User talk:Stfg/Archive 10

April GOCE Blitz

 * Thanks, Anne. --Stfg (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments left at RfA
Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fyodor Dostoyevsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyublino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557060683 your edit] to Jesus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Input requested
As the copy-editor of Bad Girls Club, there is currently a discussion on the article's current state. Please join in the discussion before it falls to GAR. Best, jona  talk to me  14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jona, how are you? I couldn't find which version you reverted to -- which one was it? In the article history your recent reversion is shown as being to 76,265 bytes, but the last 1200 entries in history have no other version of exactly that size. It passed GA almost exactly a year ago, and I couldn't condone reverting all the way back to such an old version of an article edited as heavily as that one. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm good hope the same for you. This is the version I reverted back to (with updates) and here is the version of the article before I reverted. I understand so that's why I opened a discussion to avoid the article from going to GAR. Best, jona  talk to me  15:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstood. Those are just the versions after and before your reversions. What I want to know is which older version you restored with your reversion. --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The GA version. However, I did updated the article from the GA version. Best, jona  talk to me  16:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I fear I can't be of much help in that case. You can't expect an article on a running series to fossilize just because it becomes GA. Of course you're right that problems have crept in, like those uncited sections, but I think you'll need to improve it incrementally if you want to, to be honest. Best, --Stfg (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine thanks for replying back. Best, jona  talk to me  23:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky navboxes of his works

 * For any TP watchers: yesterday in this edit, I posted the following on TonyTheTiger's talk page under the heading Fyodor Dostoyevsky:


 * Hi TonyTheTiger. I've thought long and hard about this, and I think coming to your talk page may be the best thing to do. In short, I want to kindly request you to self-revert your removal of the navboxes that you did two days ago, and to let matters rest there until the RFC is resolved. Then, we can either include them or omit them, based entirely on the outcome of the RFC. If the RFC closes as no consensus, we'll need to discuss their inclusion or omission on the Dostoyevsky talk page. If you agree to do this, it would be a great help if you could place a note at Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky#Trying to avoid a brewing edit war explaining it.


 * The reason for making this request is that your action, and the current state of that talk page thread, threaten to turn this into a battleground, which I'm sure we'd all like to avoid. Apart from the PA and the threat, the title of the thread itself is unhelpful, because it will intimidate other editors who may wish to remove the navboxes. It is particularly unfortunate that the GAN reviewer sees the situation as calling the article's stability into question. And the thread's title may also not reflect well on you, given that you have already reverted Tomcat7's removal of the navboxes twice on 2 May 2013.


 * Kind regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The following is his reply here, and the continuation of that thread: --Stfg (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the more sensible thing to do be to leave the Dostoyevsky bio consistent with his peer bios also at issue in the RFC, which is with the navboxes included until the RFC closes. It would seem odd to promote inconsistency of having one top author bio absent the navboxes and the rest include them. This consistency consideration combined with the fact that the Tomcat7 has a long history of trying to do whatever he wants without any consideration for policy or consensus building make it seem quite wrong to remove them without consensus. Removing them now both promotes inconsistency among articles and encouragement of Tomcat7's pattern of behavior. Why would you want to do either of these things?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see I should have said your restoration of them rather than your removal of them, but I guess you realised that.


 * Pot and kettle, mote and beam. It's very disappointing that you have played this entirely on the basis of personal attacks on another editor, repeated several times, plus threatening him with AN or ANI if he didn't comply with your will, diverting attention from the fact that about 25 hours previously you had already complained about him at WP:AN, without even informing him. This after you had done your third revert in the month and tried to get away with it with a section header reading "Trying to avoid a brewing edit war". (For avoid, read win.)


 * Vote count doesn't make consensus, as an editor with a 300K edit count knows very well. There is and was no consensus yet. I came to your talk page to try to give you the chance to do the decent thing. If you didn't, my intention was to take you to ANI, where I believe you would have been fried. But after all, I won't, as it isn't worth my time. The RFC will eventually close, and either it will mandate that navboxes will stay in, and you get your wish anyhow, or it will mandate that they come out, in which case you don't -- anyhow. So I won't waste my time on what is a temporary issue anyway. By the way, since it's temporary and no-current-consensus, the consistency argument is bogus.


