I've improved it based on your suggestions. Thank you very much for all of your input and help.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. I may not get a chance to look at this again until Friday or Saturday, but will take a look then.Onel5969 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I appreciate the fact that you're reviewing it at all! I look forward to seeing your response to my changes.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I'm pestering, but did you get a chance to look over the article again?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not pestering. I meant to get to it yesterday, but I've been working on the list of RKO films, and it's taking me longer than I anticipated.  I'll definitely take a look at some point today. (Oh, and thanks for you're input on the release date question.  Very helpful.)Onel5969 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's quite all right. You've been doing a lot of good work on those, I took a glance through some of the articles after reading your release dates post. Also, happy to help! It's a good point that probably should've been addressed. I'm gonna take a chance and add a line in the infobo documentation at some point today.


 * Thank you again for taking the time to review it!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just went over it again. Needs one more copy edit pass (left the note on the review page).  Once that happens, I'll be happy to upgrade it to GA.Onel5969 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have revised it once more. I'm not entirely sure where the issue is with the one ellipsis I used. I took out the extra criticism of acting and costumes, just to get to the negative point. Do you think it should be restore? Other than that, I hope it's up to standard!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good. My comment about the ellipses, was not that you used them incorrectly, but according to MOS:ELLIPSIS, you didn't use them enough.  I don't necessarily agree the MOS, but if that's the standard you might be judged over... I'm going to change one, to show you how I read the MOS.  Let me know your thoughts. In the meantime, I'm moving it to GA status.Onel5969 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. I'll work on that. Thank you so much for reviewing it!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Jersey City
It's pretty arbitrary. Lots of articles have an "in pop culture" section. Mine was a variation. Will bring back a trimmed version.--Aichik (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually it's not arbitrary at all. This article has a "Notable people" section, which links to a separate article with all the people on it, so as not to clutter the article.  But I misunderstood what you were attempting to add.  I've moved the information to the correct section of the article. Onel5969 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Girl with a Pearl Earring (film)
Hi Onel5969, I've moved the message you left on the GOCE Requests page here to the appropriate user's talk page here because I'm about to archive it. In future, please leave messages for requesters on their talk page, or if necessary, the Requests page's talk page. The Requests page is frequently archived and whilst it's fine to use it for messages relating to a specific copy-edit request, messages intended for requesters to read after the request is completed shouldn't be left there. It's not a talk page and shouldn't be used as such. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool Baffle gab1978, I'll remember that in the future.Onel5969 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no worries. I'd put a note on the Requests page but there's enough instruction creep there already. I just fixed the b0rked formatting in my comments above; that's what happens when you edit tired. :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Holt, Swinton, model tank, etc.

 * Hi. Thanks for your email.  I see your concern, and will try to address each of your points below.

I don't really understand the link to Trivia. That's talking about something else altogether. But I'll tell you why the description of the model of the British tank isn't trivial:

Principally, anyone looking at the picture might wonder what the device is. A suitable caption explains what it is. I should have thought that that was part of Wikipedia's purpose.


 * First, the trivia reference I linked to is the wrong one, it should have been WP:HTRIV, was in a rush and copy/pasted the wrong link. My apologies.  Another good, pithy source is MOS:CAPTIONS.  You'll see when you look there, that this article is woefully negligent regarding the MOS.  My major issue with your addition, however, was not the trivia aspect (since this article is not about British tanks, and only tangentially refers to them), but that you did not include a citation.  One of the main concerns many editors have with Wikipedia is the reputation it has gotten as not being a reliable source of information, so there is a concerted effort to only allow new assertions which have reliable cites.


 * I'm going to break up your second point into the individual paragraphs.

