Archives

Archive 1, to October 2007

(This is from memory only) : Once terms have "passed" from latin to english (for example) I think they "lose" their plural sense. For example I would say I have on agenda, not one agendum, and I have two agendas, not two agenda. Typing "agenda plural" in google gave me this as the first result ; [1]. I think that gives you your answer. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From [2]:Agenda" -- formally a plural of agendum, but usually used as a singular with plural. -das or -da." This being an encyclopedia, I go with setting a good example by using the formal. I have one agendum or two agenda. Thanks for writing. Unimaginative Username 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And yes you seem to be right. Thanks for permitting me to learn that. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we have interacted extensively in the past and I saw that you commented on the above linked article in August. I was wondering if you would be willing, if you have time, to give the article a good copy edit. The article is the result of an amazing collaboration that manifested in the immediate aftermath of the flooding by editors who were on the scene (including myself-not to toot my own horn or anything:-)). This is an example of the Wiki at its best, following a good outside copy edit or two I plan to nominate this for good article status, then maybe, one day we can bring it to FA too. Thanks and if you don't have the time, I will understand. IvoShandor 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea! As you can see from above, I'm working with the FAU article, trying to help get them to FA, but it looks like it won't be too extensive -- mostly minor punc, usage, etc. -- so perhaps I can get to the MF article (bad initials! lol) within the next few days. Very flattered that you asked! Regards, Unimaginative Username 06:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds most excellent, there is no rush or deadline on the flooding article, and that was, indeed, a most unfortunate acronymn. ;)IvoShandor 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done what I can do on the Florida Atlantic article and for today. Nobody wants to copy-edit on a Monday :-), but I will definitely try to get to your MF article (can't get off that gag!) during the week if no one else does first. Cheers, Unimaginative Username 22:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to give you a belated thanks for your work on this article. I have contacted the user whom I believe wrote most of the Minnesota section so hopefully an answer to your question will be forthcoming. IvoShandor 08:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Only here very sporadically, so if you get the answer, you can probably re-write the sentence. Hope the suggestions I made help to do that. Unimaginative Username 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say thanks again for all the help with FAU, I could not have gotten it to FA without you. Second, the above article is currently going through WP:FAC and I was wondering if you could give it a copyedit? It is not very long and I think your help would be greatly appreciated by its primary writer, Kane5187. I suggested he contact you to get a good copyedit, but I figured I would just hop over here and ask for him. Thanks again. KnightLago 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a brief glance, looks like it's pretty well-written already. I can probably give it a good going-over some time this week. Congrats on the FA for FAU! (Featured Article University?) Unimaginative Username 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you have a chance would be great. Thanks again. KnightLago 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! And my compliments to the authors of this article - it required far fewer edits than most articles submitted for copy-editing. It's now on the LoCE's list for final proofread. Good luck with FA! Unimaginative Username 09:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. KnightLago 13:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the copyedit! You caught a bunch of stuff I would have missed. Much appreciated! Dylan 14:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh pair of eyes always catches something the last pair didn't. Glad to help! Unimaginative Username 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize that request was still standing -- sorry about that. KnightLago made that request on my behalf. I'll take it down, I'm sure there's much more pressing jobs for the League than giving an FA a second polish. Thanks! Dylan (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I followed the instructions for the new templates but must have messed it up somehow. Any advice how to make it work? Galena11 14:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I figured it out....just working out how to use the new system. Thanks! Galena11 15:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I'm still learning the new system too! Unimaginative Username 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing the work you did on Hezbollah! mceder (u t c) 18:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Good luck with FA, and pleased to have contributed in some way. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You prob don't know me but I have seen your copy-editing work and it is an area of wikipedia that needs more contribution and acknowledgement. Congratulations. - Shudde ^talk 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your work on copy-editing articles, especially for LOCE, Shudde talk 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't recognize the name, but upon seeing your resume, I did remember copy-editing the Crusaders article back in February. This message was a very pleasant surprise! Thanks for taking the time to comment. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your effort on copy-editing Hezbollah--Seyyed(t-c) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for bringing to my notice those 2 points about the article.

• Regarding, the first point raised: prior to my proofreading the sentence was "the number of crimes and the type of convicts eligible for ..."....I interpreted it as just "number of crimes" ie "number of crimes committed" and so i changed it to "crime rate". However, now i've reworded the sentence as," the number of offenses inviting death penalty and the type of convicts eligible for the same have reduced."
• Regarding the second point: i thought the focus word was "offenses" and thats why i worded it as were...but now after goin through what you said, i've changed it back to was.

Thanx for the feedback and suggestion.Gprince007 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Thanks for taking the time to consider these ideas, and for doing the proofread itself. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UU,

You left a couple of comments the other day on the aforementioned CE request page. One of them is about the Soult image obscuring some of the text – this was mentioned at FAC too, but I don't have the problem, also using Firefox 2+. Therefore, I suspect it's something to do with screen resolution, so do you think you could let me know what settings you use, so I can try and reproduce the problem here. Unless I can see the problem, slapping ((FixBunching)) all over the place is going to be pretty hit & miss! Much obliged. Carre (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, think I have the resolution - 1280 x 1024, right? The solutions listed at WP:BUNCH just made the page even worse to look at, so I've shifted the image to the right. Looks ok at my resolution, and not too bad at the higher one. Carre (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I think I've got it now: can you have a look to see if it's OK for you? Helps if you put the ((FixBunching)) templates in the right place ;) Carre (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me. Good job! Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[←]Thanks for that; now to go through an stick some of the parenthetical commas back in (<cheeky> unless, of course, you want to help out? I think the copyedit request has moved to proofread request now </cheeky>). Re the Shaw quote - you could well be right - I picked that up off a google search, and having just checked my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, it's not in there at all, which is strange in itself. Carre (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite! Busy week coming up, so not sure if there will be time for WP copy-editng. ... My comment about the commas (comma-ment?) was probably made before the copy-edit. On a very light, fast scan of a few sections of the current version, it appears as though Malachirality has done a fine c/e job -- nothing reached out and grabbed me by the ankle. It was also apparent that the article was written very well in the first place, so props to all who contributed.

