User talk:CorinneSD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Moon
Moon phase 4.png
3rd quarter,


Evening Reflection, by Atelier ŽITNIK, 2014

You are welcome to continue discussions which have already been archived.

The Signpost
29 April 2015
Useful Wiki-links:
* Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
* User:Hafspajen/sadbox II
* google art project

Useful external links:
* Google Translate
* Merriam Webster
* Wiktionary
* Earwig's Copyvio Detector

Per 7&6=13, the one limitation of this tool is that it will also find sources that used/plagiarized Wikipedia articles, so just be aware of this when using the tool.

Useful no-break hyphen: ‑
Phidippus audax Jumping Spider.jpg This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen

Nice to meet you[edit]

Nicolas Riegen Segelschiffe an holländischer Küste.jpg

I wanted to reach out and say thank you for your comments. Don't be sad, I am not going away, and I am not going to discontinue to nominate photos I take in FP. It can be frustrating sometimes, from a creative standpoint I tend to lean towards the creative aspects of my contributions and it requires a thick skin at times to just overlook some of the random comments my photos often provoke. Frankly speaking it is exceptionally complicated to manage, as I do, the cumulative assets and skill sets that are required to contribute much of what I have placed here. IMHO it would be far more balanced if the voters were, in some way vetted and had some photographic background. You are welcome to also nominate my photos any time. I truly enjoy the art of photography, and appreciate your kind words and support. Cheers!talk→ WPPilot  03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WPPilot Thanks for your note! I agree with you that those who vote on photos should have a basic, or more than basic, knowledge of photography. Have you proposed that somewhere? If you haven't, and if you decide to do that, I would have a list of criteria and a suggested selection process to propose right at the start. It would give the others something to think about and give direction to the discussion. I would be glad to nomination some of your photos but don't know if I have a sufficient knowledge of photography. I can only judge a photo as to composition, clarity (to the inexpert eye), and interest, not the finer points. If you think that is sufficient, can you tell me where to look for your photos, so I can choose one? CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@@CorinneSD: I keep a selection of them on my user page, so just click on WPPilot and take a gander. Note that the first few are just over the last few days, and will not qualify until next weeks FP (photos need to be on a project page for at least a week before consideration), so what I suggest is that you find 3 you like, and lets work it through and nominate them together. I would be more then happy to give you my objective consideration, as well look forward to having your thoughts considered, prior to a actual nomination. I am willing to bet that Hafy would be more then happy to join→ WPPilot  19:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot I enjoyed looking at the photos on your user page. I love the pictures of the orchids. I hope you will take and post more photos of them. I prefer a natural background, in focus or not, to a stark white background; I think it gives the image some depth and provides clues as to the size of the flower(s). As you suggested, I chose three images that I think are exceptional:
Here are three others I liked:

I wanted to ask you about a caption:

  • In the middle of the photos of Newport Beach there is a photo with the caption "Balboa Pier". However, all I see is an expanse of green grass and a row of tall palm trees. Is the pier behind the palm trees? I don't see the pier. Also, all the image files say D Ramey Logan. Is that you? CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I am flattered. The photo that I perhaps have miss labeled is the park that is in the photo of the Balboa Pier of the park and palm trees is next to the pier. I am doing video work right now, but lets explore the pics over the next few days, ok. Some of them have already been nominated and were not promoted, and I will show you now how to look at the history of each to do some research before we nominate one of them ok. Here in the EN Wikipedia we only see a short summary, under the photo when you enlarge it. Click on the button under the photo and review more information first, then we need to notate the pics that have been nominated, and figure out why those did not receive enough votes before (perhaps it is something that can be changed/fixed) and narrow the list down some. I am going to let you make the final nomination btw, so perhaps you might want to also include a caption for the reasons you see each qualifies as a Featured Photo (one of the best images on the "English Wikipedia project". BTW, yes I am: -D Ramey Logan a.k.a. WPPilot unicomm 123.0>
Star Boats NHYC June 2013 photo D Ramey Logan

What are your thoughts on that photo? talk→ WPPilot  17:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WPPilot Wow, I can see why you said you have to have a thick skin on FP. They have pretty high standards for photos. When I saw the comments that the Avery Fisher Hall photo is not completely in focus, I thought, how can you get a photo of such a large building completely in focus at night? I guess they're looking for an urban Ansel Adams. When I saw the comments regarding the space ship plane, (oversaturated, out of focus) I wondered what they meant. I don't know what "oversaturated" means. Does it mean too much color, or too dark, or both? I really like that photo. I like the colors, and it looks in focus enough, to me. Is the oversaturation something that could be fixed using software? When I saw the comments regarding the sakura flowers, I was just puzzled. The flowers looked in focus to me, and I didn't see anything wrong with the background (the comment said, "What's with that stripe in the background?"). A lot of these were nominated before I got involved in Featured pictures, or I would have voted for some or all of them. Regarding the sailboat, I like the angle of the mast and sail, and the background. The only things I can think of that editors might have objected to are (a) the fact that the clouds are almost the same color as the sail, so the sail doesn't stand out as much as I might have; (b) there is a white reflection (probably from the sea foam just under the bow) on the side of the boat and the lower part of the sail, and, since it looks like a partly cloudy day, the white there, and even the yellow higher up on the sail, is puzzling. Regarding the last image, the regatta, (Star boats), I think it's all right, but I have a feeling it will not be successful. I think it is partly that it is such an overcast day, and partly because it is not clear which is the point of interest, the sailing boats/race or the red buoy. But you can always try. Of course I'll be glad to nominate the Lido photo. It's nice and clear. (I can't believe how many houses are jammed into such a small space, the little island and the surrounding land.) I will take some time to look at the background of some of the other photos, as you suggested. It sounds like you are busy right now, so no need to reply. Whenever you have time. CorinneSD (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I have not forgot about you :) just been busy. I suggest that you write a caption for the Lido Island photo above and lets submit it. If you do not already read the signpost I suggest you review it and the featured section that I contribute to. The current edition has one of my photos, on the cover: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. That launch of SpaceShipOne was one of the most remarkable events that I covered and many of the related photos, IMHO are well qualified to be FP on the site. Please go ahead and nominate the Lido photo, LMK if you need any help or direction with the nomination. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  15:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot You will have seen that I have nominated the Lido Isle photo. How did I do? I was just glancing at your latest edit to your user page (I only looked at the last one), and I saw an error that you might like to fix. It's in this:
Since "editor" begins with a vowel sound, the article just before it should be "an", not "a". CorinneSD (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot I didn't tell you before, but my father was a pilot in WWII, and he kept up his flying after the war; he owned a Stearman biplane for a while. CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @CorinneSD: The Stearman is a fantastic aircraft. It was invented by Lloyd Stearman, I was best man in his great granddaughters wedding (Daughter of Dr Ronald Stearman from Texas).. Did you ever get to fly in the plane? If so you were a lucky girl! talk→ WPPilot  03:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Vsmith, Rothorpe What do you think of these edits, and the ones just previous to them by the same editor, to Geology? [5] Vsmith, you can judge the content, but regarding wording, my impression is that the later versions are less direct and more wordy than the earlier versions. CorinneSD (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I echo your second sentence there. Less idiomatic too. Rothorpe (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Reworded things a bit, don't know if I covered your concerns ... just did some fixing. Vsmith (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus[edit]

Jytdog Hello, Jytdog! Judging from the essay you wrote on MEDRS, I believe you have a background in medicine. Would you mind reviewing these edits to Diabetes mellitus [6] and those just previous to these by the same editor? I can't judge the content or formatting of section headings, but I wonder about the sentence that contains "must" twice.

Also, I haven't seen much work on your wonderful essay. Have you forgotten all about it? Did I do too much copyediting to your draft? If so, you can always undo my edits. CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am on it! I have paid mind to your comments and have been thinking about them. i really appreciate the time you took to copyedit and give feedback. i will try to get back there today or tomorrow. i am pulled in so many directions here these days... :) Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


(1) Vsmith and Rothorpe I have just started reading the article on Stratigraphy. I want to ask you about something in a sentence. It's the first sentence in the second paragraph in the section Stratigraphy#Historical development. Here is the sentence:

  • The first practical large-scale application of stratigraphy was by William Smith in the 1790s and early 19th century.

I just wonder about "in the 1790s and early 19th century". I think the combination of two dating formats in the same phrase can throw a reader off, making him or her have to stop and think about it. I wonder whether it would be better to use the same dating format, either

  • in the 1790s and early 1800s


  • in the late 18th and early 19th century.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. The last is the neatest. Or perhaps I prefer the decades. Vsmith can decide. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Changed to early 1800s for consistency ... Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(2) Vsmith I want to ask you about another sentence. It's the second sentence in the second paragraph in the section Stratigraphy#Lithologic stratigraphy. Here it is:

  • Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios vary with time, and researchers can use them to map subtle changes in the paleoenvironment.

I know this is probably clear enough to you, but I'm wondering if it would be clearer for the average reader if "that occurred" or "that took place" were added after "subtle changes". (I believe the paleoenvironment is the very ancient environment of the rocks and rock layers, right?)

  • Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios vary with time, and researchers can use them to map subtle changes that occurred in the paleoenvironment.
  • Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios vary with time, and researchers can use them to map subtle changes that took place in the paleoenvironment.

CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

done. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(3) Vsmith Here's another question:

The section Stratigraphy#Lithologic stratigraphy has a link to the article Lithostratigraphy and starts, "Lithostratigraphy, or lithologic stratigraphy,..."