 * Please don't come to my talk page to attack other editors any more. If you want to discuss substantive issues, you'll be welcome. --Stfg (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 300K edits and I have never been WP:3RRed to my recollection. I assure you that avoid did not mean win. In terms of a 3RR situation, when one party removes content 3 times and one party restores it 3 times who is in violation of WP:3RR?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is edit warring, not 3RR, and you know the difference. I'm not going to play at wikilawyering with you. We should await the result of the RFC. --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Same thing in edit warring when one party removes content 3 times and one party restores it 3 times who is at fault. In addition, I know vote counting is not consensus. In this case, all the ayes say not clutter/useful and the neas say clutter/not so much. It will basically be a count on this issue, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you, Stalwart111, that's hugely appreciated. Yes, heated indeed. Wet towels needed all round, I think. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad GOCE done
Hi, it was very plesant to see your advices at Hyderabad, Blackmane is done with GOCE and confimr the complition, please advice if any more developments are required and shall we move for FAC now. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Omer. Good luck with the next FAC. --Stfg (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, do you mean still article is not ready to be FA :), your and Dwaip satisfaction means a lot for the article c/e . :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that. I was just wishing you the best! :) --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what you all did, lets face the FA review, Thanks once again. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I hope its right to move for FAC now, any advices please. :)---Omer123hussain (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it, Omer! --Stfg (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May Barnstars

 * Thanks everyone! --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Question
Sorry to bother you but if the GOCE member who c/e this article which has been reviewed here concerning prose issues decides not to resolve them, would you mind stepping in and helping? Thanks, jona  talk to me  22:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, just this once. --Stfg (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Jona. That was very kind, and is greatly appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LQ
Hey Stfg, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I noticed that in this edit you moved the terminal punctuation points to outside the quotation marks on the quotes: "forgoes his trademark arid wit for a decidedly more acerbic and direct approach" and "one of Harrison's most accomplished pieces". Yet according to MOS:LQ: "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material."

Well, since both periods were inside the original quoted material, I'm not sure why you moved them outside. Could you please clarify, thanks! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi GabeMc. Yeah, this comes up sometimes, and MOS:LQ is not at all well written on this point. The way I figure it is that with its second example,
 * Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable".
 * when it says "The period is known not to be in the source, its presence in the source is uncertain, or its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary", the bit I've bolded is extremely vague, but I think it's better to put the period outside the quotation when the quotation only forms part of the sentence that we are writing. Note also the rather strange phrase lower down, where it says "if the fragment communicates a complete sentence". I've no idea what that's intended to mean, but neither "forgoes his trademark arid wit for a decidedly more acerbic and direct approach" nor "one of Harrison's most accomplished pieces" is a complete sentence, and to me that says that a period doesn't belong with either.


 * I think that what I've just described is the most usual way in British English writing, but I'm by no means certain of this, so if any talk page stalker knows more and wants to chip in here, that would be welcome. And, GabeMc, if you prefer it the other way, go ahead and reverse it with my blessing (except that in ... his powers", Leng writes ..., the comma does need to stay outside the quotes).