Commas can be tricky for everyone, can't they? I find Comma_(punctuation)#Grammar an invaluable resource and check it frequently, especially for differentiating parenthetical clauses into restrictive and non-restrictive, and for the dependent/independent clause clause. (chuckle). Couldn't copy-edit without it! Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done! Some commas come-a, and some go-a :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the welcome! I have a quick question about citation style guidelines though: I thought I remembered reading somewhere (maybe in the MOS?) that citation numbers (such as [1] and [2]) should go at the end of the sentence, after the period. Is this true? or am I imagining/making stuff up? Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on that myself -- strengths are more in the grammar/punc etc. aspects. Good sources are Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations and Wikipedia:Embedded_citations. The example given in the latter, "In 2005, Sorrell accused Murdoch of panic buying.[3]", supports your recollection. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, refs should aim to go after punctuation (period, comma, semi-colon, whatever), but sometimes it's necessary to immediately cite without punc. For example, where a sentence is supported by one cite at the end, but one small part of the sentence is only supported by another source. In those cases, I at least put the very specific citations as soon as it's needed. Also see WP:FOOT#Where to place ref tags. Carre (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your sympathy. I was beginning to think I was the only person who believed that the spelling correction of a single word was a NPOV edit! -Animesouth (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope things go more smoothly from now on. Oh, and the League of Copy-Editors is woefully backlogged. Can you help? (perhaps on some nice, non-inflammatory topic where people aren't looking to cause trouble haha) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, I answered this post before seeing your post at the League project page. Glad to see you there! Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've been meaning to do more LoCE work, but other stuff just keeps coming up. Hopefully soon! – Scartol • Tok 02:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my note to your note. See you at the LoCE soon! Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I saw your comment on the talk page for The Preuss School UCSD, and while I responded there as well, I just want to let you know that I didn't mean to slander the League or anything like that. I had looked into it and saw that it had sort of broken down. But I didn't want it to seem like the League wasn't trying. At any rate, thanks a lot for looking at the article and offering to help out. I will likely be in touch with you soon. Again, thanks. SorryGuy 03:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unimaginative Username, thanks a lot for your copy editing, helping to make BDSM a better article! Kind Regards--Nemissimo (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I really appreciate what you are doing. I was worried there might be problems with finding a copy editor on :en for this topic after I invested so much time translating it. ;-) From my point of view it is highly professional of you to improve quality articles regardless of their content. Thanks a lot. Have a nice weekend! --Nemissimo 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke sehr für dein gut Worte. OK, that's about the limit of my poor German :) This topic is a reality for some significant number of people and has been the subject of scientific research. It has a place on WP so long as it is written in an encyclopedic style, and therefore deserves copy-editing as any other article. I should be finished by the weekend. Thanks again for the comment. Unimaginative Username 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it "Danke schön für Deine sehr netten Worte." and its perfect. ;-)
I have answered most of your questions on the talk page and would be happy to find a good solution.--Nemissimo 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My De-En dictionary defines "nette" as "fair" or "pretty". The word I was looking for was "kind" (as in "kind-hearted"). Couldn't find it. Can you help? Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kind-hearted" would probably be "großherzig", "gutherzig" or "gütig"(kind of old fashioned and formal). Informal "kind" in everyday usage would be "nett" or "warm".

If you are interested in a pretty good English-German (and vice versa) dictionary, I can highly recommend Leos' Dictionary it is free very comprehensive and an included forum with many German and English speaking natives provides help with everything not covered in the standard database. If you need any further German advice please feel always free to contact me (my German is not too bad). ;-) --Nemissimo (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bookmarked Leo's, although I found the English version more helpful :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looked very briefly at your comments at the talk page. I got involved in copy-editing two other articles. Perhaps you and the other editors there (including some native English-speakers) can make some revisions, and I can have another look in a few days. I appreciate the difficulty of translating articles from other languages, and of writing encyclopedia articles in non-native languages. Your English is obviously much better than my German :) Incidentally, this is one reason why many copy-editors shy away from articles that are mere translations. It is very challenging. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted several native speakers on :en and :de, hope this will help. You are absolutly right this is very challenging and might take a while. I'm sure it is worth the effort and can't thank you enough for your strong support in making this an better article bridging all cultural gaps.--Nemissimo (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few replies and believe we obviously are moving forward. ;-) I'll be back online on Monday. Have a nice weekend!--Nemissimo (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still checking for further sources. Meanwhile maybe you will find this and this as interesting as I did. ;-) Kind Regards from the alps.--Nemissimo (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-> Just to say hello Hi there... I have been for winter vacation... unfortunatly it's over, but what I missed to say before the holidays and forgot in spite of getting things done in time (wikipedia? - what's wikipedia ;-))- I wanted to thank you for being such a kind, helpful and tolerating editor with the BDSM-stuff... Greetings from Germany - I haven't forgot that I still owe you an answer ;-) --Ivy (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy and Nemissimo: I'm sorry to have fallen off the planet. I got completely burnt out with the whole copy-editing thing (not your article, the whole project), but I want to wish all of you the best of luck with your article. Yes, the more cultural and national barriers we can bridge, the better the whole world will be. Stay safe and be well, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the copyedits on Herrerasaurus. Much obliged! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I left a few content questions that are presently at the bottom of its Talk page. Let me know if further copy-edit assistance is needed when those questions are answered. Unimaginative Username 02:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done my best to answer your questions on the talk page. I hope these answers will help with the copyedit. Anything that can be done to clear things up is a good thing, no? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm in the middle of another article now. Feel free to make the edits, or I'll try to get back there in the next couple of days. Thanks for the info. Unimaginative Username 03:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Not only do I not object, I'm absolutely delighted that you took up the banner on a second dinosaur article. :) Thank you so much, UI. I'll try to clarify as much as I can. Your edits and questions are exactly what these articles need. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this a couple of times - it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the templates per se, but is rather a database lag problem. I don't know why it seems to occur more often on our pages. Making a null edit (editing the page, not making any changes, and saving) usually fixes the problem. Happy‑melon 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son-of-a-gun, that works! Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Unimaginative Username. I've noticed the excellent work that you and a few others have been doing recently to streamline and update processes at the LoCE, and the dedication you have shown to improving article quality. As a result I would like to invite you to participate in a workshop that is currently underway.

