User talk:Stfg/Archive 5

Thanks

 * Wow, thanks for noticing, Moonriddengirl! Really it ought to be me thanking you for all you do to fight copyvio and the other things you do here. --Stfg (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Referencing
Can you let me know if I got it right this time around Thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page, so you'll have it to hand. --Stfg (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

spotchecking
Hello, would you be able to spotcheck the giraffe article? LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry LittleJerry, spotchecking isn't what I do, and I'm quite busy with the drive anyhow right now. --Stfg (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a position open for you as an accountant (or a cataloguer)
Hi, Simon. Just a note to let you know I really appreciate your timely updates to the March drive page. I wanted to let you know that I have rearranged my schedule (and my life, FWIW) and will have more editing time again. If you need me to take charge of updating the daily progress chart, or if it is inconvenient for you to look after it, please just say the word. In the meantime, thanks for your help. --Dianna (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianna, glad to hear you're going to have more time again. I hope the rearrangement of RL is a happy one. I'd like to take you up on your offer please. 00:00 is midnight here at the moment but will become 1 a.m. before the end of the month because of daylight saving time, and I've got some things coming up towards the end of the month too. Thanks very much for this. The drive's going great, isn't it! S. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, and it is likely at least in part due to your hard work pre-vetting the articles. I will try to uphold your high standard for maintaining the chart! Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your pre-vetting too, of course. It's definitely worth doing, I think, and I'll do some more next month. Thanks for taking over the chart. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Flint Michigan quick question
I have copy-edited the Flint, Michigan page but I have a nagging question. Someone made a ton of internal wiki links to old defunct Flint Michigan sports teams. These do not seem to exist inside Wikipedia. Am I correct in placing the citations needed banner on them and leaving the links, or should I go through and delete out the links before I am done? Any other comments you can give me on Flint would be appreciated. I grew up just south of Flint -- there seem to be a lot of people interested in this page (for good reason) and I'd also like to see if anyone steps up with comments as well. This is a big article on some very boring topics and I would like feedback from you or another more experienced editor.

Thanks so much. Gofigure41 06:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)


 * Sure. At first quick glance it looks OK, but I'll take a closer look later today. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page, as I've given a list of useful templates you might like to have to hand. --Stfg (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, for all your assistance with the Golding Bird FAC. I am pretty sure it would not have gone through without you. I do have a question for you, please don't take it as any sort of criticism, it is just a question. I am wondering why you chose not to register a support for the FA. You have been through the article in some detail and had clearly "bought in" to it to some extent. Is there some rule of copyediting preventing you from doing so, or was there actually something you did not like? No need to justify anything, you are entitled to support, or not support, whatever you choose - I am just curious about your reasons.  Spinning Spark  10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on achieving the FA. It's a very interesting and nicely presented article, well deserving of the badge. Thank you for being so generous about my contribution. I enjoyed working on it.


 * Thanks for being so careful in how you asked that question. I've never actually supported or opposed any FA, partly because I've never been sure I was supposed to when I'd been working on it, and partly just for being aware that I'm not familiar enough with the criteria to feel entitled to !vote (is that the right term?) on anything except prose quality. In the notes I put on the talk page, I said "I found it an interesting and informative article, deserving of FA", and I thought I was being bold to say that.


 * What I would like to say, though, is that Golding Bird is exactly the kind of article I personally would like to see more of in Wikipedia. You can perhaps imagine that those of us who tackle articles tagged copyedit, or even some on the GOCE requests pages, see an awful lot of cruft, and I often wonder, with those pop songs and horror films, why anyone would want to know that they entered the charts at position 53 and peaked at #19 in Turkmenistan, and why some journalist "opined" (really!) that it's jolly spiffing. It's on the fansites already anyway. Whereas Golding Bird, esoteric as it is, is the kind of topic that someone might encounter in a school research project or some self-education, and would have difficulty finding out about unless Wikipedia could help. So thank you for making the article what it is, and I hope to be able to work with you again in the future. Best, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as "entitlement" is concerned, anyone can support/oppose and I have seen plenty of reviewers at FA who have clearly read far less of the candidate article than you have and know nothing about the subject. The FA instructions to supporters/opposers say "If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this".
 * I am so glad you enjoyed reading the article. I am hoping you will pick up List of chronometers at some point.  That is intended to be the very antithesis of a cruft list.  Spinning  Spark  13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2012