The section Stratigraphy#Biostratigraphy has a link to the article Biostratigraphy and starts, "Biostratigraphy or paleontologic stratigraphy...". Does it matter that the first section has the two-word phrase and the second section has the one-word phrase? Or is there a good reason for that? CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

done. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(4) Vsmith and Rothorpe The last paragraph in the section Stratigraphy#Chronostratigraphy is:

  • A gap or lacuna in the geological record may be caused by erosion, in which case it is called a vacuity, or by non-deposition, where is known as a stratigraphic hiatus. It is called a hiatus because deposition was on hold for a period of time. A physical lacuna may represent both a period of non-deposition and a period of erosion. A fault may cause the appearance of a hiatus.

I thought italics were used mainly for non-English words or in order to provide emphasis. I believe "lacuna" and "hiatus" are English words, and I don't think emphasis is needed here. Is there a reason why these words should be in italics? I was thinking of changing them all to regular (Roman) font and putting "on hold" in quotation marks. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree again. Maybe there was a confusion with 'words as words', which WP says should be italicised. Rothorpe (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Reword w/ another ref & left out the obscure lacuna as unneeded jargony. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(5) Vsmith I was reading the section Stratigraphy#Magnetostratigraphy, and in the first paragraph I came across this phrase: "detrital remanent magnetism (DRM)". I have two questions:

(a) Since I had never seen the word "remanent", I thought it might be a typo for "remnant". First, I looked for it in the article Magnetostratigraphy (a link is provided at the beginning of the section), but I didn't find it. Shouldn't it be there?

(b) Then, I looked up the word "remanent" in Wiktionary, and I was surprised to find it there. It is indeed a word, so I guess it's correct. Is there any way to provide a wiki-link at the word "remanent" to the definition? I know an external link there is not right; is there a way to provide a wiki-link?

Added wikt:remanent w/ pipe. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC) And then I discover remanence (discover heh, but I see it's on me watchlist). Vsmith (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by something. It seems as if "Lithostratigraphy" (or "Lithological stratigraphy"), "Biostratigraphy", and "Chronostratigraphy" are all activities or fields (that, of course, employ techniques or methods), but "Magnetostratigraphy" is a technique or method. Am I misunderstanding something? CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Made it a subheader of Chronostratigraphy as it is one technique used in chronostrat. Vsmith (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

Easter eggs on grass.jpg Happy Easter
Happy Easter.... Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Schokohase für Ostern, Vollmilchschokolade, February 2010.jpg

What do you think about this edit? I don't get it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw that and wondered about it, too. I don't get it, either. What's wrong with "Missions work"? If that's not all right, then something better has to be found. Let's ask Rothorpe what he thinks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
And anyway, Francis was not really a missionary, was he? CorinneSD (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Missions work, don't they? That's mission's work, or is it missions' work, the work of how many missions? There's a grammatical ambiguity about the phrase which is unsettling. Rothorpe (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
if:A missionary is a member of a religious group sent into an area to do evangelism or ministries of service, such as education, literacy, social justice, health care and economic development - well, no, not a missionary. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose "Missionary impulse" refers to his efforts to travel outside of Italy to bring the Word of God, as described in that section. I think I'm going to have to say that I can't make a decision on this because I don't know enough about it. What do you think of the caption to the painting on the left side in that section? Here it is:
  • Saint Francis Abandons His Father. Francis of Assisi renouncing to his father and his patrimony, laying aside even the garments he had received from him in front of the public.
Should this read, "Francis of Assisi publicly renouncing his patrimony in the presence of his father, laying aside the garments he had received from him"?
Can a person renounce his father? How about "breaking off his relationship with his father and renouncing his patrimony"? CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think - if you check the latest changes, it is that it is wrong to put Clara to mission. Yes, one can renounce his father - or mother is the person is crazy. Hafspajen (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
HafspajenOh, Hafs, I forgot to thank for for the chocolate bunny. I love chocolate. Thank you! I don't understand why you gave me a link to the edit window at Francis of Assisi; how can i see changes in the edit window? Also, I don't understand "it is that it is wrong to put Clara to mission". Do you mean "the poor Clares"? I don't understand "to mission".
When you wrote, "Yes, one can renounce his father - or mother is the person is crazy," I thinking you mean "IF the person is crazy", right? That's why I don't want to say, "he renounced his father". "Renounced his patrimony" makes sense, but not "renounced his father". If you think we should say something about the father, then I suggested, "breaking off his relationship with his father", but perhaps it is not necessary. CorinneSD (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, added your caption. yes, if it is a crazy person Looks like it doesn't work, that link. If you go in to latest edits before this user made their lasts, push previous; edit and click show changes, down you'll notice s/he changed the heather, and put the whole material iof The Poor Clares and the Third Order under Missions work - and that is wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean this? [7] In this edit, the editor moved the information about the founding of the Poor Clares and a third order (of laity, etc.) to a subsection (Founding of the Friars Minor) under the larger section Francis of Assisi#Founding of the Franciscan Orders. Since the Poor Clares was founded in 1211, only one year after the Franciscan order was founded, this organization makes sense. It's not under "Missions work" (now "Missionary impulse"). CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Got that now. Revered to his-her version. But missionary impulse sounds crazy to me.Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Rothorpe and Rwood128 Can you think of a better section heading than "Missionary impulse". I know what the editor was thinking. It's just that that phrase is a bit strange. If you read the first two paragraphs of that section, you'll see that Francis was moved to spread the Word of God outside of Italy, and made several trips and attempted trips, but he didn't really spend much time as a missionary. So he was moved, or motivated, to be, well, I guess it's not really a missionary but rather an evangelist, for a short time. Would "Evangelism" or "Early evangelistic efforts", or something like that, make more sense? CorinneSD (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. Or 'Evangelistic impulse' indeed, or does that sound odd too? Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, while it may be true that Francis was acting on a type of impulse (to spread the Word of God outside of Italy) when he made (or attempted to make) his few trips, I don't think it's the best word, partly because the paragraphs don't discuss anything about the internal workings of his mind; they merely describe the trips, and one attempted trip. I'd like to hear what Rwood128 and Hafspajen think. CorinneSD (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I cannot do anything now, but will try and look at this tomorrow. Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


See this.] Sca (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sca Thanks for the link to the video. I enjoyed watching it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


Can you look at just that section? Various people reworked it. No need to ask me about changes, I didn't write it so feel free to just change as you see fit. Thank you. HalfGig talk 01:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog As you can see, HalfGig has asked me to copyedit a section of the article on Cucurbita. (I had already done a lot of copyediting on this article a while ago, getting it ready for FA; there has already been a peer review, and I believe it has been promoted to FA.) Early in this section I saw the word "antihelmintic". Since I had always seen "antihelminthic", I thought it might be a typographical error, so I clicked on the link and saw that the WP article is titled "Antihelmintic", with that and "antihelmenthic" given as alternate spellings. Is this a British English/American English difference, or is "antihelmintic" really the more common spelling. I'm just puzzled. CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
American English. See top of talk page. HalfGig talk 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
HalfGig What's American English? Which one? I read the entire talk page and didn't see anything related to this. The first comment at the bottom of the page has two alternate spellings but not the alternates that are now at the beginning of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Go to the talk page and search for "This article is written in American English ", it's the second box on the page, right under the article milestones box. HalfGig talk 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog Which spelling and pronunciation would you consider to be American English: antihelmintic or antihelminthic? [8] (See comments just above.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
well, neither! I would go with with NLM's MESH term, "anthelmintic". This is the same term the Merck Manuals use ( see here for example) and for whatever it's worth, what our article is called: Anthelmintic. sorry that is orthogonal to the choices Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

HalfGig and Peter coxhead I was going to put this on the article's talk page, but I don't want to overwhelm anybody (except you guys), so I'll post it here:

Folk remedies

I know that because sentences are paraphrased from various sources, it is not easy to form a cohesive paragraph in which the sentences flow smoothly from one to the next, but I thought I'd ask for feedback and/or suggestions regarding the section Cucurbita#Folk remedies. I noticed that the verb tenses change from sentence to sentence to such an extent that the sentences do not flow well and the paragraph has a choppy feel (and it's not just the verb tenses). I'm looking right now at the first paragraph in that section, and I will copy it here with the verbs highlighted in boldface so that they are easy to see. I have also numbered the sentences for ease of discussion.

(1) Cucurbita have been used in various cultures as folk remedies. (2) Pumpkins have been used by Native Americans to treat intestinal worms and urinary ailments; this Native American remedy was adopted by American doctors in the early nineteenth century as an anthelmintic for the expulsion of worms. (3) Seeds of C. pepo were used in southeastern Europe to treat irritable bladder and benign prostatic hyperplasia. (4) In Germany, pumpkin seed is approved for use by the Commission E, which assesses folk and herbal medicine, for irritated bladder conditions and micturition problems of prostatic hyperplasia stages 1 and 2, although the monograph published in 1985 noted a lack of pharmacological studies that could substantiate empirically found clinical activity. (5) The FDA in the United States, on the other hand, banned the sale of all such non-prescription drugs for the treatment of prostate enlargement in 1990.

(1) The first sentence uses present perfect tense (have been used) but gives no indication of when, how often, or to what extent. It's quite general. Presumably, the sentences which follow will supply the details, and they do, but notice the tenses.