From the main page there: The Content review workshop is intended to evaluate the various Wikipedia processes that assess and improve content. It seeks to clarify means and methods, reduce procedural overhead, and better attune processes outside of the mainspace with improvements in the mainspace. In essence, we are looking to overhaul what needs to be overhauled in order to meet the challenges and demands most article-quality processes are facing given Wikipedia's rapid and continued expansion. Although the LoCE is not a review process, it is intimately involved with article quality, and we believe some of its more experienced and active members would be a valuable addition to the workshop (I have also issued this invitation to Happy-melon and Galena11).

If you are interested, please take a look at the workshop scope on the front page then feel free to just drop in on the talk page and join the discussions there: having already examined the Peer Review process, we are currently taking a straw-poll as to the next topic to discuss. The list of subjects is at the bottom of the talk page here, but your input anywhere would be very welcome ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 16:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation is hereby rescinded. Evidence of a sense of humour has been detected in your opening post, and this is in clear violation of WP:NOSMILING. In addition, you have transgressed the Anti-Alliteration Amendment to the Proscribed Posts Proposal (penultimate part)... Seriously, welcome aboard ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your ce experience, what is the best approach to repeting internal wikilinks?

I mean, obviously link at the first occurrence, and then what? Once in each subsequent section? again at every other section? never?

Thanks! --Malachirality (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F A pertinent excerpt follows:

Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?

On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:

(...)

* A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

* However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. But take care in fixing such problems. If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.

These seem like pretty good guidelines. Only the first time in a short article, but perhaps a few more in a long or very technical one. I'm not sure that once in every section is needed, though. I know that some readers may read a section out of context, but if they find a term they don't know, they should assume it was linked previously. There has been much said about over-linking. So, you do have some discretion. Regards, Unimaginative Username 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very helpful; thanks a lot. --Malachirality (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again UU,

Just a quick note to let you know the Battle of the Gebora article got to FA with no problems, so if you like the things, I guess you deserve this:

This user helped promote Battle of the Gebora to featured article status.