 * By the way, I was very impressed by your copy edit there in general. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for your kind words. FTR, I agree with your last example: I would have moved the comma myself, but I missed it. However, I do see the comma inside the quote marks in numerous books written by UK authors. FWIW, I don't have a personal preference regarding the terminal punctuation, I just want to do it the right way, whatever way that is. I do find it frustrating that our MoS seems vague on this point. The CMOS (16th edition, 2010) includes an example: "It is this vision of the future that is most alarming: 'If [when?] we run out of sources of electricity,' she asks, 'will we forget who we are?'"(page.624) Is your position that because "will we forget who we are?" is a complete sentence that the terminal punctuation goes inside the quote marks, or is this example from the CMOS incorrect? What am I missing here? Thanks for taking the time to help improve my understanding of proper punctuation. Your advice is much appreciated! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another example from the 16th edition of the CMOS (2010): "According to article 6, section 6, she is given the power '[t]o renew any existing indebtedness.'"(p.626) Is '[t]o renew any existing indebtedness' a complete sentence, or is this example from the CMOS incorrect? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this one? "'Real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain and sale,' according to the section 2 of the Northwest Ordinance."(CMOS, 16th edition, 2010, p.626) Again, the comma is placed inside the quotes. Is the CMOS incorrect here also? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec*2)It isn't a question of correct or incorrect, but of chosen style. CMOS style isn't LQ. Putting the comma inside the quote is common on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's not LQ style. Our MOS is clear about this. I believe that CMOS is correct about "will we forget who we are?", and that putting the question mark outside the quotes in a case like that isn't done in any style, as far as I know. (Once again, I stand to be corrected if anyone else knows more.) --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so maybe LQ isn't CMOS per se, but our MoS follows the CMOS most closely, not? In the 16th edition, section 6.9: Punctuation in relation to closing quotations marks, it states, "Periods and commas precede closing quotation marks, whether double or single ... This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906)."(p.309) Also, the CMOS gives this example: "Growing up, we always preferred to 'bear those ills we have.' 'Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,' she replied."(p.309) In the example they include both the comma and the terminal punctuation point inside the quote marks. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I know what CMOS says. Yes, WP:MOS follows CMOS much of the time, but we're talking about style guides, which describe choices, not laws of nature. You need to forget about using CMOS to refute WP:MOS. Both are valid. But here on Wikipedia, in any cases where they differ, we follow WP:MOS, and you can't cite CMOS to refute it. CMOS isn't statute law, you know. --Stfg (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I hear you, but in reality, what on Wikipedia is set in law? What if I said Fowlers, Hart's and the Cambridge Guide seem to agree with CMOS? Anyway, thanks again for your time and effort! Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (Coming here from WT:MOS—if you’d rather keep discussion there, Stfg, feel free to move this.) Fowler’s MEU definitely disagrees. From the second (Gowers) edition, under STOPS : “The conventional system is more favoured by editors’ and publishers’ rules. But there are important exceptions, and it is to be hoped that these will make their influence felt. The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to see what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect; even the more pleasing appearance claimed for it is not likely to go unquestioned.” As for Hart, I don’t have a copy myself, but The Economist’s style guide cites his rules as the source for their LQ-favouring position. I’m not in a position to comment on Cambridge, but I suggest you give at least the first two a more careful reading.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Odysseus. Other guides and style manuals may be used by the experts to decide what they want the MOS to say, but my only interest is to apply the MOS, and nothing that I've said is based on my reading of anything other than MOS:LQ. Until the point came up here (and once in a discussion with another editor a while ago) I hadn't realised the ambiguity in MOS:LQ. Now I do, and whatever resolution is chosen, I shall be quite happy. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps only the parenthesis was addressed to me, and the rest to GabeMc? That's fine. I'll hat this now, though, as I feel that MOS:LQ is the best place for this discussion. Best, --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes HYDERABAD
If the statement identity as india's pharmaceutical capital is a problem for you, I will re instate, but why ru deleting my entire contribution.

The original statement is a garmmatic blunder. IF YOUR ABUSE ME AGAIN LIKE THIS, I MAY HAVE TO REPORT YOU TO ADMIN

WHY HAVE U DELETED MY ENTIRELY EDITS, WITHOUT CORRECTING THE STATEMENT WHICH U HAVE FOUND TO BE PROBELMATIC???

ALSO KINDLY DONT JUST PUT ALL THE INFO INTO A SINGLE PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS UN READABLE AND OF LOW QUALITY.

IF YOU MESSAGE MY AGAIN OR ABUSE ME, I MAY HAVE TO REPORT YOU FOR 3RR AND POV PUSHING ABUSE OVER ME

I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE ABUSE FROM YOU OVER MY EDITS Murrallli (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

corrected the statement which was a problem for u, check the statement now
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ABUSE ME AGAIN AND AGAIN Murrallli (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Muralli, please do not come to people's talk pages to rage, accuse and threaten in capital letters. That is harassment. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, and such intimidating behaviour disrupts those efforts. I have violated neither WP:3RR nor WP:NPOV, and accusing me of violating them is a personal attack. Don't threaten me. If you want to report me to an admin, just do it, and make my day. --Stfg (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages
Since you have over 50 edits at Fyodor Dostoyevsky, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tiny query
If I can persuade you to overlook my earlier derelictions at the Benjamin Britten article, would you be forgiving enough to look at this: "...young boys – what Auden called "thin-as-a-board juveniles". Is the "what" justifiable? I don't want to say "whom" - too specific - but looking at it afresh I am uneasy about the prose. Quite understand if you are not interested, but grateful if you could briefly ponder. I promise to bother you no further. Tim riley (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this.