Secondly, the accompanying text describes Swinton's advocacy of the Holt tractor as a base for an armoured fighting vehicle. What it does not explain as well as it might is that Swinton could not persuade anyone in a position of responsibility to take up the idea, and the Holt played no part at all in British tank development. By the time Swinton learned of the activities of the Landships Committee and took charge of it, the prototypes were under construction at Foster's, and any idea of using Holts fell by the wayside. The Holts' contribution was as a means of hauling large artillery pieces and supply wagons. If you read the transcript of Swinton's speech in Stockton, he rather glossed over those facts and did nothing to dispel the idea that the Holt led, as a result of his promptings, directly to the tank. In fact, the French and German tanks of WWI owed far more to Holt than did the British. So the presence of the model tank at the ceremony in Stockton is inappropriate. Was the implied link to the Holt tractor a misunderstanding or a deliberate ploy?


 * The article is not about the complexities of the military-industrial complex and the politics behind it. It's about the city of Stockton.  As such, the inclusion of the Swinton episode as it reflects on the city's history is most likely in depth enough.  The page links to Swinton give the more detailed account of the incident, and there it is warranted.  I agree with you regarding the wording of the paragraph being ambiguous.  I've inserted a request for citation to back up the Swinton claim.

On examining this paragraph more closely, it seems odd that the British Admiralty suddenly makes an appearance without any explanation. If anything is trivial and unnecessary, I should have thought that the mention of Foster's and Tritton is. These bits seem to have been rather parachuted in. Whether the Holt was one of the most important military vehicles of all time is hard to substantiate in this context, since all the links in the paragraph are dead.


 * I agree to an extent. I think the admiralty inclusion is not needed.  Swinton, however, does tie into Holt, and appears to have at least somewhat played a role in Holt moving to Tanks, which was a big part of the city's economic history.

I'd be happy to improve this paragraph so that it conveys the historical accuracy set out above, but not if it means encountering the all-too-familiar obstructionism. Perhaps we could seek a consensus over the matter of the caption to the photograph. I understand Wikipedia is very keen on that.


 * As long as prose is pertinent, well-written, and well sourced, I don't think you'll run into any complaints. Indeed, if you follow those three rules, Wikipedia encourages folks to be bold.  But if you get into too much detail that has nothing to do with Stockton, other editors will probably disagree with your work.  Regarding the matter of the caption in particular, I wouldn't object to its insertion, if it was sourced.  While Wikipedia is very keen on consensus, there are some matters which don't need it, unsourced additions are one of them.

Over to you. It strikes me that anyone so concerned with detail could be expected to be anxious to remove some of the more glaring deficiencies in this section.


 * I oversee about 150 pages having to do with U.S. cities, about 300 film pages, and probably 100 or so others. On the city pages, I haven't gone over all the details in each of them, since I am not familiar with many of the histories involved.  I leave that up to editors who have a more personal interest in the history and current events in those locations.  In many of the articles, there are items which I feel don't rise to the level of inclusion, but I don't delete them, since I lack familiarity with that city.  What I do, however, is to look at any additional entries made on the page, to review their appropriateness.  I'll look at citations, at the reliability of the sources cited, and the accuracy of the info added.  A lot of time, it's simple: someone changes demographic information, without any citation, that gets reverted.  Someone changes the mayor's name, without any citation, I'll check to see if the mayor's name was correct prior to the change, if it is, then I'll revert, if it was incorrect, or if something happened and the mayor changed abruptly, I'll leave the edit, even if it's uncited.  If I have time, I'll add the citation.


 * As long as you have good citations, would love to see you re-work this section.

Btw, the Gas-Electric tank wasn't built after the War. Hengistmate (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks for your thoughtful correspondence. Hope I've explained my position well.Onel5969 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"The article is not about the complexities of the military-industrial complex and the politics behind it. It's about the city of Stockton." I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware that it's not about British tanks. The passage in question, though, is about Swinton's visit to Stockton. I should have thought that if it's worth including it's worth getting right. It would seem to me that something purporting to be an encyclopaedia would make that a priority.