Thanks for the help with it :) Carre (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone likes to know that their efforts were of some value. Congrats, and thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we all get caught up in the ridiculous number of articles we are all working on so it is awesome to have an outside copyeditor's perspective. Thanks for checking in so often on the articles you've picked to copyedit! Sheep81 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to know whether one's efforts are worthwhile. Thanks for the comment. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as i have realised that you are a good Copy Editor, i want to know if you will have a go at Copy Editing San Marino Calcio & Gavin Donoghue. And if you do can you fill in that you are doing it on the WP:LoCE, they are in the unclassified list.Thanks.Sunderland06 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am running Firefox and it looks good. Happy Holidays! KnightLago (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...just made GA, thanks in part to your efforts. You told me to let you know, so I am. Thanks again, UI. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! - and thanks for letting me know. On to FA! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! As soon as I address the concerns raised by the GA reviewer. :) But not tonight... I am thinking of adding a skull diagram that might help with potential fenestrae confusion amongst readers. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that my knowledge of dinosaurs comes from Dino on "The Flintstones", yes, one picture is worth a thousand words, especially if it's a picture of a hole. (On second thought, perhaps I should re-phrase that... ) Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bwah! Actually, J.Spencer was just telling me the other day that Massospondylus reminded him a bit of the Flintstones' Dino. I said it reminded me of the illicit love child of Diplodocus and ET. Also: you know what would be better than a picture of a hole? A picture of four sets of holes all together. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's so exciting about four bowling balls? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee! You don't like bowling? OK, well, I've bitten the bullet and submitted this for FAC. I'll add a hole image Monday-ish. Suggestions for more clarity are appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for the unnamed arms of the clade? i. e. the parent of Jing and Anch, and the parent of that missing one and its brother, Massospondylidae. Looking forward to the hole thing. Perhaps should have waited to submit to FA after the hole diagram -- it's not a small change :) But I don't know how fast their reviews occur. ... Need to finish another article I'm copy-editing, but will try to do a read-through of Masso by Monday. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I didn't see this until now. Your talk page is on my watchlist, but I missed it. Sorry. Good question. :) The unnamed clades are because they aren't named in the original 2007 paper. If every author named all the clades in his or her papers, there would be tons of disused names: dozens of dinosaur cladograms are published every year, and they never exactly agree with one another. If later authors find these same clades exist, they may propose a name for them, but for now, Yates just left them blank, and he stated himself in the paper that there was some "wiggle room". As far as FAC goes, there are always changes that are made per the discussion; I didn't think adding a clarifying skull image would be too controversial. Thanks for the clarifying edits. I also saw your comment on the talk page, and will try to address that, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the zero-knowledge reader (cough), should this be mentioned in the caption or something? Or am I the only reader likely to wonder about this? :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey saw your comments on the "Revolustion CE request and am in agreement. Considering the two articles you've already done, I'd say you've been generous enough with your time as it stands (why would he put in so many requests tho? just for the heck it?). I've been lucky in the few articles I've worked on so far, but I think there's an important, fundamental issue that needs to be addressed behind all this. Do you think a line should/could be added to somewhere prominent on the request page, indicating what a CE actually is (i. e. not merely correcting typos and changing verb tenses)? Just a thought. --Malachirality (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the page discussing criteria for c/e? You might find the whole discussion interesting. There was a specific discussion of "greedy" requesters. I opposed having arbitrary limits on number of requests by one editor, but I do believe Piotrus falls into the category of those who write many articles, none fully developed, and expects the League to make up the difference. ... The flip side of your last suggestion is getting editors to understand that it primarily is for correctness of English, not for editing the content. We're supposed to make it say correctly what it intends to say, not change what it says. However, as you've undoubtedly found, many times "what it intends to say" isn't clear, or is even contradictory to sources. Some c/e might ignore it, but I always ask. Granted, this looks more like a peer review, but when the editors co-operate, it makes for huge improvements. My bottom line: Requests need to meet the criteria at the top of the Request page (stable, no tags, no NPOV, no wars, etc.); we are here to polish the grammar, wording, etc., but if we find something else, the article's editors need to respond, or the c/e ends. And in Piotrus' case, his further requests should be denied. It would take a League consensus to make that official policy, but it's my policy, and you are free to make it yours as well. Perhaps we can start a trend. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, would be against a request "limit" and am overall really satisfied with the whole process. I guess with cases like Piotrus (but have seen his author credits?) a case-by-case action/communication can be worked out. On second thought, have you contacted him on his talk page? Maybe, and I'm just putting this out there, he is busy as an admin and/or has too many pages watched? --Malachirality (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he shouldn't be requesting so many c/e if he is so busy? We are busy too :) Yes, I probably should communicate at his talk page, but I thought he would see the comments at the League, and I did want to make the comments visible to other c/e'ers, so that they could tell me I'm wrong, or perhaps agree that this is a reasonable stance. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the italics, although double quotes can do that job too if there's a lot of italicisation elsewhere in the text. Tony (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! You're doing an FAC on the article, "Wormshill". Doing my best, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the League of Copyeditors to my attention. I will be giving it some thought, but I do not plan to make any commitments before the madness of December is behind me. As you already know, I have been adopted by User:Happy-melon but I do hope you would also feel free to continue giving me advice. I feel we may be kindred spirits now that I have seen your USage decline userbox. I am horrified that irregardless is replacing the perfectly good word regardless, just to give one example. I am also raising a seven year old who understands the correct spelling and usage of various homonyms. I refuse to add to the rising number of Americans who misuse they're, their, and there. I just wanted to let you know that you are not alone in fighting the decline of our language. I do make some grammar and spelling mistakes, mostly due to the fact that I think my language skills have atrophied from too much time around the average barely-literate people we must cope with daily.
I appreciate your time and attention.SkyllaLaFey (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UI, As you may be aware, I've submitted Massospondylus for FAC. Because you were the copyeditor of the article and took a great deal of care to ensure quality English in the article, I want to make sure that your concerns for the article have been properly addressed. It has been specifically requested that I ask the folks who have been involved in the review process to possibly weigh in on what they think the article still needs, or what additional improvements can be made. Have your concerns been addressed, or do you feel there is still something missing or potentially actionable? I want the process to be as open as possible, and want to be open to ideas for improvement. The discussion is here. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed part of it and will try to review the rest, including the FA discussion, within the next day or two. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so thorough! We at WP:DINO rarely had someone go this deep into a copyedit (Circeus is close). It's a good thing, of course, but it's always so surprising how much time you take. I'm soooo impressed. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always surprising to me how much time it takes! I look at an article, think, "I can do this in an hour or two", and... not because the article isn't good, just because of my own compulsive perfectionism and taking the POV of a zero-knowledge reader. Also, learning more and more about what FA reviewers are looking for, and trying to give it to them. Great source, if you haven't read it, is User:Tony1's article on how to write FA-quality prose. A must-read for groups like yours that aim to have all of their articles be FA-quality (as everyone should). Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Tony's pages (and all the other FA reviewers' pages). I try to make the article look as good as possible before I get anyone else's opinion, but, as you noticed, stuff slips through. I'd love to have every dinosaur article on Wikipedia be Featured, but it's just not realistic: there aren't enough of us to keep up with such a huge process, many dinosaurs were published in obscure journals that no one has access to, and some articles, like Ponerosteus, are on literal scraps of bone. I'm not even sure articles like that could become GAs. But we shall see down the line. Your help and patience through all of this was greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Arthur was looking into this... obviously not. I'll look into it tomorrow. Arthur did most of the work on Herrerasaurus, but we all try to pick up the slack whenever possible. I'm off to bed for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey UU!