(2) The second sentence has two clauses. The verb in the first clause is in present perfect tense (have been used), with no indication of when, how often, or to what extent – and since this sentence is giving examples supporting the first sentence, it really should give more of such an indication of time. The second clause (following a semi-colon) gives one detail of how this Native American remedy was adopted by American doctors in the 19th century. However, the present perfect tense in the first clause allows for the possibility, and to some extent suggests, that the use of pumpkins by Native Americans has continued up to the present. (However, the use of present perfect tense ("have been used") could also mean that pumpkins were used just a few times in the past.) Thus, the second clause "adopted..." is not about how Native Americans used the remedy; it is about the use of the remedy by [North] American doctors. Only by inference do we learn that Native Americans used the remedy in the 19th century, but it doesn't say anything about the centuries before or the century after. (The phrase "for the expulsion of worms" is not really necessary because an "antihelmintic" (or antihelminthic) means a remedy for the expulsion of worms.) If the sources support it, I suggest adding the adverb "long", but it would really be better to use a more precise phrase:

Pumpkins have long been used by Native Americans to treat intestinal worms and urinary ailments.

(3) The third sentence switches to past tense (were used). Since this sentence is another example of the use of Cucurbita in various cultures, introducing a use in another part of the world, I recommend putting the place first in the sentence: "In southeastern Europe, seeds of C. pepo were used..." However, the verb is in past tense, which suggests either that it was a one-time use at some time in the past, or that it was used in the past but no longer is used. If the remedy is still used today, or up until recently, the verb should be in present perfect tense ("have been used"). If the remedy was used in the past, some indication of the time when it was used would be helpful. To say something was used without giving the time leaves the reader wondering, "When was this? How long ago was this?" and "Why "was used"? Was it used only once or was it something that was common in the past but is no longer, and if so, why is it no longer used?"

(4) In the fourth sentence, it says pumpkin "is approved for use", but it doesn't say that it is used, so it is a little different from all the other examples. Also, the adverbial clause beginning "although": "although the monograph published in 1985...", qualifying the status of "approved" in the first clause, mentions "the monograph" when no monograph has been mentioned. To fix this, either "the monograph" needs to be changed to "a monograph" or a phrase explaining which monograph this was needs to be added (something like "the monograph published in 1985 that led to the approval").

(5) The fifth sentence states a fact, that the FDA "banned the sale of all such non-prescription drugs for the treatment of prostate enlargement in 1990", indicating a contrast to the German approval for that condition. It would be nice (and would support the first, or topic, sentence of the paragraph better) if there were some indication of the use (and status of approval) of any species of Cucurbita for treatment of any medical condition in the U.S., not just pumpkin and not just for treatment of prostate enlargement.

I know this is a rather detailed analysis, but if someone has the time and patience to follow it and knows the subject matter, some small tweaks to address the issues I've raised would probably produce a better paragraph. CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And folks, that's what passes for an "improved" paragraph on wiki. I already fixed their atrocious referencing formatting, or more accurately lack thereof. Someone that's good at copyediting should do these fixes. Thanks Corinne, good catches. HalfGig talk 21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I can do the one or two minor ones, but I can't supply missing words, phrases, or information. CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Basically, if past tense is used, the time when it occurred should be given. If present perfect tense is used, either a starting point should be given ("Since....") or the length of time should be given ("For X years/centuries,..") OR that sentence should be followed by examples giving specific times. CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Call in the people that created this mess of an "improved" section. HalfGig talk 02:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Casliber You are probably aware of what happened a few weeks ago at Cucurbita. See Talk:Cucurbita#Alternative medicine section. In the course of that discussion (and, I suppose, accompanying edits), two of the editors who had worked very hard for months on that article to get it promoted to Featured article status – User:HalfGig and User:Sminthopsis84 – were so upset they gave up on the article, and Sminthopsis84 actually left WP for a few weeks. I recently got a request for help on copyediting the section Cucurbita#Folk remedies from HalfGig. See User talk:CorinneSD#Cucurbita#Folk_Remedies. I read the section, made a few minor copy-edits, and then wrote up a detailed analysis of what was wrong with the prose of the first paragraph. I felt it just needed a little work from someone who understood both my comments and the subject matter to fix it. Then I realized that HalfGig was so disgusted by what had been done to the section by other editors that s/he didn't want to work on it. See replies at the end of my comment on my talk page and additional comments at User talk:HalfGig#Cucurbita 2. I don't fully understand why HalfGig and Sminthopsis84 were, and still are, upset, nor at whom, but since HalfGig suggested I ask for help at WikiProject Plants, that's what I did, and I found your name on the list. After reading all this, could you do whatever needs to be done to improve the prose and the reference formatting in this section of the Cucurbita article? I don't know what else to do. CorinneSD (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Ummm, no. I wasn't aware of any of this. Need to digest this, which will take a bit of time and think about what to do next. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok - have a better idea of things now. Will have to hope offline for a bit though. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir[edit]

Hafspajen and Rothorpe I was looking at the latest edit to Pierre-Auguste Renoir. [9] I wanted to see if the change was made due to a desire for political correctness or for accuracy. If I read the article correctly, in 1867 Renoir was not married, so I guess "mistress" could not be correct. However, I feel that, even if "lover" is more correct, the way the sentence is worded places too much emphasis on it. I thought if I reverse the name and the phrase, it would de-emphasize "his lover at the time". I would change from:

  • Renoir had his first success at the Salon of 1868 with his painting Lise with a Parasol (1867), which depicted his lover at the time, Lise Tréhot.


  • Renoir had his first success at the Salon of 1868 with his painting Lise with a Parasol (1867), which depicted Lise Tréhot, his lover at the time.

I also think this order, giving the name first, shows more respect for the woman. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • To be precise, Renoir had so many woman that he didn't really had any ... lovers - not in the meaning that he was inloved with them, he had sexual partners, yeah. Manet had a lover. Renoir had several women at the same time sometimes... I don't know the right definition of the word, a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship is probably not. But he was severely promiscuous. Lover sounds .. to nice. Hafspajen (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't know that. I think the word "lover" can be used even if the relationship is brief. I may be wrong, but I thought the word "mistress" is used for a lover of a married man (ie., not his wife), but if I'm wrong, then perhaps "mistress" can be used here. CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Corinne. Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I am not an English expert, I guess you are both right. Hafspajen (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
So, "lover" is O.K., then? What about my other question about re-ordering the words? CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
In both respects. Sorry, I was being brief after a couple of ecs. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Was probably inspired by this
On another topic, I don't understand the comment about the painting of Gaudioso at FP. I would agree with him only if the claim is being made that it is an accurate portrait of Gaudioso, but I don't think that is being claimed, is it? CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it certainly isn't. Strange comment. Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it certainly isn't. Strange comment. Hafspajen (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen and Rothorpe I forgot to tell you: about two weeks ago, I was driving on a highway and I saw about sixteen turkeys just at the side of the road! I had never seen so many in one place. There were about three adults, and the rest were all young. (Turkeys seem to know to stay off the roadway.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course! It's been a long time since I've seen the folks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you people interested in writing an article? [10] here, check, [11] - this is a good painting. If it had an article - could easily be a FP. Are you interested ? Hafspajen (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind writing the article. I'm not particularly crazy about that painting (I"d like to see more of his paintings), but he seems like he was an interesting person with varied interests. Is that text with the painting what needs to be paraphrased? CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That painting is an important work.... Hafspajen (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... The one I like best is "Near Sorrento". I'll work on the paraphrasing tomorrow. Too tired now. What about my comment below? We need a picture of young turkeys in the Turkey (bird) article. CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hafs, there is no picture in the article on Turkeys that shows young turkeys. Can you find one? CorinneSD (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Also, in your comment at Gaudioso, you might want to fix a typo. You have, "In he above reasoning". I think you mean "In the above reasoning". CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Must I find a young Turkey? I like them big... Hafspajen (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about turkeys here. Young turkeys are cute. They also look different from adult turkeys. CorinneSD (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
They don't look young enough here... Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. There is only one photo that shows a young "poullet", but it's not a clear photo. What do you think about adding this one to the article?
This photo shows turkeys the way they really look.


Hafspajen Do you agree with this edit to Bog and the ones just previous to it by the same editor? [12] CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Hafspajen (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope you'll work your magic on the article. (If you need to consult anyone on content, ask User:Vsmith.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Or, forget that last comment. I just remembered that you are a landscape architect, so you must know about bogs, and I can see the work you are now doing on the article. CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
One should leave significant illustration in article if enough place, and that article was well illustrated. Put back some, moved gallery to end. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ÖÖö, content? I am still a landscape architect... should know a bit about bogs... Face-smile.svgHafspajen (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I remembered after I wrote that. CorinneSD (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Hafspajen Do you agree with this edit to Pollarding? [13] I don't know whether it's important here, but I notice that it's unsourced. Also, even if the statement is all right, is it in the right place? If you approve of the sentence, I will fix the sentence structure a bit.

Yes, that is fully OK.