 * That's a most interesting one. Neither Fowler nor OED appear to help, so the following is just my gut feeling. "What" seems best to me, and I agree with you that "whom" doesn't feel quite right -- it might imply that Auden was referring to specific boys rather than boys as a class, which doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that a class is a thing may be the justification you're looking for. If anyone challenges it, it would be possible to sidestep the whole issue by rewiting the complete sentence as 'Britten was attracted to young boys (Auden called them "thin-as-a-board juveniles – sexless and innocent").' but it seems like a workaround rather than a real improvement.


 * I'd be delighted to look at similar articles in the future if you'd still like me to. --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. Thank you so much! I'll most certainly come calling as you are kind enough to permit it. Tim riley (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi
The content you have added is not appropriate. Please provide the reference/proof or delete them immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHASKAR TENUGU (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You should stop trying to suppress mention of the use of Tamil language. The claims for Telugu are uncited in these articles too. --Stfg (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hemant Batra
Hemant Batra is the article. I deliberately left off brackets.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Great -- AngusWOOF has fixed it and I've learned of the Reflinks tool (where has that been all my life?!) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reflinks tool is good, but sometimes it is very slow, if not actually stopped. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi Stfg, I was wondering if you had the time to copyedit the Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article again? I think it is more or less ready to go for FA but would appreciate you giving it another polish. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DS. I'm sorry, but I'm not doing much copy editing at present, and not taking requests at all any more. Could you use the GOCE Requests page, please? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 GOCE Drive

 * Thanks, Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions (geographic names)
Over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), you wrote:

Thanks for the support (I think!), but did you mean "...or one of the other forms..."? Or perhaps you meant "over" or "than" or something else or I'm just misinterpreting. Just wanted to clarify and didn't want to edit your comment! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for pointing it out. Yes, it was support, and I meant or. It's one of my most common typos. Fixed now. --Stfg (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Touchwood
I have a feeling Hyderabad might get through this time :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's hoping. The reviews have been good and constructive. You and Omer certainly deserve it for all your work. Fingers crossed. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article Award

 * The credit belongs to you, Omer. You've worked so hard for this. Thanks for remembering me. Best, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yes Mr Simon. Your edits and guidance were invaluable. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