Thanks for reworking the headings. I am absolutely not "peeved" at you for messing with the headings, and wouldn't submit stuff to Wikipedia if I thought it shouldn't be changed. I don't think the heading name is accurate, though: Other species indicates these other names are actually other species, when it's more likely they are the same species, or, failing that, just indeterminate bits of bone. They have little scientific value aside from historic footnotes, and several of them no longer even exist, so future paleontologists will never figure out what exactly they were. Also, several of the names (Aristosaurus, Dromicosaurus, Gryponyx, Hortalotarsus, Leptospondylus, and Pachyspondylus) are generic names, not species by themselves. "Proposed" sort of implies they're still being proposed: they aren't. "Disused" might be better... or "obsolete nomenclature", or... something. I don't want to give the reader the false impression that any of these names have scientific validity, which is implied by "Other species" or "Proposed species". I'm wondering if a seperate section for these bits is giving them undue weight. Maybe there is something at one of the Featured dinosaur articles that could be used. What do you think of using something similar to that at Iguanodon or Styracosaurus? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that worries me is that Iguanodon has more than one valid species, while Massospondylus just has the one. Would making a section for just the one species be overkill? And would we have separate sections for the invalid species and the invalid genera? Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congratulatory note; I actually didn't know it had made FA until you told me. Well... it wouldn't have happened without a lot of people working on it constantly. I was very, very concerned that this article wouldn't receive a lot of attention, and it ended up receiving more care than almost any other dinosaur FAC, in great part due to your work. Yes, I do like where the quadrupedal image is now. As you said, it didn't make sense to present the reader with the image, then tell them in the text that it's no longer considered accurate. If you can't come up with a system of headings, I can work on... something. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. Afterword, I might take a well-deserved Wikibreak for a bit. You, too? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Except I promised to help on Pachycephalosaurus. The pachycephalosaurs are one of the few groups of dinosaurs which have had no significant QA improvements, as can be seen on WP:DABS. But a break would be good. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Featured Article Barnstar
		For going far, far beyond a mere copyeditor's duty on Massospondylus, I present you with this barnstar. Thanks for all your work. I won't soon forget it. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Seconfron of Ronchester" would definitely be more imaginative than Unimaginative Username, yes... but it's definitely not simpler. Haha! Plus, if you did that, people would always be confusing us: people would be asking me for copyedits on their articles, and you'd get tons of dinosaur queries on your talk page... Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciated your efforts on Wormshill. It's been fun to discuss some of those Br-Am-En differences and to talk about the article with an editor who's coming to the subject fresh. Glad you enjoyed the subject and be sure to visit the place if you ever find yourself in England. Thanks once again, Dick G (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your comment on my Talk page - although it's all about warm beer in rural England! :) Dick G (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Served at room temperature, it's an "acquired taste"! Dick G (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help in getting Wormshill to FA status, it was much appreciated :) --John Gibbard (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Wormshill to featured article status.

Agreed. Belated thanks for your efforts once again Dick G (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha, thanks. I figured there was a way to do it but didn't have time to figure it out. Pfly (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to my aid re Wormshill's FAC. Apologies for not pinging you about the comments before I waded in with the changes. I was keen to be seen to show willing in responding to the edits - accept it would've made sense to cool off and get a second opinion! Not sure why Tony feels quite so strongly against the prose and phrasing - I suspect there is a mild backlash to the amount of British Geographical articles coming through FAC. Hopefully we'll get a more balanced view on the FAC in the coming days as the flurry of comments will probably attract the attention of other editors... Thanks once again Dick G (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions at WP:FAC and remove the sub-sections. I have tried to do it twice and have gotten edit conflicts. If you will please revert back to the version I left, it was completely legible there. Sub-sectioning a FAC is to be avoided per the instructions at WP:FAC. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last version was readable, sub-sections should be avoided. Unless you added new commentary, reverting to my last version would be optimal. It's hard for me to sort out what you've done since, so I only commented out the section headings as they were dominating the entire TOC at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would help; the way I left it, I was able to read through Tony's comments without interruption, which is my preference. I can't make others stop using them, but I detest the green and red checkmarks that chop up the text and make it hard for me to see what the oppose actually said. I prefer threaded commentary, with nominator's responses under reviewer's intact responses. But I at least had left it threaded properly so I could see who said what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't beat you to it; as I said, I commented out the section headings. Would you like for me to revert the last good version for you? The commented out section headings are still there, making a mess of the text, but at least not showing in the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Normally, when people add section headings, we just revert, and that would ahve been the easiest, but with the text moved around, I couldn't tell if something new was added, so I was hesitant to revert. It's back to the last legible version as I left it, and you will need to readd any other comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're fired up about this FAR aren't you?! Am wary of going on the assault against Tony as he's obviously a respected FAC reviewer (see User:SandyGeorgia's comment on my Talk page. He may have been having a bad day so am prepared to give him the right of reply. I think we (you) have comprehensively addressed his objections so let's see where it ends up. I still appreciate you flying as my wingman though! Cheers Dick G (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and Happy New Year!! I've come here to beg a favour, I'm afraid - I have two FAC-class articles in the wheels of the LOCE requests system, neither of which will (if left unattended) be touched for weeks. You would be doing me a great personal favour if you could find the time to look over Emma Watson (request) or Wicked (musical) (request) in the near future; I would be enormously grateful if I can face the dreaded "I don't think it meets criterion 1a)" comment knowing that they have a reasonable chance of being looked at before the end of the FAC. Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Back in November you offered a copyedit for Preuss School UCSD once I had fixed the MoS problems in it. I think I have done so at this point, although I still need to fill out some of the referencing. At any rate, if you could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love your Latin plural userbox. But I feel that I must point out, as a copyeditor myself, that criterion does not bear a Latin ending and is therefore not Latin. The Latin neuter endings are:

Second declension. -um, -ā

Third declension. -us, -ōris

Fourth declension. -us, -ūs

It is actually a neuter Ancient Greek noun (κριτήριον, κριτήριου n):

Second declension. -ον, -ου

Its neuter plural is still -α, though.

Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good catch. I should have picked up on the "K" sound at the start of the word and recognized it as Greek. Thanks for the update and for support of the correct plurals. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently filed a request to have the page moved so that 'the Apostate' will be removed. If you support (or oppose) the removal of this descriptor, please voice your opinion at Talk:Julian the Apostate Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Unimaginative Username/Userboxes/Latin Plurals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Unimaginative_Username/Userboxes/Latin_Plurals, the template has / had zero transclusions. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the issue - you created it in two places: Template:Unimaginative Username/Userboxes/Latin Plurals and User:Unimaginative Username/Userboxes/Latin Plurals - and the latter (which has not been deleted) is the one that everyone used. —Random832 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue - I was just pointing this out since you seemed to be confused on why the "Template:" one was deleted. --Random832 (contribs) 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please forgive the markuply-challenged :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that really did cheer me up! Anomie⚔ 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have any information about transportation within the village. Can you please add some info about this? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was only the copy-editor. Dick G was the principal author. I would suggest you contact him. He has extensive knowledge of the place, while I've never been to England. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your thoughts on my 'editorial'. I wrote it with an element of (cathartic) passion which has waned somewhat over time... Nevertheless it has garnered some attention and thoughtful comment from others in the project so it was a useful exercise I guess. Anyhow, welcome back. I am much less prolific these days but hope you don't suffer the same malaise, it seems your assistance is still much needed. Happy editing and I'll certainly hold you to both your suggestions! Cheers Dick G (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analogy! My almost non-existent classical education meant that was a new one to me. Will use henceforth. Dick G (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm contacting you as you seem to have been involved heavily at ((User committed identity)). I am interesting in getting one but am very confused as to how, especially regarding the cryptographic functions. I am also using a Mac computer, and the steps described here were not entirely applicable. Please help me out! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I have figured it out. Thanks so much for all of your hard work on the page, though. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for fixing my userpage :) --Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I have begun laying the groundwork for a new WikiProject that has a very simple goal, to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the articles tagged for copy edit, and I am wondering if you are interested in helping me start it. This project is not a clone of WP:LOCE because we will not deal with requests for review (that is currently handled by our good friends over at Peer Review).

I expect that this will be a relaxed, happy and casual WikiProject, because participants will be able to take things at their own pace and use the project page to ask other participants for help. The project proposal is here, and I have created an almost-functional project page in my userspace here.

There are now over 4000 articles needing copy edit, and very, very few people working on them, so any help, however small, is appreciated. If you are interested, please sign up at the proposal page. Once we have enough people, I will shift the project page, along with its subpages from my userspace into the Wikipedia namespace. For now we can use this section of my talk page to discuss the direction and details of the project, and, of course, its name. *grin*

Cheers!-Samuel Tan 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm starting to understand how you feel, which is why I prefer working on backlogs; you feel like you're improving something and don't get all the conflict, because most authors don't care if you edit an article they created half a year ago. All the best to whatever you're up to and feel free to pop by once in a while (the project has just been shifted from my userspace to here). Take care! -Samuel Tan 08:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I see vandalism, I fix it. And that IP address caught my attention. Anyway, no problem. :) --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UnUs,

I know you are not very active these days (which is a shame), but I come to you with my hat in my hand, requesting advice on Spinosaurus. You were a huge help on Massospondylus late last year, and I was wondering if you could help with the last big hurdle before a Spinosaurus FAC: copyediting.

I had requested a copyedit for this article back in May, not realizing that the LoCE would shut down in June. The article is still in need of a copyedit before FAC, and although I've requested assistance from other copyeditors, the results since then have been somewhat underwhelming.

Since you were such a thorough editor on Masso, I'm hoping you will consider devoting some of your editing skills to Spino. What's really needed is someone unfamiliar with the subject, but who might be interested in the subject. Someone who knows good English, and better still knows how to make bad English better; someone who can identify areas that need to be cleared up. That's definitely you.

So, when you have time (no hurry, though), please consider a copyedit or two. If you simply don't have time, I completely understand. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FiFr,

I've hardly been here at all, for a number of reasons, but the Dino-myte folks were the best it's ever been my pleasure to work with on a c/e, and flattery doesn't hurt, either. So, whenever odd moments seem Wiki-ish, I'll have a look here and there, if not a fully-organized c/e. Regards to all, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you around, UU. Thanks for the reply. I've worked a bit on the template conversion, per your observation, and will follow up with more template-ification tomorrow. If you happen to see a template gaffe, give me a holler. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some comments at Template talk:User committed identity that might interest you. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks -- your further comments are welcome. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this on the front page and knew that it looked familiar from... somewhere. Congrats! -- and pass it on to J. Spencer, Sheep81, etc. p.s.: Drop me a note when the templatification, etc. of Spinowhatever is complete. Still very hectic on this end, but TFA was a nice incentive to get back with the dyn-amic dyn-asty. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your help on this article was really great. Templatification of Spinosaurus is at a standstill until I can get a little less busy myself, but I'll complete it in a few days, I imagine. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They say that when in darkness, you should light a candle. But they never mention anything about the situation in which you *don't* have a candle. Elm-39 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was about something you had written on your page. More of a jest, not a personal attack. Thanks for the welcome anyway. Elm-39 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the humorous nature of your comment. It occurred to me afterward that it might have been meant in jest, and I appreciate you confirming that. In that light, it was actually quite funny! So, again, welcome! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Mary Wells contains the statement, "Wells won her lawsuit and was awarded a fair settlement..." Fair, according to whom? No existing template seemed to fit. Tried creating one, but the guide to creating templates is already tagged as containing too much jargon, and that is the understatement of the century. Bill Gates and I have roughly the same IQ, but without a specific background in computer programming, the article was gibberish, requiring far beyond the time I care to spend on it. Experimenting didn't work, either. Could someone please make that template, put it in the article (if you agree that it needs it), and turn the "Template Creation" page into something that anyone with basic knowledge of Wiki markup could understand? Not looking for someone to teach *me* how to do it -- far better to fix the TC article so that *anyone* can learn to do it easily. Thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you could have done based on your correct analysis that it was a biased opinion: I simply removed the word "fair." I donlt know that a particular template is needed for this (we only create templates when what the template is designed to address is common). Here, there are existing templates that tread this ground. I do think the correct action was for you to simply be bold and remove the non-neutral point of view (NPOV), original research assertion, and thus no template was required. But some existing templates appear to me to have fit quite nicely. It raised a NPOV issue, was likely original research in the absence of a source, and unsourced, which puts our verification policy into play. More specifically, WP:BURDEN, a subsection of the verification policy allows any user to remove material that they challenge, and which is not verified by citation to a reliable source.