Also, did you see all the edits made just before that by an unregistered editor (red user name)? CorinneSD (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Check (I) Hafspajen (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Society of Jesus[edit]

Hafspajen I was looking at this edit to Society of Jesus [14]. I thought other Wikipedia articles are not to be used as sources. Also, I noticed that the entire paragraph is unsourced. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

True, other Wikipedia articles are not to be used as sources. Unfortunately know nothing about Jesuits in USA. But you who live there could easily find sources... Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Noo, **** - and it's cruel![edit]

Castanea sativa
Castanea sativa
Knotwilgen knotten

Pollarding All WRONG. Hafspajen (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • No way you use plums, absolutely NOT. NO WAY using that. No Junipers, (Juniperus spp), generally not dogwoods (Cornus spp), but theses were in the article already. Someone must look through that.
  • None of theses are typical or used at all. NOT very typical, sweet chestnut Castanea sativa(?), ahem Aesculus but not Castanea, ...plums, cherries, peaches, nectarines, apricots and almonds???? (Prunus spp) err, ... they are prone to bleeding sap, sumachs -well, - about - birch (Betula spp), not too sure. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Ash, yes, willows yes. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This source is used all over Wiki articles, but I never heard of this author or book. 'HDRA encyclopedia of organic gardening by Pauline Spears - ??? Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In Spain and Italy Castanea sativa is pollarded, a lot, I don't know why. These images are typical of chestnut orchards. On a lighter note, apparently the author's name is Pauline Pears, as on the book cover! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think pollarding is cruel to the tree. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
You may have a point there. It's typical for Dutch "knotwilgen," though. I didn't know that "lei-lindes" also fall into this category. We've got four of them in the front-yard; I think they're very "burgerlijk," and would like to replace them by "meidoord" and the like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
"meidoord" are good; they bite back if someone tries to cut them, and the wood is very hard. Mispel, Crataegus germanica are good too, such as 'Dutch giant'; makes wonderful jelly that seems to work synergistically to be even better with cream cheese. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, indeed. Can't say I am an expert on Castanea sativa, we can barely manage to make it survive here, much less start pollarding it. The main reason why it was done here to obtain those thin, strait willow branches, to use it making different structures baskets and soon - and to feed it to animals, sometimes, too. Why on earth is he using Pauline Spears if she is called Pauline Pears? Hafspajen (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hypercorrecting what someone thought was a typo?? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-arranged talkpage[edit]

Hi Corinne. I did some re-arranging; only the welcome-message is still not okay, I think. If you don't like all this, please revert. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Thank you, Joshua! It looks very nice. (Perhaps the image of the purple painting is a little large; I have my screen zoomed to 150% so it is very large on my screen.) That's a very interesting painting by Mondriaan. Not only had I never seen that painting before, I had completely forgotten all about Mondriaan, so now I'm going to read the article on him. I don't understand why you put the tag "Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen" if it was you who decorated (that is, re-arranged) my talk page. Does that phrase simply refer to the fact that Hafs often puts various images on my talk page? If so, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It refers to Haf's decoration service, indeed. I'll resize the image. Which of the two headers do you prefer? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added MiszaBot. This automatically archivates threads at your talkpage. I've configurated it for archivating threads after three months, with minimally 10 threads left. when an archive grows larger than 200K, a new archive is automatically started. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but could you tell me what a thread is? Also, JJ, it's archives, and configured. In both words you added an extra syllable, "ates" or "ated". Those syllables appear in other words, like ruminate, laminate, contemplate, and percolate. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A thread is an item on a talkpage, like this subsection. Did I use the wrong word? Ah, yes: my "Dutchanisms" again - "gearchiveerd," "geconfigureerd." Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier[edit]

Hi Corinne. Thank you for your comments there. You said, "I thought William Avery did a pretty good job of summarizing your points", but perhaps you meant me? Alakzi (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi Thanks for pointing that out. I immediately fixed it in my comment. Since I hadn't read all the preceding comments, I guess I misunderstood some things, but I had read earlier comments on the same page about two weeks ago. I also don't think the comment to which I was responding was especially clear. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I do generally try to disengage after a couple of replies when people seem very passionate - for want of a better word. The points the editor has made appear to reflect a certain ideology, which might be difficult to challenge at this time and in this setting. Wikipedia is often not the friendliest of places, and, when it comes to infoboxes, people have learned to assume the worst. Alakzi (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi Thanks for your thoughts. I was distressed by all the sniping and nasty comments on that page. It's so unnecessary and counterproductive. I personally like infoboxes. What I think people who oppose infoboxes don't understand is that people like to get their information in different ways, and not always the same way; it depends upon what they're looking for and how much time they have to spend at that moment. I don't find infoboxes distracting at all. Sometimes I don't even look at it and go right into the article. But I'm not going to argue over it. There are many other less stressful things to do. I'm just curious – why don't you register so that your user name will turn blue, and then you can create an interesting user page. CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I am registered - I've just not got around to creating a user page yet. I'm quite secretive by nature, so I've had a bit of trouble deciding what to put there. Maybe I could link to some of the music I've been listening to. :-) Alakzi (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. Why don't you spend some time looking at various editors' user pages? They're all different, and some are quite creative, and you could get some ideas from them. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Corinne, thanks for "try to disengage" and user page suggestion, a topic not discussed for the first time, see? - What do you think of the project of the outcasts, with as many active women as men, and (dangerous) thoughts about infoboxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── He's done it! Alakzi (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Thanks for your comments and for the links. Those are interesting pages. I guess I'll join the project. Your "thoughts about infoboxes" page is succinct and very nicely organized. Alakzi I'm glad you made a user page. Congratulations! It's a good start. Just a suggestion (you don't have to follow it, of course): My first reaction when I read, "Greetings, stranger,..." was that I was no longer a stranger, so "stranger" was jarring. I think that even your friends might occasionally visit your user page, and they might be taken aback by "stranger". How about just, "Greetings"? CorinneSD (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite right, thank you. Alakzi (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Isamu Noguchi[edit]

Hafspajen and Rothorpe What do you think of this edit to Isamu Noguchi? [15] If you think it's all right, a missing space needs to be added. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourced and looks OK. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I thrust Rothorpe on this one. Hafspajen (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your message. Frankly I am shocked and devastated. I had no idea about this, unfortunately I was out of communication since January. She is wonderful and always will be. Again, thank you for letting me know. (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC))


Evening Tones

I think I found an artist for you you might like. Oscar Bluemner. Article needs copyed, though. --Hafspajen (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read the article shortly. This particular painting is somewhat dark, but I like some of the others that are in the article. His use of color is similar to Robert Delaunay's.

Eiffel Tower, by Robert Delaunay, 1926.
Form and Light, by Oscar Bluemner, 1914.

CorinneSD (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

this is the one

Hafspajen Hafs, I just read the article on Oscar Bluemner and made a few copy-edits. In the two block quotes in the section Oscar Bluemner#Later years, I found a number of typographical (spelling) errors. In the second quote, one of them has "[sic]" after it, indicating, as you know, that that is the way it appeared in the original, but none of the other errors have that. I tried to check the text of the first quote (NYTimes) but couldn't get access to the entire article. Can you find the original text in the source for both quotes? If you can, I'd be glad to point out the errors, here, and you can compare to the original.

  • Also, there is a table with one image from the Corcoran Gallery in it. I clicked on the link at the painting to see it but it did not lead anywhere, so I couldn't see the painting.
  • Finally, there is a statement toward the end of the article about one of his paintings that brought a huge price at a sale in 2011, I think it was. It would be nice to show that painting in the article, if possible. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I try. Hafspajen (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Can't we put the image of the painting Illusion of a Prairie, New Jersey... right next to the sentence in Oscar Bluemner#Legacy that tells about its sale? It's your call, Hafs. CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. Hafs, I have been noticing that, in Edit Mode, there is a red circle (in a small gray box) with a white "X" in the middle of it at the right margin, next to the file names of images in articles. What is that? Is that something new? I never noticed it before. Or have I inadvertently enabled something? CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Where? Hafspajen (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I see it here in this section, in the Bluemner article, and in the Bernini article. In Edit Mode, near the right margin, next to image files. CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Noooo ... nothing. ... ? Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that too, one per image. No idea what it might mean. Rothorpe (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Red X[edit]

Printscreen CorinneSD; she's got a question on the "red x"

Joshua Jonathan and Hafspajen See on-going discussion in response to my request for help at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)#Red X next to image files in Edit Mode. This started at about the same time JJ re-did my talk page. Is there anything you might have done, JJ, that might have caused this? I'm happy about the page; I'm just trying to figure out how to get rid of the red X's. Rothorpe said he sees the red X, too. Note that it's only in edit mode. CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that here, in this section, in Edit Mode, the image file names are red -- just the file name, not the size details or caption. I checked in an article (Gian Lorenzo Bernini) and went into Edit Mode and saw that all of the image file names are colored. One is red; the others are all blue. I don't remember seeing file names in color before. What color are they for you, in Edit Mode? (I have wikEd enabled, but I have for a long time.) CorinneSD (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added the screenshot; it's got to do with WikEd. I guess the red is just a handy took to find the pictures; maybe the red x has got the same function. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Why is it I don't see your Flensburg question on my talk page? Sca (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because I added it to a section on Flensburg that was already there from a while ago. I guess I should have pinged you. It's at User talk:Sca#Flensburg, fairly high up on your talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Patience Wright[edit]

Hafspajen I left a note for Vsmith on his talk page at User talk:Vsmith#Patience Wright, and he replied, but, before I do any combining, I thought I'd ask you what you thought since Patience Wright was a sculptor. If you want to do the combining and/or adding "citation needed" tags, please feel free to do so. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen I saw your edits and the note you left on Vsmith's page. I looked for the tag you said you placed "at the top" but didn't see it. Where is it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire[edit]

Rwood128 and Rothorpe What do you think of this edit to New Hampshire, and the edit summary? [16] Maybe the statement about same-sex marriage can't be said to be an example of a libertarian spirit, but I think the statement about N.H. being the only state that does not require adults to wear seatbelts while driving is. (I don't know much about libertarianism; I'm just assuming it means a spirit of letting people do what they want to do as much as possible.) If no introductory sentences are included, it can sound just like a list of unrelated facts. What do you think?