I share your concern about Wikipedia's well-deserved reputation for unreliability. That is why I occasionally correct articles on a small number of topics about which I happen to have some in-depth knowledge, rather than oversee a host of subjects and happily admit to not knowing a great deal about them. If I might say so, this is a very good demonstration of how that reputation is maintained. What a boon Wikipedia would be if only people who know what they're talking about were allowed to edit it.

Citations can be produced for virtually anything here, however preposterous the assertion might be. That is in the very nature of the project. The problem arises when the cites are demonstrably unreliable (or "wrong") and nobody bothers to check them. I have even been assured, in all seriousness, that it is not Wikipedia's place to assess the reliability of sources. What a basis for an encyclopaedia. There is a difference between a conflicting source and a misinformed one.

A case study: When I pointed out Wikipedia's mistaken assertion that George S. Patton Jr. played a role of one sort or another at the Battle of Cambrai in 1917, I was presented, not entirely politely, with a swathe of citations, all placing him in the vicinity of or even at the head of the British offensive. These could not be gainsaid. The historical fact, however, is that he was not present in any capacity at that battle. The article on Patton now makes no mention of his supposed participation, which is as it should be. But Oh! how those Wikipedians resisted.

You will find the citations you have requested, I'm sure. I could provide several, but I'm not going to, because they are flawed. The trouble is that uncritically quoting a source is not sufficient. Allow me to illustrate the difference in this case with a hypothetical quote: "Swinton thanked Holt for building Britain's tanks." Assuming that that is what Swinton did, then the reporting is correct and the source is reliable and can be cited. Unfortunately, it can be demonstrated beyond question that Holt did not build Britain's tanks. Swinton might have been mistaken. He might have exaggerated in order to ingratiate himself with his host. Or the journalist might have misheard or deliberately misquoted him. Does Wikipedia not reflect that in any way, but instead propagate the erroneous belief that Holt built the tanks? I should have hoped that those who busy themselves with the policing of Wikipedia would feel a greater sense of responsibility. Never mind that the article is about Stockton; this is a piece of misinformation that will be read and, possibly, believed.

Of course Swinton ties into Holt. That's the whole point of my intervention. He visited Holt, in 1918. But it does not fill me with confidence that you talk of Swinton "appearing to have at least played a role in Holt moving to Tanks, which was a big part of the city's economic history." None of that is true. Holt had never heard of Swinton until reports of the British tanks began to reach the USA, and probably not even then. They were not based on his tractors. Holt did not "move to tanks"; he built one prototype, in 1917. It was not mass produced, and tanks played no part in Stockton's economic history. Here we have Wikipedia doing the very thing it ought to be preventing.

Also, in my view, the caption that I suggested meets all the criteria set out in MOS:CAPTIONS (adding info not in the text, drawing in the reader, etc), and I see no requirement in the rules for a citation.

It's probably also worth restating the edit I made earlier; that at the time of his visit Swinton's rank was Colonel. He was made Honorary Major-General in 1919, but was dubbed "General" in 1918 by an overenthusiastic American press.

As I understand it, Wikipedia sets great store by consensus. It is my personal belief that knowledge is preferable, but let's work with what we're given. I propose to set the story out on the article's Talk Page and see what others make of it, assuming that anyone is interested. (Another option is to delete it altogether, since it's an episode of little consequence in this context and is supported by questionable references) But let's see if we can add to the sum of human knowledge and test the theory that Wikipedia exists less to inform the reader than to meet the needs of its "editors," and that the latter put procedure before pragmatism. "I leave that up to editors who have a more personal interest in the history and current events in those locations." Why not do that on this occasion, then?

Thank you, incidentally, for the advice about the importance of prose being pertinent, well-written, and well sourced. I'll do what I can.