GOCE C/E Question
Encycloshave has claimed over 5,000 byte edits in Monty Python's Flying Circus for the month of March, but yet 5K edits don't show up in the article's edit history for that person. I'm confused. How does that/it add up? — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine. If you look at the version of the article before Encycloshave started, which is here, and use the page size tool on it, the words counted by the tool are highlighted in yellow. Scroll down and you'll see some lists that aren't highlighted. There's a big one in the "Recurring characters" section, and a couple of shorter ones lower down. The tool doesn't count lists, which is fair since many lists are just lists of nouns or noun phrases not requiring copy editing. But lists with text, like this, do need copy editing. What we do is to copy them into a word processor and use its word-count tool. Doing this, Encycloshave's count is good. Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In THAT case, all my numbers are wron g then. I've been going by byte-sized edit totals and not words.  Oh well! I obviously don't use the page size tool.  Thanks though! — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your numbers appear to be quite a bit too low. I can't see how you got them, actually. Anyhow, you need to be familiar with item 1 in the Instructions for participants section on the main drive page. This can be put right quite easily. Let me know if you want help with that. --Stfg (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going by the byte count from the Edit History, and not the actual word count. I know how to do that now and have adjusted the numbers. Just a slight change (only 4000!). Now I know!  Thanks for the heads up!