Editorialising, so correctly removed. Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


I just finished reading and copy-editing most of the Gian Lorenzo Bernini article. I noticed that there are two pictures of the Fountain of Four Rivers (Fontana dei Quattro Fiume, or something like that) in the article. Do you want both of them? CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen (I just realized that I had forgotten to ping you for the comment just above.)
Hafspajen and Rothorpe I have nearly finished reading the article and have made a number of copy-edits. I have come across a sentence that I need to ask you about. It is in the middle of the second paragraph in the section Gian Lorenzo Bernini#First biographies of Bernini. Here it is:
  • This would mean that first, the commission did not at all originate in Queen Christina who would have merely lent her name as patron (in order to hide the fact that the biography was coming directly from the family) and secondly, that Baldinucci's narrative was largely derived from some pre-publication version of Domenico Bernini's much longer biography of his father, as evidenced by the extremely large amount of text repeated verbatim (there is no other explanation, otherwise, for the massive amount of verbatim repetition, and it is known that Baldinucci routinely copied verbatim material for his artists' biographies supplied by family and friends of his subjects).
(1) I think the sentence is too long.
(2) I question the statement that the second noun clause ("that Baldinucci's narrative...") logically follows the statement in the previous sentence:
  • ...recent research now strongly suggests that it was in fact Bernini's sons...who commissioned the biography from Baldinucci.
In fact, the proof of "that Baldinucci's narrative was largely derived from..." lies in what follows ("as evidenced by..."), not what precedes "This would mean that".
Hafspajen, you know, or can look up, the original text from which this was presumably paraphrased. Once we know what it is supposed to say, together we can come up with a more accurate and more concise sentence (or two). CorinneSD (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In my first set of edits to the article, you will see this:
  • The St Peter's Baldacchino was the centrepiece of this. Designed as a massive spiralling bronze canopy over the tomb of St Peter, Bernini's four-pillared creation reached nearly 30 m (98 ft) from the ground and cost around 200,000 Roman scudi (about $8m in currency of the early 21st century).[1]


  1. ^ For the conversion of 17th-century Roman scudi to modern American dollars, see Mormando, "Bernini: His Life and His Rome", 2011, pp. xvii-xix, Money, Wages, and Cost of Living in Baroque Rome.
When I was going through the article, I saw this reference in Edit Mode. It had the two separate single quotation marks at the beginning of "Bernini: His Life and His Rome" and double quotation marks at the end of that title. I didn't know whether it was supposed to be in italics or not, so I changed the first separate single quotation marks (for italics) to a pair of double quotation marks. I believe that if it is a book title, it should be in italics, and if it is either a monograph or a chapter in a book, it should be in double quotation marks. Is that right? Could somebody check to see which it is, so we can be sure the title is in the right formatting? In other words, Bernini: His Life and His Rome or "Bernini: His Life and His Rome". (I see a title right after that: "Money, Wages, and Cost of Living in Baroque Rome", but it is in neither italics nor double quotation marks, so I don't know what that is.) CorinneSD (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Haffen and Garvin[edit]

Have you looked at the Louis M. Haffen article? It outlines the scandal lightly referred to in the Bluemner article, caused by Haffen's favouring Garvin over Bluemner who was the real designer of the Haffen Building. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Rothorpe Thank you, Rothorpe. I just read the Haffen article (made a few edits, as usual), then revised the Oscar Bluemner article. CorinneSD (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Right! Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured Content[edit]

We would like to have a group discussion on Skype text chat with everyone on the FC team. In a few days, User:Go Phightins! will contact you privately to coordinate this. Please let him know about your availability if you are willing to participate. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel Thank you for telling me about this. I didn't even know I was on the FC team, but I'm glad to learn that I am. I will tell Go Phightins about my availability. I've never used Skype, but I see it is installed on my computer. It sounds like I can use Skype with only text, not using the webcam or microphone. Is that right? CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, anyone can be on whatever team they want. Skype allows text only chat; the Signpost editors do it all the time. I don't even have a microphone or webcam on my computer. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Go Phightins! Am I supposed to tell you my available times here? CorinneSD (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, twice[edit]

WPPilot I just saw the two photos of your wonderful cat and read what you wrote under the photos about her passing. I don't know when this was, but I just wanted to say how sorry I am. It sounds like you and your cat had a great friendship, and that you took really good care of her. I hope you will get another cat. I am also sorry that you and Hafspajen aren't getting along. I hope it is a temporary thing, and that things will change in the future. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ya well thank you for the thoughts, she really was the world to me and I can not believe that it has been brought back to the limelight in this manner. She was a sweetheart, and not a day passes that I don't miss her. Your kind to mention it and thank you for the thoughts, I am at a loss as to how to deal with this. I would love it if you would e mail me, gets to me and your invited to use it. talk→ WPPilot  23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Sminthopsis84 and Rothorpe I wonder if you would review the latest group of edits to Ginger. [17] While there were perhaps too many instances of "also", I think some adverbs improve sentence flow and make the writing more interesting. With no modifiers, writing can sometimes sound dull. I'm wondering if you want to revert the whole lot, and then make selected edits, or revert a few individually. CorinneSD (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Too many edits in one edit is inconsiderate to other editors. Rothorpe (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm guilty of that; see my edits to Gian Lorenzo Bernini; but they're mostly punctuation. Did I make too many in one edit? CorinneSD (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that's six small edits, which is fine: any one can easily be reverted without having to put a lot of changes back. Whereas the change you linked to above... Rothorpe (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, those removals were made without much regard to the meaning. I've changed some back and removed some duplication, but didn't look systematically for duplication. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Graphic artist who likes molluscs and spiders[edit]

Apokryltaros and Vsmith Have you seen this editor's user page? User:KDS4444 He creates some fantastic graphics. CorinneSD (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Utterly fabulous.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Apokryltaros I can't tell whether you are serious or are teasing me. CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't joke about talent as great as KDS4444's.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. It's just that I hadn't seen you use that phrase before (and can't see your expression or hear the tone in your voice). I agree with you, though, about his talent. Really outstanding. CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I hadn't seen those before - and I agree utterly fabulous. Altho' I prefer my molluscids and nautiloids fossilized. Vsmith (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
How does one go about illustrating the internal parts of an extinct mollusc? CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

KDS4444 If you haven't seen the comments just above this, bask in them now. I asked a kind of rhetorical question, but you could probably answer it (if you want to). I've pinged you, though, because I was just looking at the article Rhombohedron, and I noticed that in the table in Rhombohedron#Special cases, there is no illustration for a General rhombic prism. Also, below the table, there are four bullets, each item expanding on one of the columns in the table. However, there is no bullet for the fifth column, General rhombohedron. Very puzzling. CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen[edit]

Hafspajen and Crisco 1492 I just read the article on Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (I should have read it before I voted at FP) and made a few copy-edits. I came across a sentence that is not clear to me. It's at the end of the fourth paragraph in the section Career. Here is the sentence:

  • Other paintings such as The Nativity (1512) and Saul and the Witch of Endor were visually similar to what the Catholic essays patrons were writing.

I don't understand the clause "what the Catholic essays patrons were writing". Grammatically, it doesn't make sense. What are "Catholic essays patrons"?

Also, the painting Saul and the Witch of Endor is mentioned twice in this section but I don't see the painting in the article. Don't you think since the painting is mentioned it should, if possible, be in the article? CorinneSD (talk)

Dirck Jacobsz.[edit]

Joshua Jonathan I just finished reading and copy-editing the article Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (which I read because of a painting at FP). Then I just started reading the article on one of his sons, Dirck Jacobsz. In the section Dirck Jacobsz#Career, I saw his father's name, Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, with a period at the end of "Cornelisz". Since I had just finished reading his article and had not seen his name – or any name – written with a period even once, I thought it was a typo, so I removed the period. Then, right after that, I read,

  • He married Marritgen Gerritsdr. in 1550, and they had two children, Maria Dircksdr. and Jacob Dircksz.

I see a period after "Gerritsdr." and after "Dircksdr." Then I noticed the period after "Jacobsz" in the title of the article. Now I'm totally confused. Where is the period correct, and needed? What does the period signify? CorinneSD (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Mysterious. We need a Dutch. Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the period is correct. The full name is "Jacobszoon", "Jacob's son." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Even in the titles of the two articles? Does "Cornelisz" mean "Corneliszoon," or "Cornelis' son"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Dutch, I just discovered (on NL WP) that Dutch for 'War of Independence' is OnafhankelijkheidsoorlogFace-tongue.svg Sca (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Sca Wow. Sounds difficult to say. Sca, why did you change your mind about your request that I remove my qualifying statement at my "Support" vote on the featured pictures talk page, regarding that statement to encourage editors to explain their votes? You posted a request, then removed it. What made you change your mind? Also, why did you not agree with me there? CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ohn-ahff-hahn'-kel-ides-oar'-lokhh – nothin' to it, once you learn the Dutch G, which is sort of a cross between gargling and coughing. Face-grin.svg
Re your question, let's just say I got confused by my own previous rhetoric. I guess "support" isn't nec. And, let the chips fall.... Sca (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I found it interesting that Hull asked Albozagros, or whatever his name is, to explain his statement (which, admittedly, was not clear, but A. is a non-native speaker of English, so we're kind of used to his writing), then posted a statement written in correct English but which made little sense. CorinneSD (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Frans Hals[edit]

Hafspajen I just started reading the article on Frans Hals. In the first paragraph in the section Frans Hals#Biography is the following sentence:

  • His Mannerist influence, however, is not noticeably visible in his work.

This sentence has two instances of "his", and the previous sentence mentions two males: Frans Hals and Karel van Mander. I'd like to clear up any possible confusion as to who each "his" refers to. Am I right in thinking "his" in "His Mannerist influence" means van Mander's Mannerist influence, and that "his" in the phrase "in his work" means Frans Hals' work? If I am right, I would re-word this sentence:

  • Van Mander's Mannerist influence, however, is not noticeably visible in Hals' work,

or even this more concise version:

  • Van Mander's Mannerist influence, however, is not noticeable in Hals' work, or
  • Van Mander's Mannerist influence, however, is barely noticeable in Hals' work.