So if an exisitng template was going to be used, rather than just removing the material, there's multiple in Category:Neutrality templates that would fit the bill, such as ((POV-statement)), ((POV-assertion)), ((POV-section)), ((NPOV language)); and multiple in Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates regarding the sourcing issue, such as ((fact)), ((Refimprovesect)), ((Speculation)) and so on, as well as ((Or)). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's needed but I went ahead and made the template using the page you created and moved it to ((whom)) (template names with multiple spaced words are inevitably shortened for ease of memorization). I linked it to the NPOV policy, though it really could link to OR or even WP:V.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I could have simply removed the offending word. However, such statements are commonly found in WP articles, so it seemed the template might be useful. The problem with just citing NPOV or OR is that that settlement might in fact have been regarded as fair by all parties, but verification or source was needed. Or it might not have been. Mostly, my complaint was that the Template Creation page was unintelligible to non-programmers, and I was hoping to get that fixed. Thanks for your efforts. If the "whom" template doesn't get some use after several months, then yeah, it can be deleted. It just wasn't clear to me "which" POV was represented: If Wells thought it was fair, but the other party didn't, or if the defendant thought it fair but Wells didn't. That's why I thought it would be nice to know "who" thought it was fair: one, both, or neither. That's why I thought NPOV and the others you mentioned didn't quite cover the situation. Any chance you can persuade the Template people to translate their page into English, 'just in case' someone finds a need for a new template? Again, thanks for your help. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. <sarcasm>Help:Template is a sterling example of clear and easily digested, step-by-step instructions.</sarcasm> Okay, let's face it, it's written in Greek; almost useless for anyone not already well-versed with the material. I learned template coding by much effort at studying the code and asking questions and playing around and struggling with those same help pages while tearing my hair out a bit. I'm not a great template coder at all, but I know my way around, having created many. I would have benefited from what you are looking for now. But you know the Wikipedia way. Go to the talk page and make a plea for a rewrite (or possibly a new page geared to beginners); and maybe request assistance at some more general pages such as the proposal section of the village pump, help desk and/or at editor assistance. You just have to hope someone feels motivated. I have tried to clarify and reorganize many explanation pages but I don't think I could tackle the template pages as I'm just not good enough with the material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (LOL!) Actually, I was in the same boat as you about the page Template:User_committed_identity. After similar hair-tearing, I eventually figured it out, and noticed that there were others on the talk page begging for a simplification. I felt sorry for them and created my own, Simple Committed ID Instructions. I left a link to it at the original's Talk page, Template_talk:User_committed_identity#Simple.2C_plain-English.2C_step-by-step_instructions_here. I received some good suggestions for improvement (if you have some time to waste, preferably your employer's, you might find interesting the dialog at that post. Or not.), and came out with what seemed might be useful. Haven't had any feedback, kudos, donations, Nobel prize for "Translating Geek Into English', etc., and have no idea how many users have actually used it. But at least it's there. Hope you or someone might get the same motivation for the Template page -- I'm gonna leave it alone. Maybe it isn't good for it to be *too* easy to create them -- for example, userboxes are kind of running amok, <sarcasm>whereas I would never put facetious, uninformative, or silly UB on my page</sarcasm>. Thanks again for your time and sympathy :-) Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comments on Talk:Objective_pronoun and took them to heart. I've updated the article to try to make it easier to understand for laypeople. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know your opinion of the updated article? -Stian (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to take so long to get back to you; I'm not very active here any more, for various reasons. Big improvement, and left a couple of additional comments. Cheers! Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did not yet try it but it reads - long - but really simple. Good job! The other stuff was just way too confusing. Kmw2700 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I apologize for the length, but I thought the originals were too brief and were geared to tech-savvy users, so this was an attempt at "hand-holding", assuming a zero-knowledge reader. Those with some knowledge can speed-read or skip the obvious. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my English, I try to implement it. I corrected also the post accordingly. And yes I felt free to delete it ;-) --Kmw2700 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've very welcome. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen you around in a few months. Welcome back! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've kicked the habit with the 12-step WA program, but in browsing an article (not logged in), there was a terrible, racist vandalism to, of all things, the article on Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar", so I just logged in, rvd it, and answered one message from a month ago. Back on the wagon again, but it's nice to be missed! Cheers to the dino crowd! Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers back to you, UU! Always have wished you the best, and good luck on the wagon thing! Happy reading! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh -- TFA was on a subject of interest, and needed a c/e, so did a quickie on it. Wave a drink in front of a reformed alky ... Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Much better. :) Now get back on that wagon! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 12:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at what I wrote, and tell me if you like the 2010 article!BLUE_DOG^TN 09:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a promising start at first glance. Don't be surprised, though, if someone says that the article should be merged into the Lindsey Vonn article. I don't think athletes generally get an article for each year of their careers, though I could be mistaken, and/or there could be exceptions. And the complete Vonn article is not very long by WP standards, so there's room for a 2010 section. Even if so, your article would provide a good subsection on her 2010 season, if it happens that way. So either way, keep on!