Wait. Just to clarify, as per the suggestion from Instructions for participants: "If the article is 1,295 words when you start working on it, you post 1,295 words, regardless of how the size may change." So if say Ratlam, starts with 1,585 and I only add 31 words to it, I list 1,616 as my total and NOT the 31? — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was just wondering there the 31 came from :) Yes, it's the starting word count that you need. The version of Ratlam you started from was this one, and the DrPDA tool gives a word count of 1401 for it. It correctly excludes: the table of contents; the section headers; the table in the General Introduction section; and the chart in the Geography section. None of these require copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I gotcha! Thanks! I JUST now installed the DrPDA tool. Now to reconfigure...again. So the current word count is 962. But I list 1,401, as the total in the Completed section on the GOCE Drive page? (Sorry for the molehills>mountain issue!) — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, you count the 1401. After all, that what you were faced with and had to work on. And don't be sorry about anything. Your work is appreciated, especially as you are so thorough. --Stfg (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think the totals are correct now! Thanks for the help! :) — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I've corrected a few: for Ratlam I put in the 1401 that it was before you started; for Curious Goods I think you must have used the byte count rather than the word count. Where there are lists, you should only count them if there is prose, which would be copy edited. In Yuzo Koshiro I've restored your count as you did process the list, but for Conn Nugent I think the lists of his publications are better not counted. Is that all right? --Stfg (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What you changed is fine with me. I was a bit groggy trying to crunch all those numbers today, on top of trying to figure out how to correctly count them. I was wondering about Nugent's pubs myself, as that's not really "prose." Thanks again for all your help and corrections. This is my first c/e drive and am basically learning as I go, in order to help reduce the backlogs. Nice to know someone cares enough to assist us! — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
The article is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've removed the on-hold notice. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you take one last look at the giraffe article to see if the prose is still good? I did some re-paraphasing. LittleJerry (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that. I only found small things to change. Please check the bit about swimming. I think I've made it clearer, but please make sure it still says what you want it to. The only sources I've checked are: FN11 (for "biome"), FN15 (to see exactly what he says the competitive advantage is, and FN34 (to check whether it says swimming is impossible or merely difficult). I was happy that they were accurately represented and not too closely paraphrased. --Stfg (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, are you gonna do the orangutan article? LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking of it, but I have some RL stuff coming up, so not immediately. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll decide soon, because an editor is now giving it a GA review. But thanks for all your help anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't be doing it. Sorry, I'd have liked to, but there's a problem because after someone has done copy edits that you request, you go on forever tinkering with the text, introducing new errors or even reintroducing the old ones (like putting commas after phrases like "In 1999" at the beginning of sentences, which is unnecessary and makes the text choppy). It is unpleasant to see one's work wasted like that. --Stfg (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Choppy text?
Regarding your comment above: "Putting commas after phrases like 'In 1999' at the beginning of sentences, which is unnecessary and makes the text choppy", really? I always thought commas were intended to break up sentences. While I don't know the article in question, I always try to not start paragraphs/sentences with phrases like the one quoted in my own articles. One article I had previously copy-edited was notorious for run-on sentences. I installed commas and semi-colons, even some ems and ens, to break up that "wall of text." Am curious to hear your input (without a link to some "Wiki: Manual of Style". — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you'd avoid making debating points out of my interactions with other editors, as this could potentially be very disruptive. Briefly, to say that breaking up a sentence is the intention of commas is to confuse the means with the end: the purpose is to clarify meaning by showing the breaks. There's obviously a world of difference between breaking up the text to improve clarity, and making it choppy. I would have said more, but it's hard to believe your interest in my "input" is sincere when you try to constrain the terms in which I give it. Please see Manual of Style. --Stfg (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stfg has gone on a break, so I will answer your question. The Chicago Manual of Style section 6.45 (page 322 of edition 16) says that where month and year only are given, neither the British or American system of punctuation calls for a comma. Our own WP:MoS conforms to this style guide. So Stfg is correct when he says that this is an error. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dianna, for watching this space during my break, and for your stylish comment. As I don't have a copy of CMOS, you made a couple of useful points. Must hurry along now. More later, maybe. S. --Stfg (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was aware of the month and year CMOS rule, as in March 2012. I was thinking the error was in the phrase "In 1999, ..." if I read the above correctly. If I did read it correctly, beginning phrases should be "In 1999 ..." without the comma, which was my question. As for our own WP:MoS, it only states: "Modern practice is against excessive use of commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed." Again, I try not to use commas, but most editors on here don't even use punctuation at all. I always put the "in 1999" somewhere in the sentence in order to prevent "excessive" or Stfg's "choppy" uses. Thanks for replying! — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Got another article going for GA
If your interested in working your magic? Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry DS, I don't take direct requests, and I'm avoiding that part of the world till the instability of articles about it settles down. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, Dianna. It's nice to be back in harness. People have done some amazing stuff in the past week! --Stfg (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes; mostly Lfstevens, who has been way busy. He deserves special recognition -- Dianna (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
I noticed you reviewed one of the articles I copyedited - thank you! I am new to the whole business, so if you have any advice or tips, please let me know. M.manary (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You did a good job there -- thanks for helping! I've left a couple of comments on your page. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Close drive
Hi, Stfg. It looks like I will not be at home at 00:00 to close off the drive, so if you could get the ball rolling on that, I would appreciate it. The main things to do first are to hat up the drive page and change the message in the om box. A screen shot of the status of the drive would be cool too. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see how I am, as we're now on British daylight saving time and that's 2 hours after I normally go to bed. If I can't manage that, I'll do it first thing in the morning. I don't think that would really matter, do you? --Stfg (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't do it, it's no big deal. People are very honest, so it will not affect the outcome. I will probably be home around 02:30 UTC and can get the most important bits done at that time. So please don't worry about it. :) -- Dianna (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dianna. Yes, people on the drives are very good about such things. We'll see how things are. These days, sometimes I can't wind down and sometimes I'm zonked at 10. If I'm up I'll do it, otherwise thanks if you do. --Stfg (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Transitional fossil GA Review
Hallo Stfg. I've seen the discussion on the article and while there's an obvious concern for a reviewer here, I think we have a simple resolution. Could you take a quick look at my proposal in the GA Review 'Discussion' and the changes I've made in the article? I would not wish to impose these but it is clear to me that something needed to be done given Petter's unhappiness with the article. Let me know what you think. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much, Chiswick Chap. If you can resolve this, you deserve great kudos. I'm very happy with your approach. best reagrds, --Stfg (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Very Small Token
Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks, Cliff. To me that's a very big token. Best, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March barnstars
Thanks, Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter draft ready
I have got a newsletter initial draft happening at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/April 2012; if you could find the time to check it over before it goes out, that would be super. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dianna. That looks fine to me. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Allen, that's mighty nice of you. And thank you for what you've been doing for the Guild recently. Best regards, Simon.