What do you think? Rothorpe What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and how about joining the sentences? '...whose Mannerist influence...'? Rothorpe (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Good idea. I'll go ahead and select "is barely noticeable in Hals' work" to finish the sentence, but if Hafs wants to choose another ending, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Looks like our friend is in trouble. Sca (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my removal of unreferenced content[edit]

Please be advised that your revert to restore deleted unreferenced content in the lead section of the Gertrude Bell article breaks Wikipedia rules. Content that has been deleted as unreferenced cannot be restored without providing an adequate reference or references. Your edit summary was inaccurate - there is no content in the body of the article that contains the deleted claim. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield I disagree with you. In my edit summary [18], I said the information was supported by information contained in the body of the article.
1) In the second paragraph in the section Gertrude Bell#War and political career, we read:
  • Later, she was asked by British Intelligence to get soldiers through the deserts;
2) In the section Gertrude Bell#Work in the Middle East, we read:
  • In November 1915, however, she was summoned to Cairo to the nascent Arab Bureau;
  • Under recommendation by renowned archaeologist and historian Lt. Cmdr. David Hogarth, first Lawrence, then Bell, were assigned to Army Intelligence Headquarters in Cairo in 1915 for war service.
Although the word "spy" is not specifically used, I believe it is understood that when one works for British Intelligence, one is a spy.
Also, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, particularly the second paragraph:
  • Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
Thus, if a statement in the lead that is not controversial is supported by sourced information in the body of the article, the source does not have to be given in the lead.
I also disagree with you regarding the word "skill". I think a person's skill at most anything can be improved through experience. In addition, a person may possess innate skill at something. Since this statement has to do with policy-making, I think "skill" is the better word here. CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
If the word "spy" is not used in any sources, the article cannot use the word "spy" simply because an editor considers something equates to being a spy. BTW, I see nothing in her life that equates to it. And it is a very controversial claim to make - you cannot make it without strong sources to support it. No sources have been presented to support it. A lead, as the advice says, is meant to just summarize what is in the body. There is NO content in the article to support the word spy being inserted in the lead. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I am going to put the content issue part of the above onto the article's talk page, and ask that if you want to continue this we take it to the article's talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but can I ask you to revert your recent edit to the GB talk page since you are duplicating my post by reproducing my words and also having off topic things in it like my advice on reverting edits that remove unreferenced content, and the discussion on the skill versus knowledge wording. You could present your reasoning below my reasoning on the talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive parameter[edit]

Hallo Corinne. I've changed one of the parameters of MiszaBot for the moment, to see if it works. If it does, a lot of threads will be archived one of these days. NB: it is also possible to configure your archives to have an archive for each year, andit's even possible to have a separate archive archive for each month. How about those options? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It works! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
NB: I've set the parameter at 30 days; that is, when nothing is added to a thread within the last 30 days, it will be archived. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment at WP Village Pump (technical)[edit]

Thanks for pointing out my double negative -- I've edited the passage and added a suitable edit summary. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating[edit]

Vsmith I suggested a re-wording of a sentence at Radiocarbon dating to Mike Christie a few days ago – see User talk:Mike Christie#Radiocarbon dating, starting from the short line, "I see the sentence you just added." There were a few permutations of the sentence, with me trying to word the sentence so that it expresses the right thing but is also a well-constructed and concise sentence, and Mike was very nice about my suggestions. Then, before I made the change to my new version, I read the sentence again in context (which I had only done briefly when I first saw it in the edit history), and I thought perhaps the way it was now written was better, even though less concise, and I said so to Mike. He said he "marginally prefers" the way it is now. My question to you is (a) do you also prefer the way it is now, and (b) if so, which word do you think is better, "jointly" or "collectively"? Or do you want to suggest a different wording? By the way, the article was just promoted to FA, and Mike was the editor who did the most work on it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Made the change. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Close-up on"[edit]

I see a lot of pages in which images have captions with the phrase "close-up on". (The latest I noticed was in Asparagus racemosus.) Maybe this is an age thing, or perhaps a trans-Atlantic difference, but it grates on me; I would write "close-up of". I'd be interested in your view. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter coxhead I agree with you. I have never even heard of (or seen) "close-up on". Is it perhaps Indian English? Is it possible some non-native speakers of English are confusing the noun "a close-up", formed from the adjective "close [to]", with the verb, to close in on? In any case, I would change "on" to "of" whenever you see it. I wonder if it is given as an alternate in some dictionaries (why, I wouldn't know). CorinneSD (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think they might derive it from "focus on"; the focus of the picture is on the flower, and hence it's a close-up "on" the flower. The caption was added by a French speaker. I wonder if it is given as an alternate ... While we're on the topic of cross-Atlantic differences, see alternate vs. alternative. Alakzi (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my fingers always itch to correct "alternate" when it doesn't mean "every other one", which is its only meaning in my British English dialect, but I know that Americans use it differently... Peter coxhead (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I can understand An image focusing on X, but not A focus on X as a caption. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for "alternate". [19] Notice that the fourth definition says, "Alternative, [Definition] 3," and when you look at Definition 3 for "alternative", it is a meaning different from "every other". Here's the full definition for "alternative": [20]. (I often have trouble knowing which to use. I use what sounds right, which is not very academic. CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Oracles[edit]

Gerda Arendt I'm almost finished reading the article on the Chaldean Oracles. In the second paragraph in the section Chaldean Oracles#State of the text, it mentions a W. Kroll. I'm wondering if this is Wilhelm Kroll. Is there any way you could determine this? If it is Wilhelm Kroll, I'd like to write the name out in full and link it to the WP article. Also, shouldn't there be a reference there? CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks highly likely. How about linking and making a note on the talk, also on the talk of the German article, asking if he did it. You can do that in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced comment[edit]

Hijiri88 I've been reading the exchanges on John Carter's talk page and on Catflap08's talk page. I don't know what all the disagreements have been about since I haven't looked at the articles being discussed, and I don't want to get involved, but I just want to say that I'm sorry you've been having all this trouble, and I'm sorry John Carter refuses to remove that comment you inadvertently posted on his user page (which, I agree, looks somewhat like a talk page). I read your comment, and it isn't such a terrible comment that you should feel embarrassed about it. If you don't get anywhere with the complaint you're lodging, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The few people who see it might not even realize that it was posted in error or might think that John himself doesn't care to tidy up his user page. Anyway, he says that he's semi-retired, so probably will retire at some point. In the bigger picture of life, this is a small thing. Turn your attention to happier things, less stressful pages, and more pleasant editors. Your edits, not an occasional error like this, will speak for themselves. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Capital letters[edit]

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital Rothorpe (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I put in my two cents. I didn't bother to read through the MoS, though. I'm sorry if it doesn't support your preference. You know by now that I'm fairly conservative in my use of the English language, and I prefer that caps be used where they are traditionally used, but now with the internet, I notice that a lot of companies don't capitalize the name of the company. What can you do? CorinneSD (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It's one thing to use lower case for the name of a company in mid-sentence, as that's normal for ordinary nouns; quite another to overrule and insist on dropping the capital at the beginning. It could be justified on the grounds that it is the mirror image of insisting that proper nouns be capitalised mid-sentence, I suppose. Anyway, thanks for commenting there; we'll see if anyone else takes it up. Rothorpe (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I guess I didn't think it through very well. I wasn't even thinking about the beginning of sentences. I guess a lower-case letter at the beginning of a sentence would look odd. Hmm. I wonder if there were a way to get around it by always using something like "The internet company," or "the on-line tech company," or "The company..." CorinneSD (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem!
Yes, I tried that method with one example before I noticed there were two others; that made me inclined just to substitute capitals. As you say, there is already one example where Dabs is capitalised, though it doesn't have the .com attached to it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A few questions[edit]

Hafspajen I just read what you wrote on your talk page. It is well-written, and more organized than what you wrote when you were really upset about ten days ago. I could not tell, though, whether it was a "farewell" statement like the one Yngvadottir posted on her talk page or just an organized defense of yourself. I hope it is not a farewell statement. I would be very upset if it were. Please - do - not - leave - Wikipedia. If it is just an organized defense of yourself, I guess I can understand why you wrote it, but I'm wondering if something has happened that I don't know about that made you feel that you had to write it. Have you been banned in some way? Please tell me what has happened.