I'd also like to offer my congratulations. The hard work of people like you is what makes Wikipedia the valuable resource it is today. I wish every city had the attention of a dedicated improver like you. Thank you! – Quadell (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What can I say, Quadell? That's really nice of you. Thank you! --Stfg (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ah, this is great news, FT. I really feared that it might have been derailed. Many congratulations for hanging on through this and finally getting it there. Thanks for remembering my contribution. --Stfg (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on automatic updates to Template:User Copyedit Blitzes Drives
Thanks for your update to Template:User Copyedit Blitzes Drives. I created that template but I consider myself only slightly more skilled than a template hack. Do you know if it's possible for that template to automatically update itself somehow? We both seem to understand how GOCE works and when Blitzes and Drives occur. Do you think that there is a way to get a bot to handle these regular updates? I'd also like to take this opportunity to complement you on the notice at the top of your talk page about longer accepting requests to carry out copy edits. Well done! -  t u coxn \ talk 23:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tucoxn. thanks for the nice words. The fact that you created that template probably means that you understand templates better than I do :) I don't see how it could self-update, and although a bot might be technically feasible, I don't see prospects for getting one. It's really such a small job to update the links in the templates each month. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Maritime republics
A source used there is a page at http://www.golfotv.info/ -- just looking at the url, it doesn't look like an RS, and Firefox tells me it's an attack page - of course FF is wrong sometimes but it certainly looks like something to be removed. And thanks for dealing with the sock's article at GOCE. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I get 404 for the page itself and "Forbidden" for the overall golfotv domain. I will remove it. No worries about the sock's request. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Football hooliganism
Thanks. I put the copy-edit tag in because of the non-encyclopedic tone of much of the section, also many of the authors clearly don't have English as a first language. However I have no issue with your taking it out. Perhaps I should have used a more specific tag, but I find the plethora of available tags rather confusing Chrismorey (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...
Thanks for noticing the archiving problem with my close. I felt a bit silly about not grabbing both and had hoped no one had noticed. :-) Hobit (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on that close. Not the easiest one ever :)) --Stfg (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Genome Valley, Hyderabad
dear editor, the information in wikipedia article, Genome Valley is outdated, and it is getting effected due to some sock puppet users, I request your kind self to update it to the most recent version of september 11 2013, I think constructive edits can be retained by other editors. Zanzeer4 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article history, I see that User:Qwyrxian has been handling this. He is an experienced Wikipedia administrator, so I think the issue is already in good hands. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding my name here, Stfg; alerting me, I checked Zanzeer4's edits, and he's just signed up, and then immediately sent the same message to half a dozen people. Which is to say, Zanzeer4 is just yet another sock, and is the root of the problem. Shame, because it's true--the current version of the article looks bad. But the sockpuppetry has to stop--it's actually more important than the quality of a single article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked his contribs and did wonder. He seems to have chosen mainly people who edited Hyderabad, India, which links to Genome Valley. There's probably nothing I can do to help, but do let me know if there is anything. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fastest animals (37)
I have claimed Fastest animals (37) after a significant effort for so few words, so I am puzzled by your latest changes there. What more can be done by copy editors? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A GOCE request was added today by a new user who had never edited the article. I thought it would be better as a tag than as a request, and then relented. In the article history, you'll see that I self-reverted. Instead, I asked the requester what s/he intends, and introduced the copyedit tag in case they didn't know it. So I ended up having done nothing at that stage. But I do think you missed some stuff there. Please see the two edits I made to the article just now. I'm going to remove the request as done, but not claim anything. --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?
What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I was a bit puzzled by it, and I did briefly think of popping over to KrakatoaKatie's talk page to ask for some clarification. But I've decided not to pursue it. The thing is, until very recently I'd have thought that these questions were a simple, objective matter of consulting the style guides, and if they agreed then go with them, or if there are accepted varieties (as with serial commas), then allow identified variants. But this RfC, and the recently closed one about MOS:LQ, and especially the current one about US metropolitan areas, make me realise that the world doesn't work like that. People happily ignore the style guides to pursue their own logic, or only hear those parts of the style guides that support their case (as in noting that some deprecate the second comma in Rochester, New York, metropolitan area but failing to note that those same style guides also deprecate using that word order at all, with any punctuation). But hey, I may think that some people are taking an astigmatic view of grammar and punctuation, but who am I to say that mine is the undistorted view? Who is anyone even to say that the style guides aren't distorting things -- they are only written by people after all, and many of them are pushing POVs of their own. Lastly, I feel that these debates tend to become huge and out of any proportion to their significance for the progress of the encyclopedia, and I'm trying to make myself spend less time on metadiscussions. Sorry not to be more helpful. --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Hyderabad
This is a note to let the main editors of Hyderabad know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 19, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 19, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hyderabad is the capital and largest city of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Located along the Musi River, Hyderabad has a population of 6.8 million, making it the fourth-largest city in India. Established in 1591, Hyderabad was ruled by the Qutb Shahis for a century before falling under Mughal rule. In 1724, Mughal viceroy Asif Jah I created his own dynasty of nizams by establishing the State of Hyderabad, which ultimately became a princely state based in the city during the British rule. Relics of Qutb Shahi and Nizam rule remain visible today, with the Charminar (pictured)—dating from the city's founding—coming to symbolise Hyderabad. That legacy is also evident in the city's distinctive cuisine, which includes Hyderabadi biriyani and Hyderabadi haleem. Hyderabad has historically been known as a pearl and diamond trading centre. Today, due to the Telugu film industry, it is also the country's second-largest producer city of motion pictures. The formation of an infotech special economic zone has attracted firms from around the world, while the emergence of biotech industries in the 1990s has led to the title "Genome Valley" alongside the city's traditional status as the City of Pearls. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks stfg for all your help. The article finally appeared on the main page.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay, you got there! Celebration time! --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77 RFA
I have struck the dishonesty claim. You were right that since I have no proof that it is a dishonest statement, I shouldn't have characterized it as such. I do stand by my oppose vote which I think you were needlessly harsh towards. I provided diffs on which I based my decision, it wasn't just a baseless negative post. Fine if you think different, but we can't always agree.--Atlan (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for withdrawing the dishonesty accusation. My original comment was deliberately harsh, but it was directed at the overall tone of the oppose section, not at you more than at anyone else. I do disagree with your rationale and I still find it unnecessarily condemnatory, but I am not and never have been asking you to cease opposing. --Stfg (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't trying to be particularly condemnatory or nasty, but that's just how the oppose reads I guess. I really have nothing against the guy apart from what I opposed for, but that's part of why RFA can be such a gruelling experience. Oppose votes tend to come across as very harsh. Cheers, --Atlan (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Question
Do you think the question you asked at the current RFA might receive a different response if the word extensively were omitted? Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But many people have accidentally edited while logged from time to time. Whether or not he has done that would make no difference to my opinion. I asked the question because right from the start he appeared very competent (his first edit was to create a redirect, for example), and I wanted to understand whether he had other experience on Wikipedia before opposing for lack of broad experience. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more than a bit confused now because of candidate's response to Question 7. Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The two answers are consistent: he's saying that he uses a single global account. Many Wikipedians do this. I'm pretty sure everything is fine here. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOCE September backlog elimination drive barnstars