Thanks for the barnstar! The eyes have it...
I mentioned in January, on the drive talk page, that I was going to have an eye operation soon. Since then I have had one operation in February and one in March for cataracts. My work on the drive was therefore minimal in March and was intended mainly to get barnstarred for the 40,000+ words I had left over from January. Hopefully I will be in good shape for May; I still need to get a new prescription for reading glasses to finish the job off. I have been very happy with both operations.

I have been rather disturbed about copyright issues for copyeditors. We don't want our good work to have the effect of masking copyright violations. I have been wondering whether something like a Guild of Copyright Auditors is what is needed. Their work should precede ours. Feel free to transclude (right word?) my comments here to the C/E Guild page if you think we should be discussing this. Thanks for all the good and generous work you do for the Guild and WP. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear your cataract operations went well. I had this done in both eyes a few years ago, with a big improvement. Copy editing can indeed obscure copyright violations, and it's a worry that our methods for spotting them are (a) probably not applied by everybody, and (b) rather hit and miss in any case. This problem applies to any articles that undergo content edits of any kind, of course. You may know that I did some pre-vetting of articles before the March drive and plan to do some more before the May drive, and one or two more GOCE key players are also doing such work. Maybe we could try to pool our efforts. I'm rather busy today, and would like to think about this, but do post anything you like on the talk page, of course. Best, --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Jack. I think a Guild of Copyright Auditors is an interesting idea. I don't yet understand how exactly it would relate to the work of the people who look after the Copyright Noticeboard, but I think in any case that its scope should be wider than that of GOCE because your thinking applies just as well to articles that people intend to expand for other reasons than copy editing. Also, the skills needed for copyright detection and prose beautification are different. If you'd like to pursue the idea, may I suggest getting in touch with Moonriddengirl, as I'm pretty sure she will have the best ideas about how to position it.


 * The things I look at when pre-vetting articles are described at User:Stfg/GOCEreviewing. In February I did those things for articles tagged in October, November and December 2010 and (rather half-heartedly) January 2011. This month I planned to review January 2011 and get as far as March, possibly April, 2011. If you think other people would enjoy joining in with this, we could probably set up a simple "adopt-a-month" system whereby people undertake to review the articles for the given month in that sort of way. Do you think there might be interest in that? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