Suggestion: Study the Manual of Style, and general guides to punctuation. Example:

"She became the most decorated world cup skier in her nations (should be "nation's") history (comma to start marking a parenthetical clause -- look up "parenthetical clause", or see Comma) with thirty-three wins (comma here to close out the parenthetical clause) one more than Bode Miller."

.

She became the most decorated world cup skier in her nation's history, with thirty-three wins, one more than Bode Miller.

I made a couple more copy-edits to the main article, of this nature, but I have to admit, with the arrival of spring, my own interest in the topic has kind of passed -- it was Olympics-kindled. <grin> Good luck, and thanks for your contributions! Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest I can do to provide a rewrite of the article , and what sections need grammar attention? I think the pricing information and the trialpay links found in the article set off some as an advertisement. I want to add some more to this.

Let me know what you think about this article, and feel free to direct my questions and comments to other users so they can give me a rundown on what they think this article needs. I would do this on the talk page of the article itself, but most of the time, I find no one checks out talk pages to get my comments noticed, and I do not know how to add a notice to certain boards to get other editors attention to my concerns. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here very often myself any more. I see that the trialpay and pricing links seem to have been removed, which is good.

Question: What is your motivation? If you are in any way connected with the company, you need to make a Conflict of Interest disclosure. Otherwise, go ahead and edit, within the standard editing guidelines of verifiability, etc. That should get the attention of those interested in the article.

I can think of two changes offhand that would make it less advertisement-like. One would be to change "improvements" (in the premium versions) to "additional features". The reason is that whether a given feature is an "improvement" is a personal judgment of each user. E. g., on some software products, I've found myself deleting "improvements" as being a waste of disk space and resources, and possible security hazards (like Javascript parsing in a document or .pdf reader). If version X has additional features A, B, and C, just describe them, and let readers draw their own conclusions about the desirability of said features.

The other would be to counterbalance the long list of glowing reviews with some that are more moderate, or even negative in comparison to other products. Since AV testing is so dependent on the criteria used, each different tester will produce different rankings among products. Surely there must be some tests in which it fared less well. This makes the article more neutral, less like an ad, and again, lets readers look at each test (you'll cite the source, of course) and determine the validity.

Although I can't add the following to the article myself, because it's a personal experience, I know of one case in which a piece of malware, that I was helping a friend to track and remove, was not detected by Avira or 33 other AV products. Seven out of forty-one detected it. I reported it to Avira; it took them a few days to respond, and another few days to add it to the signature database. Thus, it was almost a week from first report to database, and we'd spent almost a month picking the thing apart in the first place. So the malware had been "in the wild" (actively being exploited) for more than a month before becoming detectable to Avira, and who knows how long if I hadn't sent it to them? I'm not saying this to knock them particularly; all AV providers face the problem of being behind the curve as new viruses proliferate. The site used was VirusTotal. The bottom line: Balance the reviews.

The new 2010 version isn't reviewed. It didn't make the top 10 in one site I looked at. The awards from 2008 are out of date, with things changing so rapidly in the AV world.

The statement that the premium version "Firewall blocks hackers". Not necessarily. There are many ways to compromise a system besides penetrating the firewall (email links, etc.) Just say that it has a firewall, and perhaps describe its capabilities (outbound as well as inbound protection? for example. Individual port blocking or opening? Etc.) Same with all other features. Don't recite the claim, just list the feature and perhaps what it actually *does*, and how it does it, rather than making broad claims like "blocks hackers". Or just list the feature. Firewall, parental controls to block chosen content, etc.

I don't think it needs much grammar work at the moment, mostly because a good bit of the language is still mine. If you make extensive changes, I'll try to copy-edit on request, if I can find the time. Put a note on this Talk page. Again, I'm much more rarely active here than I was a year or two ago. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now while I type, CNET seems to have the only critical review of Avira 2010 claiming it falls short.

I found this source here:

http://download.cnet.com/Avira-AntiVir-Personal-Free-Antivirus/3000-2239_4-10322935.html

If I find anything else ill come back here... Now going to work on this a bit in WordPad... JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the ((copyedit)) tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. Unfortunately, other obligations have prevented me from participating on any kind of regular basis, though I still may correct something here and there if I come across it while browsing. Good luck. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. peo·ple  –noun http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people

"2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help."

It was correct usage before, and while I may not *own* the userbox I created, common courtesy would have been to discuss the issue with the creating editor before changing it. I'll revert it for you and save you the trouble. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If I would have known you would have reacted that way, I would never have bothered. "People" is primarily a people group or nation (i.e. the first definition) and is incorrectly and commonly misused as "persons". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I recently heard Glenn Beck discussing it, but usually you don't hear anything for or against that interpretation. Art LaPella (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for <Your latin plural userbox that let me express a slightly different usage preference of my own>

--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award Unimaginative Username a barnstar for their work in creating a simplified version of instructions on how to use ((Committed identity)), allowing others to make sense of how it is done. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the template on other user pages, I have become interested in creating a committed identity for myself. Your instructional is an excellent guide on how one can go about the process, and some of the options available for users. I especially appreciate that it is applicable to users operating from legacy systems. Your fine work will not go unrecognized. Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]