Hengistmate (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Side Street (1929 film)
You're welcome - I do a lot of copy-editing; can't stand seeing typos on Wikipedia :) Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The FP questions
You mentioned an issue for going up to FA. I was curious, what do you see that should be worked on/changed for an FA? Sorry to keep bugging you, your input was just extremely valuable to me.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's difficult for me to say. I found the FA process more about the egos of the editors than the quality of the article.  The first thing they look at is to ensure that their are no paraphrasing issues from the underlying sources.  That's one thing I didn't check in your article, but it should be gone over before you nominate it for FA.  Next they look at the pictures to ensure that they are either all correctly free licenses, or that there is an appropriate Fair Use application.  You might get some grief on the Whalen pic, other than that, I think you're fine.


 * After that it gets very subjective, so it's difficult to say. They look at the quality of prose (too many short sentences, too many long sentences, same with paragraphs), style of prose.  The structure is also looked at, and I doubt they'd find any flaws in that area.


 * My best advice is to go to the FA archive and look at some articles which have gone through the process, both those that have passed and failed, and see what types of comments were made. Particularly articles regarding films, if you can find them.  I think a way to find those is to go to the Film Project's page, and they have a list of FA films.  Go to those films' talk pages, and they'll have a link to the archived discussions regarding their FA status.  But that won't help you find those which have failed to pass, which I think will be very helpful.


 * If you do decide to nominate it, let me know, and I'll make my comments on the article. One thing I will say, is that the opening sentence in the lead section needs to be stronger.  I think I would break it after the Trost brothers, and then create a second sentence about the stars, and a VERY BRIEF description of their roles (e.g., star as the members of rival gangs).  In fact, I'd move the mention of the stars to the end of the paragraph, so you talk about the gangs, first, then mention the stars.  I'd also recommend that you request the article have copy edit work done at the GOCE page, prior to submitting to FA: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests.  Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say I'm nominating extremely soon, as I think it still needs a decent bit more work. I reworked the lead a bit, still struggling with the wording (every character description starts as "JTRO's ..." which is unfortunate, but virtually every main character serves as something to JTRO. Thank you very much for the suggestions, though. Your help has been absolutely invaluable.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lone Survivor revert
How exactly did you find this edit to be in good faith? Editor was clearly vandalizing, just adding where they are (probably) from.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I simply followed the guideline: WP:GF. I didn't research his change, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that there was a Hull, New Mexico, and he was attempting to make it more specific.  I watch about 600 pages now, and don't always have the time to research, so assume good faith.Onel5969 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, then. I wasn't aware you watched so many pages.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Petersburg, Florida Page
Why do you keep removing my entries? Yes, I've read WP: People multiple times about the notability of persons and the name I've added clearly qualifies. I've indicated a reliable source of this person's notability and relevance to St. Petersburg. The source is the New York Times, mind you, and there are many others equally notable. I see multiple clearly irrelevant entries WITHOUT sources haven't been removed. Please focus your energies on those and leave my legitimate edits alone. You're not the only one who can edit articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.203.107 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not interested in other entries, but only in new ones. One 5 year old review of a 7 year old minor film does not make this person notable, as per the guidelines.  Doing a quick search of the internet, I find virtually zero information regarding him, and his imdb page would hardly qualify him as notable.  I'm not the only editor who feels this way, as I notice your attempt to re-add him has already been reverted by someone else.  On wiki, it's difficult to argue that a "red link" is a notable person.  If you look at the list for St. Petersburg, your attempted addition would be the only red link on the list.Onel5969 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:People. It clearly says that one's level of "fame" is neither here nor there, nor is volume of work. NOTABILITY is all that matters. Your profile says you're from New York. How do you, or your editor buddies, know what people are notable in St. Petersburg? I work for the Historical Society. Half the people on this list, your "blue" links (so now someone has to build an article on someone first before they can be referenced?), aren't from and don't even live in St. Petersburg. The other half actually participated in the "7 year old minor film" you mention. How many source links do you want? There are ample major media sources dating back over a decade up to this very year, the New York Times article is but one. The "Mystery Monkey of Tampa Bay" is a notable person but not a local artist who made the only film of significance to ever come out of this area? I find it strange and sad that someone who works for the St. Pete historical society can't add a legitimate entry but some goofball can add some monkey nobody ever heard of. I'll await the deletion of half that list, including every single baseball player who has achieved nothing of significance and don't even live in this town.

