User talk:Synae

Welcome!

 * }

Cinderella's Eyes
Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Your edits to Cinderella's Eyes were unhelpful, and in your edit summary it seems as if you are thinking of continuing. Just a friendly notice to tell you that the introduction doesn't need citations, the article features the commentary. But thank-you for changing the phrasing on the Artwork and titling section though. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new at this, although I did clean up some of the horrendous grammar/punctuation and correct a few refs that weren't relevant to what they were claiming to be. Is there a way of keeping the better readability but getting rid of any misused 'citation neededs'? (edit: OK, I think I have done this. If it was only the 'citation neededs' that were incorrect, I've removed them - although your revert keeps refs that don't refer to anything that they are supposed to! I think I have fixed this. Synae (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean, if this is the kind of sentence that is genuinely preferred, I will gladly stop editing: "After being asked whether there was anyone she wished to work with on the record, Roberts declared that she wanted Kate Bush, she then explained that getting contact of Bush was difficult, after asking and hinting to her record label for the year she was producing the album, she declared that nobody could set up communications." Synae (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no definitely dont stop editing... Just I am aware of the grammatical issues, I have yet to copy-edit it, but I think rephrasing is different to removing chunks. The Kate Bush sentence, like others does need copy-editing, but I think you went a little far. But thanks for trying anyhow, when I first started I was pretty terrible, but you learn, and I just got my first barnstar, so keep at it and im sure you can be a better editor! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I did find there were lots of mentions (e.g. 'the press called her ugly') that weren't specifically talked about in the refs given. Also I have sinced summarised that Guardian article very slightly as it's maybe too detailed when you can just go and read it anyway... and I have done several other tweaks. There is a lot of repetition that can probably be looked at, too! Synae (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I had to revert your edits, you dont have to have word for word whats written in the article in comparison to the ref. For example the communications were strict, clearly if you read what she says, it is strict, it doesnt need to say it black and white. I am going to copy-edit it soon but for now maybe leave it... --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am doing quite a lot of editing on the readability and very little on the actual content. Please could I ask that you leave what I have done and just change back individual errors? I don't understand what 'communications were strict' means so by all means elaborate but it's unclear. I know you are trying to help but you keep editing to really poor English. Surely there is a better way. Please, leave in my grammar edits and change any specific problems. Maybe place an example here if there is something terrible, and we can discuss it before just editing back and forth. Synae (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right I have copy-edited the article, all expect the critical reception part, which is still under construction. Communications were strict means that she they were strict, she didn't let him do what he wanted, she gave him strict guidelines. I think poor English is a bit unfair, it isn't a literary masterpiece but that isn't what wikipedia is. There were some errors, and I think I have fixed them, but removing large quantities is a bit over the top.--FeuDeJoie (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your new version is including some really badly written phrases. I'm undoing them because it was fine with my tweaks. E.g, I don't see why this sentence, which you have just added, is better than what I had: "The album is lead by electropop themes features autobiographical lyrics. " Synae (talk)


 * Okay well I'll leave yours, your introduction is good, but the Writing and development section just looks a little worse, I need to reformat references but just dont go deleting much more. Im not saying your edits are bad, but I don't think they are any better than those already there --FeuDeJoie (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can work together to make this a good article. I do notice mis-spellings and sentences that are joined together with commas everywhere etc... so to people who notice this stuff, it does make a huge difference, take my word for it! I'm honestly not trying to delete chunks, mostly I'm making it look a bit more professional (or at least aiming to :-) ) Synae (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I only came to the page to find out when I could get 'Lucky Day' here in the US... and after all this I'm still none the wiser! :) Synae (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can work together too! I think it was just an initial shock that content that I spent so long was missing :) ...Haha I saw on your user page, do you live in San Francisco. I cannot express my infatuation with that city! Oooh and yepp Nicola's (Team Ginge) need to hurry up and start releasing her music worldwide. Have you seen the LD acoustic sessions on Yahoo and The Sun, they are simply beautiful! -FeuDeJoie (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, likewise about the shock of deleting - think it's good now though :) SF is great, probably the only place in the USA where they appreciate Kylie... gonna go find those acoustic sesh right away... Synae (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha Kylie fan huh! Me too! I dont think I could live in a place that doesn't know who Kylie is. Ooh listen to the "I" acoustic session, its really interesting actually :) --FeuDeJoie (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
Hi ... pls see this, re dead links. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, is it in relation to a specific edit? I'm aware I may have done this but can't remember where... Synae (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Found it - can't see a problem with it? If you look at the links involved it should make sense. Seems like someone has thought likewise and changed it. Synae (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)