CE
I generally do not include/update/report anywhere after doing c/e work in an article. do I need to update here WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors?
 * Thanks for taking care about it. You're fine. It's like Dianna said in her reply to you. Best, --Stfg (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mistress9
An article has been created in the guise of a user page. No doubt an error by a newbie. I am not sure how to fix it. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh gollygosh! Someone seems to be pranking. I'm not sure what exactly we should do with it, so I've asked Dianna at User talk:Diannaa, with a few more details. Thanks for spotting this. --Stfg (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić
Well, because User:AniMate claims that this new version has very bad grammar. I included this new version into the article, but since article will appear on Main Page on 10 April, I, afer AniMate advised me to do so, reverted the article to the earlier version. After I or you or anyome fix the grammar on new version, I will replace it with the older one. --Wusten fuchs 13:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Alejandro García (producer)
Just a heads-up. I'm calling Alejandro García (producer) a hoax because "Alejandro García" + "Productor" (Producer in Spanish) turns up nothing related to music on Google News. There is a filmmaker by that name, but he doesn't seem quite notable. None of the details match up, with "Alejandro García" + "Alacranes Musical" turning up zero results. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, TenPoundHammer. This was only my 2nd AfD and, as you saw, I was having a spot of bother. I really appreciate your help. (P.S. A fellow pianist). --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Windseeker height
Hello, sorry about the WindSeeker spelling issue. About the models, I'm kind off busy right now but there are other references within the existing ones in the article that tell you that the ride is 301 feet (92 meters), so if you get a chance, you can add them to the sentence, if not I will do it when I get a chance. Also if the current models are 92 meters, then "65/100" has to mean "anywhere between 65 - 100 meters". Make sense? --Dom497 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll let you deal with the existing refs. The stroke in 65/100 would normally mean "or", surely. 65-100 would mean "to". I guess the other refs are what we need, anyhow. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I was just reading Mondial's Wind Seeker brochure and it does appear that the ride either comes in the size of 65m or 100m. I know this because the brochure was advertising a 65 meter model with 25 gondolas. In the end, there are 4 different capacity choices and 2 height choices.--Dom497 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. What's the situation regarding the height of the actual installed ones? --Stfg (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well....we just kinda decided to end the discussion about if the rides were really 8 meters taller and deleted the "model" section in the article. Regarding the height....we haven't been able to exactly figure that out yet. If the brochure is telling the truth, then I think the current Wind Seeker's are 100 m tall....unless Cedar Fair customized the ride to 92 m.--Dom497 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of *original* research and came to the conclusion that WindSeeker is 330 feet tall].--Dom497 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić (2)
I finished editing this article... Cay I add it for copy editing? --Wusten fuchs 18:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already there. I've removed the On-Hold template now, so someone will do it in time. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WindSeeker Copy-Edit Question
Hi, when you said, ''"In the middle of the structure there are a number of mechanical wheels that allow the swings to rotate as it makes it way up and down the tower. The swings are brought up and down by a number of cables that are attached from the swing structure to 4 different sets of yellow wheels each attached to a different section of the steel platform at the top of the tower.[45]" But FN45 (ref name=Structure/) is merely a gallery in Facebook. At the very least, you need to link to any individual photo that verifies your point. But really, I don't see how mere photos of the on-site assembly process can verify the stated purpose and dynamic mechanism of these parts."'' in the WindSeeker copy-edit under the structure section, are you just saying to make the reference a single picture?--Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dom497. As you say, I did object to the link being to a gallery, but that wasn't my main point. Take a look again at the quoted bit and consider how any photo or even gallery could verify all that. Just for one example, no photo could show that the wheels "allow the swings to rotate as it makes it way up and down the tower". The most a photo can show is the outward, static appearance of something. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get it now! I look into it if I get a chance.--Dom497 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive
Hi, Simon. I have sent out the drive invitation (as you can see), and I have also done the other pre-launch tasks. Cheers, -- Dianna (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dianna. Thanks for doing that. I don't know if you knew, but I've been very intensively working on the Pakistan article for about a week now (hoping to complete it this evening), and have paid barely any attention to the rest of wikipedia in that time. But I will do the Hall of Fame, next thing. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought we might build a sidebar. If you haven't much experience with that, I can do it later. Gotta go out now; ttyl. --Dianna (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sidebar? Sounds nice; what sort of drinks do they serve? Kidding apart, I've no idea what it is, even. Would be interested to see what you come up with. S. --Stfg (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've put an example of what I was thinking of here: User:Diannaa/sandbox. We don't have to award this honour every drive; I was thinking only when an exceptional amount of work is done. What do you think? -- Dianna (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thanks, Dianna. Let's go ahead and do that.


 * I have another idea as well, which is simply leaderboards of the most articles in a drive and of the most words in a drive, taken over all drives. Maybe the top 10 in each category. I think people might enjoy the challenge of trying to make it on to such a board. I'll mock it up in a sandbox too. The two things are different, so perhaps we can do both? Cheers, S. --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now done. Draft at User:Stfg/Sandbox1. --Stfg (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there's a chance that will suppress participation unless you limit it, say to the current month or the current year. - Dank (push to talk) 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, let's not risk that. We have one for each month anyway. Thanks for checking it. --Stfg (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So it looks like we will be going ahead with the sidebar, if I am understanding this correctly. I thought I would notify our first recipient and create a user-box they can place on their page if desired. I have to go do the payroll, and will check back later -- Dianna (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my understanding, and that's a great userbox. ttyl. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a redirect so it isn't a redlink. --Stfg (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. When you recently edited Nira, Maharashtra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purandar (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) 11:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Stfg (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you too
Dear User:Stfg Thank you for your message on the talk page of Khattar. Sorry I didnt see your message earlier, but youre most welcome indeed! In fact, thank you for guiding me. Regs, AsadUK200 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200
 * Dear AsadUK200, Thanks for saying so. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

natural burial
Hi.

I noticed your recent edit on the natural burial page and wanted to talk to you directly.

The Green Burial Council is a marketing organization - 501 c 6 - chartered to act on behalf of is paying business members. It is responsible for most of the promotional pieces here. I re-did the page a couple of years ago but someone burned all the edits and I can't keep up with them.

"green" is a color. There is no such thing as "green burial" - that is a term promoted largely by the Green Burial Council and used for marketing distinction purposes to advantage its members. The Natural Burial Cooperative is a similarly influenced organization that has self-interested motives difficult to discern unless you know the people involved.