I know your feelings have been hurt, but perhaps you will be able to get past that. You know you have many friends on Wikipedia. Have any of the friends who did not come to your defense earlier apologized to you for not doing so? I know Xanty did, but I don't know about any others. (You don't have to tell me who.) I don't think you need to defend yourself any more. You've already done that very well, with plenty of links and diffs. Just edit in the way you like to and on the articles you like to work on. I even think you could enjoy working on Signpost again. I look forward to seeing more featured picture nominations and to reading your comments on other nominations. I also look forward to helping you write and improve articles. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you asked, yes the last mail I ever read on that e-mail I enabled was I should stay away from the Signpost and the editor I was "criticizing". So, I stay away from Signpost and the editor. That e-mail is dead, possibly because Francesco Forgione born 1887 can't have an email... Anyway it was a temporary e-mail. Skype, - forget Skype. I am not using Skype and I will not start. One of our computer started suddenly updating a Skype program from 2007, out of nowhere and suddenly the computer had a message * there is a new file on your computer, update your camera* - and it came flashes from the camera. Could be a coincidence. Or not. I was not pleased. It was impossible to get rid of the new Skype file and I was trying to get rid of it spending a whole day trying. Until I had to confess about it, the computer security was alerted and got rid of it.
After this ... no Skype. And I am not a troll and I am not a disruptive editor. I am what I am, but none of the above statements fit. I tried for the last time explain the issue, and WP:Copyvio is a serious issue. But I can't and I will not edit somewhere I am accused of such things. I have more self-esteem than that. I am not coming back where people think I am trolling and I am disruptive. And silence ... sometimes is to agree. People think it shouldn't matter. I think it matters. I do have a honor code is that I respected all my life. I tried to respect Wikipedia rules, I tried to behave as a honorable human being, and since I did that I am offended that some people to easily use whatever it came to their mind and then everybody expects to get over it. I don't care much for an apology from that editor who's name starts with P. But I care that the Signpost editorial staff give credit such shit, after all my work there. I don't WANT to edit Wikipedia any more in this way. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen I agree with you. I don't use Skype, and now I never will. I also don't think discussions should go on off-Wikipedia, either. I didn't know anything about the redaction at Signpost. If I had known, I might have said something. Could you give me some links or diffs so I can see what happened there? I'm wondering whether we could start another newsletter, with a different name, and publish it regularly. I'd be willing to work on it with you. I have a suggestion, if you continue to work on WP. It's just a thought. The next time anyone is the least bit difficult, or unpleasant, disengage immediately. By that I mean stop interacting or communicating with that person. Don't even respond. The person will then stop communicating with you, and it can't escalate and you won't be stressed out. Only interact with people who are consistently pleasant, courteous and helpful. You don't have to defend yourself with me, Hafs. I'm on your side. Have a nice Irish coffee and some tiramisu, forget the past, and look forward. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen I know about that. I meant the redaction at Signpost and anything that said you should stay away from Signpost or any criticism of you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That I can't. It was an e-mail, a temporary e-mail I enabled for the Signpost-editors. It does not working any more. Possible because it was made for an Italian saint, Francesco Forgione born 1887. :) Or maybe he got tired of the supid advertisments offering him girlfriends from Russia and Cavin Klein underweare, and made a miracle, ending the account. You don't think I used my own name, now do you? Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the answer is to your question: "I didn't know anything about the redaction at Signpost" is, I meant the editorial staff of Signpost. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. I understand that you can't supply a diff or link because it was on a now-defunct e-mail account (it probably took the computer a while to figure out who Francesco Forgione was), but I still don't understand what you mean about a redaction. I thought a redaction was simply a removal of material from a publication or draft of a publication. How does that relate to the staff of Signpost? If you're getting tired of explaining, that's all right. Just forget it. CorinneSD (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, no, I can explain. Sorry, that was Swenglish. I never meant any removal off material at all, sorry. Redaktion in Swedish means editorial staff. Sorry to confuse you, I was using a Swedish word instead of using the proper English word. This kind of mistakes happens when words sound alike but mean different things.... I meant nothing else ever but the editorial staff. What I was trying to explain to you, Corinne, is they don't give me any alternative but discussing on Skype. They really should not be demanding anyone communicate off-wiki. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How are you supposed to discuss things when the only answer is always: please discuss things on Skype.

- But I don't want to use Skype.
- Please discuss things on Skype.
- I don't trust Skype.
- Please discuss things on Skype..
- I don't want to discuss things on Skype..
- Please discuss things on Skype.
-I had some bad experience with Skype and I don't want to use it.
- Please discuss things on Skype.
-I can't discuss things on Skype.
- Please discuss things on Skype.
Honestly, what am I supposed to do? Hafspajen (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing's happening on Skype, Hafs. I had an email with someone's Skype name, sent a request and haven't heard back- that was about 3 weeks ago. It's supposed to be text-only (I was wondering, as my English is so accented that it would be difficult to understand). So as far as I'm concerned there's no off-Wiki communication. The time zone difference would make things amusing anyway ("I'm sorry I called you a wazzock, but I was asleep at the time") Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:Rothorpe#Can you help?. CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Hafs, see [21] CorinneSD (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
YesY Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Corinne, User:Cassianto has never upset me at all, actually I think he is an excellent editor... great articles and stuff.  :) Well, thank you for trying. I think that maybe Wikipedia is not the place any more for me. I am now definitely agaist off-Wiki comunication, because this concept of only talking with certain editors but not the others, I feel is against the openness of the Wikipedia that anyone may edit. I was thinking long enough now, and I feel that if anyone may edit Wiki, than anyone should be welcomed to discuss things too. I think we are stucked here. We never ever started any discussion, only were discussing where to disscus things. Never mind, I kinda feel that I care less and less every day for the things I cared before. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD, are you suggesting I have upset Hafs somewhere? If so, please provide a diff. CassiantoTalk 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Cass, don't be silly. She might have misunderstood something the others said, if it ever was the case. I might have misunderstood it, too. Corinne is one of the nicest editors possible. Corinne, this is Cassianto, Cassianto, this is Corinne, and I like you both, God bless and take care. Hafspajen (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Ay-ay-yay-yay-yay... Cassianto I wasn't referring to you when I wrote, "the editor who upset Hafs". I don't believe I ever said or implied anywhere that you had upset Hafs. I was referring to WPPilot. I just didn't want to upset Hafs any more than s/he was already. That's all. WPPilot, I have never had any problems with you. I have no ill-will toward you. Even on Rothorpe's talk page I wasn't trying to gather support for a move against you, and I don't see how you could see it that way, so I think your post of the meatball page in that discussion was unwarranted. CorinneSD (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Then what is it that you are trying to do? You want others to weigh in on Haf's bi annual meltdown and convince them that the editor should be allowed to participate, no you want someone to invite the user back to editing SP FC and you would like everyone to ignore the rhetoric it has placed upon the users talk page all about me. I have also seen that you would like them to "discipline" me in some manner for not being "nice" to the user when the user was using the FC talk page to broadcast perceived problems to the readers of the SP so I find your claim of "no ill will" with guarded concern. The publication is now a week ahead of publishing times, and not one person, out of the 600,000 readers a month [22] has had a single comment that was not positive about my efforts. @CorinneSD: It seems to me, but I could be wrong as I am not perfect, that you are only contributing to this drama, by reaching out to uninvolved editors and dragging them into this with "poor Haf's please help" bi annual drama. I think the meatball page is a accurate portrayal of this type of conduct. I think if the user removes the overwhelming amount of attack info it has on its talk page, that your efforts might be taken more seriously. Cheers. talk→ WPPilot  18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I would again like to reach out to you to participate in the FC section. I think that you would be a big help. I have been active in it since 2011 and Adam has been after me to contribute since then. The project is open to everyone, and other editors have already included you in the group, please participate, your an honest and clearly good hearted person, and I did not ever mean to offend anyone, but my objective is the creation of a publication that honors this site, and I have been told that my efforts have been successful. Kaizen - talk→ WPPilot  19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WPPilot Thank you for your encouragement to participate in the FC section. I don't even know what "the FC section" is. I'm sure you're doing a good job. I am not trying create drama, and I'm sorry you see it that way. When I said to Gamaliel that I thought Hafs was being criticized too strongly in relation to you, in the problems you were having with Hafs, I was not suggesting that you be criticized more. I was only pointing out what I saw as an uneven treatment. I thought Hafs should have been criticized less, not you criticized more. Yes, I guess I am good-hearted. I try to overlook others' failings, difficulties, and weaknesses and try to focus on what is good in them. I'm sure you've seen that people (and I'm not excluding myself) often lash out and say overly critical, exaggerated, or hurtful things when they have been hurt. What Hafs has said may be all true, mostly true, or partly true. It's not important how much. You will find yourself a better person if you overlook all of that, let it wash off like water off a duck's back, and look upon Hafs with kindness. How about apologizing to Hafs and inviting him/her to get started again at Signpost? CorinneSD (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: I have already tried to make a mends with the user, and the user responded with a series of dedicated sections on the user talk page to try to persuade the community to rebel upon me. So that is not a mistake I will make again and I am not the editor in chief, that is the person that the user needs to convince its ok to bash other editors on the FC (Featured Content Current Draft) section of the Signpost, or on the personal talk pages of everyone that the user can find, in the form of a long goodbye (#2) from the site, give me a break. @Gamaliel: has the final word, not me. As it was mentioned above by Gamaliel, the non stop bashing upon me on the users talk page is bothersome, and could cause me real problems in real life. I make no effort to hide my identity so the user could well have serious implications on my personal life, and that is clearly the users objective with those comments, not ohh please let me come back, its more look how horrible WP is at communication. This all is nothing but a self destructive digital meltdown designed to distract the community and turn other editors on me. --talk→ WPPilot  19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Sigh.... I won't say anything more about this. CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Formatting talk page[edit]