Edit - You know, nevermind. I'll build an article for the individual first, then create appropriate references. Then it won't be a "red" link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.203.107 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And I think you need to not only re-read the notability requirements, but understand them. As I said, I did a quick internet search on this person and found almost zero information on him, only a very thin imdb.com bio (which according to wp, is not a reliable source).  You make arguments without any underlying facts and keep referring to issues not under discussion.  Also, please sign your comments.  Another wiki procedure you clearly fail to understand.  If you build the article for this person, and it has credible sources to show the person's notability, that would be a very good thing.Onel5969 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Very bored with Wikipedia editor snobbery. You selectively apply rules to prevent people from making contributions so only those in your little club who you allow to play can participate. You clearly didn't understand it because perceived "fame" or volume of work is not a factor, and that's all you keep referencing. NOTABILITY. NOTABILITY. NOTABILITY. I sign with my IP and that's plenty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.215.78 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that you don't understand denotes neither snobbery nor selectivity. Simply a lack of understanding on your part.  Your final comment is proof of that, since you once again did not sign your comment.  Don't have time to waste on someone who has little understanding of Wikipedia, nor any desire to learn.  Any further communication from you will simply be erased.Onel5969 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Clark Kent
Thank you so much for copy editing the article. I really appreciate it. I especially appreciate you going through the comic section. It's the one section that I really did not have a hand in, because I haven't read the comics yet. I did not want to try and clean that up prior to the copyedit because I did not want to spoil anything. I've been following your work on the article since you started, and I really liked the work you were doing. I was curious as to the reason behind removing some quotations, adding the ellipses to others, and then the space to the em-dashes. It was the first time that I've seen that happen in a copy edit before.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Regarding your questions, the ellipse thing is something which was brought to my attention about a month ago.  It's not how I learned to use ellipses, but it is the style that wiki uses per MOS (MOS:ELLIPSIS and MOS:QUOTE); the dash question is a matter of preference, either can be used, but my personal preference is that the spaced em-dash makes the text looks less cluttered — you simply have to be consistent through the article. Anyway, hope it helped.Onel5969 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that answers my questions. I was not aware of the change to the ELLIPSES, but that's good to know. Alright, thanks again for the copy edit. You did a great job.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Rancho Domiguez Prep is in fact an LAUSD public school
Hi, Onel! I took a look at the message.

I reverted the removal. Rancho Dominguez Preparatory School is in fact a Los Angeles Unified public school. LA Unified released an attendance boundary map for the school. I understand the name may be misleading so I'll make it clear it's a public middle and high school. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ! That wasn't my issue with the inclusion.  The list is regarding school districts, and has links to those districts.  To include a single school in a list of districts simply looks weird from a structure standpoint.  I reverted your addition of the individual school, but left the LAUSD addition, since Long Beach is a contract participant in that district. Hope you can see my point (should have put that it was a good faith edit on your part, my apologies). Onel5969 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok! I see. Whether or not it's acceptable to include one or many schools depends upon how much of the city is inside that school district and how many schools that portion contains/is served by. Listing every single Long Beach USD school in the Education section would be in appropriate, but the LAUSD section of Long Beach may be much smaller and would only be served by a few schools. AFAIK there is only one high school operated by LAUSD in the Long Beach city limits, and I think there's only one elementary school but I can check. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool! WP:City Education gives good guidelines on when an individual school should be listed.  I'll defer to your opinion on whether or not this school fits that definition.  One thing, though, I would suggest a bit of a revision to the intro to this section, if you do include an individual school, to indicate that it is a list of districts along with prominent schools within them.Onel5969 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! When I do include schools I often try to indent them to show the school belongs to that particular district, or I say so in the prose. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Tarzan and the Leopard Woman page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606366309 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F606366309%7CTarzan and the Leopard Woman%5D%5D Ask for help])