As a teacher of this subject (sustainable cemetery management, that presupposes processes and products that don't impede the decomposition process or create future pollution/fiscal problems) I'd suggest that giving the GBC the ability to define things is a serious mistake unless you can demonstrate why they should be a more credible source for information than the other funeral industry trade associations (once listed but now burned).

I use this particular page in my classes as an example of why to NOT use Wikipedia, precisely because even the editors aren't expert enough in a topic to keep up with it and therefore the information cannot be relied upon.

To be strictly accurate, "Natural Burial" as a term should probably be a re-direct back to Final Disposition, outside of the basic definition at the top of the page. The act of burial is the act of "disposition." I would be happy to go into this more if I thought it would do any good, but since most of my edits get burned I don't see the point.

In the interest of full disclosure, you can see my webpage at http://www.naturalburialcompany.com. I have a lot of experience with UK natural burial (see my consulting page) as well as US (see my about page). I currently am building a program at Oregon State University and have a passionate dedication to the spreading of a technology change. I don't make a living from my company. I do outside work to support it (teaching, bookkeeping, etc.) and put every bit of profit I make back into education and furthering the movement.

Thank you for taking an interest in this and perhaps I can be useful in some way, if only to share with you that there are countering opinions to what is posted here and that those counters are almost constantly deleted. I would change a lot of things because there is SO much that's also inaccurate here but ...

I apologize if I'm not adhering to protocol with this note. I'm not sure how to best contribute here and don't have the time to learn without someone helping me. I invite comments directly to my page (or however it's supposed to be done) so that we can share ideas if you'd like.

in trees,

Cynthia cabeal 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabeal (talk • contribs)


 * Hello Cynthia. Thank you for your messsage. You haven't breached any protocol that I know of, and you are welcome here. I've taken a couple of days to think about what you said, and have done some background reading. Here's what I think:


 * I understand that the Green Burial Council and other organisations are marketing organisations that exist to serve paying members. That does not at all imply that they shouldn't be described here. If the natural burial industry were a mature one, one would expect it to have neutral bodies overseeing them to some extent. While it isn't a mature industry, the existence of multiple self-interested umbrella organizations in competition with one another is what one would expect. It's quite in order for them to be described here. What of course is not in order is for them to be promoted here. Hence my emphasis on rewording and removing what is merely promotional during my copy edit. I would add that it's not in order for them to be attacked here, either.


 * I haven't "[given] the GBC the ability to define things", I've copy edited an article. The only source from them used before I arrived was their "founder members" page, and I even removed that.


 * We all know that "green" is also used to refer to matters of ecological approach. It has meanings like eco-friendly, ecologically motivated, and suchlike. Similarly, to argue that "earth" refers only to the planet, ignoring its wide and correct use as a synonym for "soil", as you did in this edit sumary, is unwise. Picking semantic arguments with people in this way appears quarrelsome and isn't going to encourage people to cooperate with you. I'm not certain whether your argument about "green" was intended as an attack on the name of the Green Burial Council, but you've done it so often that I'm left wondering whether that is the case.


 * Your disclosure above is very helpful, and I would recommend placing a similar one on your user page. Disclosures of that nature help to reassure people that you are playing it straight.


 * It's important to use edit summaries carefully. They aren't a medium for pursuing debate -- talk pages are for that. And they must not be misleading. In this edit, you removed content, flagged it as minor, and summarised it as "corrected typo for change". It's important to avoid such things.


 * I looked at the history of the article and didn't see what you meant by your contributions being "burned". However, there is a solution, which is to use the talk page to propose additions whenever making them directly to the article would involve you in a conflict of interest. This arises when you want to add material in which you have an interest, like the paragraph about Ken West, or when you want to edit anything about a competitor in any way. It would have been better to propose those things on the talk page and let a neutral editor make the changes in the article, if agreed. Another advantage of this is that you are less likely to be reverted, since epople aren't supposed to delete the talk page postings of other editors (except vandalism).