Joshua Jonathan Joshua, my talk page looks fine (did you see the box that displays the current phases of the moon that I added?), but I wanted to make the sentence, "You are welcome to continue discussions that have already been archived" a little smaller. I went into edit mode but couldn't see where to change the font size. Also, why do you have the hidden sentences ("Welcome to my talk page", etc.) above that? Couldn't we delete that? CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I've removed the hidden sentence. You can change the size of the sentence by changing the number in <font size = 5>. Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan Sorry to bother you again, Joshua, but I still don't understand how to make the font size smaller. I found "font size" in edit mode (right after the statement); first, I put the equals sign and then 5 and hit preview; it looked the same; then I changed it to "4", hit preview, and it looked the same. Maybe I didn't leave the spaces before and after the equals sign. I'll try it again. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Nope. I made sure to leave the space before and after the equals sign, but I tried a "4", then a "3", and nothing changed. What number should I put, and how? CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If I may intrude, I tried changing it to 1 and then 2 and on the preview it looked much smaller. 1 is tiny; 2 the same size as this text. I suggest you have another go. PS Don't change the equals sign or spaces. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I first tried "3", and saved. It was the same as before. Then I tried "2", and saved, and it was still the same size. CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't change the equals sign or spaces. CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Friedrich: Contemplating the Moon
Here's one our absent friend liked.
Sca Ha-ha-ha. You're clever with puns, Sca. I removed the comment only because I just don't like the image, but no worries. CorinneSD (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It was just moon talk. Sca (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice song. Some of those old songs from the 1940s and especially 1950s are really nice. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sca What's that "Oh, Vincent!" comment after your "Support" vote for the van Gogh painting at FP? Were you making fun of my comment? I just don't understand your comment. Perhaps some innuendo? CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Just a silly way of endorsing Van Gogh's genius. Sca (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, good. Thanks for the painting. CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the numbers change and wondered what was going on; then I saw your note. OK, I'm going to change it and please tell me if you notice any difference. Rothorpe (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I've solved it: you have to change the first number, not the second. I hadn't noticed there were two. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there shouldn't be anything at all at the end, so I've removed it. All you have to do now is change the 10 to a 3 or 4 and it should be the size you want. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh... I hadn't even seen the first "font size"! Thank you! I see you had already changed it to "3", which looks about right. Then I finally added the missing period. CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, happy to help. Rothorpe (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
For once, you're the tech genius. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Ho ho. Rothorpe (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Rothorpe and Joshua Jonathan What do you think of these edits to the article on Druze? [23] CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of edits, no summary, grrr. Incidentally, the first sentence, 'the Druze ... is a religion'---I thought it was a people with a religion, presumably called druzism or something, but I must be wrong, no? Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Removal of sources, and adding of info which does need sources, like the elements of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Hafspajen I usually have my screen enlarged to 150% (it's a small screen), so when I look at the article on Pali, there is a lot of blank space in the lead. Even when I reduce it to 110%, there is still quite a bit of blank space. Does the layout of the lead, infobox, illustration, etc., look all right to you? CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Straighneck squash[edit]

Sminthopsis84 and Rothorpe Which wording do you prefer? See this edit to Straightneck squash: [24] I prefer the first wording. The new wording has too many adjectives in a row before the verb. CorinneSD (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

An idea[edit]

Hafspajen and Gerda Arendt What do you think of starting a new newsletter as an alternative to Signpost? It could have a different focus, a different philosophy, even a different timetable for publication. Perhaps focusing on art and culture. Any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am too busy already. How about a Hafspajen review of new content, the one thing that should matter? Not delivered, but to be found a certain space, for people to watchlist? WP:QAI could offer one, to make it a bit more official than user space. I am not a subscriber to the Signpost anyway, too busy already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Just took my name off FP. At least two entries were cut-and-pasted from the articles. Saw Wild Tales (film) last night. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Xanthy When you say, "Just took my name off FP," do you mean the Featured Pictures nominations page, where images are nominated for FP and voted upon? If so, how can you take your name off of that? Or do you mean the featured pictures section of the Signpost?
Gerda Good idea. I would encourage Hafspajen to participate in any way s/he wants to on Wikipedia. Hafs What do you think? If you want to write something, I'd be glad to proofread it, or we could write something together, and it could be presented in an artistic manner. Hafs, don't give up so easily. You have a right to participate on WP. CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Took it off the credit line of the Signpost FC- it got put back on again! Sorry, should have written it out. Did you know readership of the FC section has gone up substantially since WPPilot started editing it? ("You are clearly good at picking apart my contributions, in spite of the fact that the publication readership is overwhelming increased over the last 4 issues"). I was laughing my head off last night, when I realised that I was the only person in the cinema laughing. "We think it's a crime of passion". Still cracks me up. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC) User:WPPilot -

We can start completely informally, just write what you want to be seen on the project talk. Once we have something to share with more people, we can find a good name (WP:QAI/Post?), make a subpage (with its own talk for discussion, as in the Signpost) and advertise. For a sample: look at the top of project opera, short and interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not "Articles that should be written"- a quick write-up of a subject not yet written about. Advantages- you're not treading on anybody's toes as you would do with a review of new articles, and you don't bother with RS and stuff, as the article is not yet written. "Buffy (ceramic elephant)" for example. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Both good ideas. Here are three more ideas:
  • Interview editors to find out what got them started editing on WP, what WP means to them, things they have learned -- about themselves, about WP, about people (ie., other editors), or life -- since they started editing, what topics interest them, etc.
  • Here's another one (kind of fun): present a painting, and ask viewers to say what they see in it, what they think of it, what they like and don't like about it, what caption they would add to it, etc., or present two paintings, side by side, and ask viewers to compare them. Maybe we could ask art experts to refrain from saying anything until a certain time period had passed (such as a week or ten days), and then respond to all the comments (in a nice way), and add their own.
  • In each issue, select two or three interesting articles (on a wide variety of subjects), and give a summary of what's in the article and one or two interesting facts from the article (just enough to get readers interested in reading the entire article). CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Look above: the red link turned blue, you can post on WP:QAI/Post (QAIPOST) and discuss on the talk, everything that has to do with article improvement. You don't need to become a member of the cabal of the outcasts (Hafspajen, did you hear me?) but are very welcome.

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Loren Eiseley[edit]

Rothorpe and Rwood128 I'd like your opinion on this edit to Loren Eiseley: [25] In American English, the "to" is not needed nor used. This may be a case of British vs. American English. However, since Loren Eiseley was American, I think the article should be written in American English. Is there a significant difference, in your eyes, between:

  • from the 1950s through the 1970s, and
  • from the 1950s through to the 1970s?

To me, the second one suggests that it is up to 1970, or perhaps the early 1970s, and if you look at his works, he published right up until the year of his death in 1977. "From the 1950s through the 1970s" suggests through all, or most of the 70s, which is correct. Just wanted your thoughts before I revert. CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite right, revert. Rothorpe (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) In BrE, 'to' would replace 'through'.


I don't quite understand what is your question regarding Belarusian Baroque. Can you clarify? Thanks, Renata (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Renata Sure. First, let me copy the comment I left on Vsmith's talk page. Then I can see it and will clarify it:

I was looking at the latest edit to Igor Grabar, and I was puzzled by the change. Here is the edit: [26]. I typed "Belarusian Baroque" into the search bar and it said there was no article on that. Then I typed "Belarussian" just to see where it led. It led to a page with a list of articles, and at the top it says, "There is a page named "Belarussian" on Wikipedia." However, there isn't one. It leads to a redirect to "Belarusian", so why would it say that? But even on the disambiguation page for "Belarusian", there is nothing for "Belarusian baroque".

My concerns are small ones:

1) I guess the edit itself was all right, correcting the spelling of "Belarusian", but "Belarusian Baroque" is a red link, and I wonder whether it should stay as a red link. I notice that there is a brief mention of the baroque in architecture in a town in Belarus in the article Nesvizh in the section Nesvizh#Main sights.

Church of Corpus Christi in Nesvizh, Belarus. "The Corpus Christi Church (constructed 1587-1593) is one of the earliest Jesuit churches in the world and one of the first baroque buildings in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, influencing the later architecture of Belarus, Poland and Lithuania."

Would it make sense to make the link at "Belarusian Baroque" lead to this section of the Nesvizh article? If not, should it be de-linked?

2) If you put "Belarussian" in the search bar, it leads to a page with a list of articles. At the top of the page it says, "There is a page named "Belarussian" on Wikipedia." However, there isn't a page named "Belarussian" on WP. There is one on "Belarusian". Shouldn't that spelling be corrected to "Belarusian"? CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. 1) Both Belarusian Baroque and Belarussian Baroque are red links. I think it should stay as a red link (Red links are not evil) until an article is written about it (or a broader article, say, Baroque in Eastern Europe). 2) The search result page says there is a page because Belarussian is not a red link. A redirect is also considered a page on Wikipedia. Hope that clarifies. Renata (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Renata O.K. I understand. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

Hafspajen You might consider adopting a whole new approach on WP. I'd like to suggest that you leave off seeking support on most things. Instead of asking for anything – support, approval, agreement – instead of frequently defending your point of view, take charge of something, like Signnpost. Assume a leadership role. Behave as if you were the authoritative voice, with the attitude that you know what you are doing. Unless I am mistaken, I don't believe anyone was elected leader on Signpost or anywhere else. Why always ask for support and approval? I encourage you to have a greater, and much-deserved, confidence in your opinions about things. Only ask for help from those you consider reliable and on things you really need help with, such as proofreading or finding a source or image. If you feel confident about your knowledge, opinions, and contributions, you will feel less need to defend yourself. You can completely ignore difficult editors. At the first sign of difficulty, don't even engage in conversation with them. I'm really encouraging you to be more assertive – polite, but confident and assertive. CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-05-13/Featured content awaits both of you. Also the previous one could do with a bit of work. I don't know what's going to happen after that- Adam will probably want to take a break. I don't think Pilot will be a problem; the leopard can't change its spots, nor the knobhead its behaviour. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nah, eff it. I foresee more problems arising; a fruitless task when editors don't check whether what they're writing makes sense. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Xanthomelanoussprog I don't mind giving it a try (perhaps with a little guidance from you as to what I'm supposed to do), but not right now. In a few weeks, perhaps I can give it my full attention. CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That'll be good. I'm going to withdraw my labour anyway- if they ask I'll say I won't return without some firm style guidelines, e.g. linking. At the moment it's all over the place. I think it should be entertaining and sometimes challenging, Ed17 wants it to reflect the glory of the feature writers and WPPilot wants it to reflect the glory of the sunset as it shines on his intellectual manhood. Adam's on a courageous journey to find his antipodes, so I don't know whether he'll be further contributing. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)