 * Thanks, Jonesey95. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests question
Hello, you have removed today the article Adam Kadmon (character) from the list, because it was deleted from the AfD. It has been recovered and renominated. Is it possible to add it back again in the Guild_of_Copy_Editors requests? Thank you -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG  14:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Yes, that's fair, but I've marked it as on hold pending the result of the AFD. First, let's see if the community agrees that there should be an article on this subject. If the AFD closes as KEEP, I'll remove the on-hold notice, and it won't have lost its place in the queue. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If this survives AfD it should probably go to ARS or cleanup; that's just my opinion though—there's no formal reason it couldn't go through the GOCE. Perhaps the article could be tagged appropriately; I know there's a backlog but it'll get done eventually. On that subject, Simon, I've been pondering whether there should be links between the various article improvement projects, but I think that discussion is a little way down the line (I'll probably open a discussion on the main GOCE talk page if I ever think it out properly!). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Baffle. If it survives AFD, isn't it too late for ARS? But asking ARS to help right now might be a good idea, if Pikks wants to. I do have a feeling that it might be a notable topic but the current article may be confusing people about that. Just the sort of case ARS is there for. I have no view about GOCE vs. Cleanup, as the boundaries aren't clear to me. Which seems to support your second point; that discussion could indeed be useful. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping. I made a lot of contributions in that article, and I am afraid that what will influence the AfD is the way on how the article is written, not the notability which is met. I mean, it's not that bad, but still not very good. I'd like to enhance it even more, to edit the biased sentences and reword them, but I am afraid that my English is not good enough to find the right wording and make it 100% unbiased. That's why I sent it to the Guild of Copy Editors. I hope somebody will help to reword it in the correct way. Do you have any suggestions? Is there any place in Wiki where there are editors willing to help even if a AfD is going on? -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG  20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Article Rescue Squadron may be able to help. I don't know very well how they are organised, but you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron and see if anyone offers. (If anyone is watching this page and has other suggestions, please say so.) --Stfg (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the article can be clarified so that I know a) whether Kadmon is real, pseudonymous or fictional, b) what he is notable for, and c) at least two English-language references from at least two suitable sources confirming both a and b, I'll cut the article down to two or three lines (stubify) and move the rest to either the article's talk page or preferably the OP's user space as a draft. I'll remove the conspiracy theories, television listings and other waffle; the article can then be rewritten. Pikks, if want to take me up on this offer, contact me on my talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm going to write to you. -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG  09:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know it was deleted (you probably know that anyway) and I've removed the request and archived it with 'AfD deleted' and a link to the second Afd. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that Mark has offered to userfy on request. This seems the best outcome. Thanks for letting me know. --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAC
Hi,

I noticed you said the FAC page is difficult for you to load. I recommend Nominations Viewer, a script that collapses all nominations upon loading the page. You can install it with a single line in your monobook.js; it has some setting options but I use it in its default state. The script doesn't really reduce the loading time—it loads everything, then collapses sections—but it makes it a thousand times easier to navigate the page when scanning for a likely FAC to review. Hope you find it helpful; I appreciate your GoCE work and would love to see you do more FAC reviews. Maralia (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Maralia, that looks very useful. It didn't actually work when I tried it yesterday, but that's such a useful tool that I'll probably keep trying with it. I think the issue on IE8 is rendering time, not download time, so this would probably be just the ticket. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)