 * I hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE request for Ricardo Arjona
Hi! I asked the changes to be written on the talk page to see in where i made mistakes or to have a guide for future edits on the article. That's the main reason... And most of all to document the copy-edit process, for future reference. =) --Hahc21 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Copied back to your talk page and replied there. --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE Hall of Fame
There is a principle that Wikipedia's internal workings are not exposed to the general reader, so pages like this should be in the Wikipedia name space and there should not even be redirects from the main space. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
Well, you guessed. My native language is spanish, but i have a degree in English language. WFN Strategies was my first copyedited article ever and i know i didn't put my best efforts on it. Also, the article topic was out of my knowledge, so I was like blinded on it. I thank you for pointing out my mistakes and i'll be more careful next time. =)--Hahc21 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was Spinningspark who pointed out your mistakes, more than me. Anyway, one thing you might like to consider is helping out at Translation. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

British English check
Please check Mithila (Nepal) for any problems with British English, which the article should be. I have deleted the entire Genocide section, which appears elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but I seem to be finding a lot more to do than that, really a full-scale copy edit. Had you finished? Am I doing the wrong thing? I've done up to and including "Entertainment", but am stopping here as I'm not clear if this is what you wanted. --Stfg (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter draft is ready
Hi Simon! The mid-drive newsletter draft is ready. If you have time to give it a once-over for errors, that would be great. I will send it out tomorrow or Tuesday. Thanks.

Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dianna. Thanks for doing that. I could find no errors, and I think it's good to go. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Doon School copyedit
Just wanted to give my thanks for copy-editing that article. It's been in the doldrums for long now =) Thanks! -- Merlaysamuel :  Speechify 09:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Stfg, Please be aware that there are significant sourcing- and POV issues plaguing the article (see the talk page, for instance). Consequently, copy-edits by hard-working (and well-meaning) copy-editors stand in danger of being mangled later.  In my view, many parts of the article read like a high-school's private web site, in which the school's strengths are lingered on, its inadequacies glossed over.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit request
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic needs your help once again, and so does the newly created My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom.

When you are done, please check List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters and List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes also. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. As I did it before I've had a look at the diff of what has happened in the last three months or so, which is pretty fine, but I've tidied up one or two things. I'm no longer accepting requests and seldom editing popular culture articles any more, so please make requests at WP:GOCE/REQ for the others, if you like. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're most welcome, Vaibhav. Thank you for the barnstar and for all the good work you do on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Simon --Stfg (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Bhutto, Musharraf, Babar
Hey there, just wanted to let you know, that I have provided the sources that you requested on Talk:Pakistan. Cheers. JCAla (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw when you first posted them. For the first, p.102 of that source is no longer previewed, but I read it when you posted it and it was still visible. The issue, of course, is whether there are sources for government denials. To be fair to TopGun, I have asked him to identify such, as you'll have seen if you watch his talk page.


 * If I may say so, I think you are making it harder for yourself by overdoing the pressure. DS has written of "whitewash", and we don't want that, but we don't want blackwash either. I think you need to read between the lines of the option statements, where you may see signs that people are beginning to want to disagree with you. There are also some clues on the talk page about why that might be. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, didn't see that, had no time to watch his talk. As of now, the majority of option statements for 3b has come from Wikiproject Pakistan participants, so I am not surprised really by the choices they made. Doesn't change, however, that earlier denials by the Pakistan government have been nullified through more recent admissions. Pakistani leaders do not deny supporting the Taliban pre-9/11, they admit to even creating them. The only thing they still deny is whether their regular troops were directly involved (military support) pre-9/11. You'd see another result if other wikiprojects were active there. Don't misunderstand me, I have taken due note of what you said, I am trying to take a step back if I see TG doing the same. It is not helping the discussion when TG is repeatedly making accusations reciting unrelated wiki essays instead of staying on content. But for me, I figure, I need to work on my skills presenting a case in shorter terms. JCAla (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it's that, but aren't you overlooking concessions that have been made towards you, and neglecting to respond to them? You might have another look at option 3(b) and read the two sources that TG offered for it, which are this and this. I challenge you to read through those and then come back here and say, while keeping a straight face, that they "whitewash" anything. Yes, they do say that there were denials from Islamabad. But what do you see them making of those denials? How much more do you want?


 * As to your sources, I think they are significant and could well be used in an article that set out to present the subject in more detail, and I certainly find them more credible than TG appears to at present. But TG is right to point out that they are from individuals, however significant those individuals are, so I disagree with your claim that they supersede statements in secondary sources to the effect that there have been denials from Islamabad.


 * That there have been such denials is documented in RSs. Why do you feel the need to suppress that information? Consider the effect of the denials on different sectors of readership. The majority will will not check the sources, will say to themselves "well, they would, wouldn't they" and go on believing whatever they believed before; nothing you can say will change the prejudices of that part of the readership. The minority who check the references will see what the references say; you surely can't worry about that!


 * As to the fact that most of the people !voting are participants in Wikiproject Pakistan -- who cares, and anyway what did you expect? The zillions of battles in this area of wikipedia will have driven away almost everyone else, surely. --Stfg (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, you do not know the history of this discussion. The two sources "provided by TG" were actually initially provided by myself for the discussion on the Taliban talk not by TG. I am therefore very familiar with the two sources. I don't know why you have the idea that I would think the sources are whitewashing. I am saying option 3b is factually incorrect and you say DS wrote 3b is whitewashing.


 * Source 1 (year 2002) says: "While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite." It cites a foot note for that "politicians in Islamabad" statement which directs to an article which identifies the "politicians in Islamabad" as ISI officials operating under then Pakistan military leader Musharraf. My questions: A) You want to put a pre-2002 joker statement of people working under Musharraf, above their leader Musharraf's later (2006) statement? Musharraf wasn't "just one individual" in 2006, he was the President and military ruler of Pakistan. B) "Politicians in Islamabad" is obviously not the government in this context, but Musharraf was the government.


 * Source 2 speaks only about denying "military support" as outlined in the further narrative of that source which talks about Pakistani Frontier Corps deployments, etc. While it also says "This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil."" 3b, however, doesn't say Pakistan denied providing direct military support, it falsely claims Pakistan denies ever providing any support.


 * I don't know why you think I would feel the need to suppress any information. Actually this is a sentence I introduced to the ISI article: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." I support presenting the information in the correct way, which is, Pakistan earlier had "a policy of denial" but more recent statements from its most senior leaders (Musharraf, Bhutto, etc.), while still denying providing direct military support, admit that Pakistan created and supported the Taliban. Not taking into account the more recent information about the Musharraf, Bhutto and Babar statements which explicitly say, "yes, we created the Taliban", is indeed a suppression of information.


 * Anyways, I don't own wikipedia neither the information presented here. If you still can't see the point I am trying to make, there you go. Still the best of whishes to you personally, JCAla (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I read them too, you know. You have likewise missed my point, but there you go. Similar best wishes. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I did. What is your point then? JCAla (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is that TG made a big move in your direction and that you would get better progress if you developed from it and tried to improve it, rather than playing broken record about your one-and-only way of doing it, and covering the talk page with repetition after repetition of the same stuff. And that's it. --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see it differently. Last I checked, TG still favoured option 1 (no inclusion at all) but made sure that if other editors were to agree that inclusion is necessary (and he could foresee this to come because of the earlier discussion) enough versions proposed by him according to his ideas are there to choose from, creating the impression that he was making "a big move". That is exactly the reason why I said everyone should have the same number of suggestions. This doesn't change though, that version 3b is simply incorrect. And if you think that is ok because it is "a big move" for TG, then we do disagree. I am more than fine to work on 3b to make it correct, I am not insistent on version 4. JCAla (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, great. I look forward to seeing you do that. --Stfg (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, I finally found the diffs which are backing up what I said all along about that NPOV "consensus" which TG keeps citing for the 1994-2001 discussion. In the following diffs taken from the first posts of the discussion he says himself: "Coming to the topic, the points you've given about Pakistan assisting Taliban before the war on terror are completely invalid because the topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistan's military is currently an ally to Taliban (so those should be disregarded - refer to my 2nd comment in this thread)." and "Anyway, we should stick to the topic (which is the current relation)" That is how the discussion went then, only post 9/11 was discussed, not the very obvious consensus of the reliable sources for 1994-2001. So whatever your opinion might be, a "consensus" cannot be applied to something that was never discussed. JCAla (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those, but once again, I must point out that I can read. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan is on my watchlist, and to ensure that I don't risk disrupting it in any way, I will not discuss the subject or anything related to the subject while it is going on. This discussion is now closed. --Stfg (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)