User talk:CorinneSD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Useful external link: https://translate.google.com/

Welcome to my new Talk page. You are welcome to continue discussions started in Archive 8.

Twinkle[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have a question about using Twinkle, which I haven't used yet. I searched but did not find an answer to my question on the Help and instructions page for Twinkle. I have already enabled Twinkle, so I have the menu. I wanted to leave a basic welcome to an IP editor with no Talk page who just left a comment at Talk:Parthenon. I clicked on Revision History, then clicked on "Welcome". A Twinkle menu with the various welcome options opens up. The first item, which is the one I wanted to use, is already checked. However, I don't know how to submit it. There is a box at the bottom of that menu that says "Submit Query", but I thought "query" meant "question", and I'm not submitting a question. What do I do in order to place the welcome message on this user's talk page? (By the way, I also know I can get to that same welcome menu by clicking on "WEL" on the Twinkle drop-down menu, but then the article doesn't appear automatically in the welcome menu. When I get to the menu from the Revision History, the article title appears automatically.) I just need to know how to submit the welcome message. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I just cut and paste something like {{subst:welcome!}} or some variant.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Cas. Do you paste it into the edit window of the editor's as-yet-uncreated talk page, and save? CorinneSD (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I do both - I do this with a few templates, that way I can cut and paste templates from my watchlist as I go...actually I don't use twinkle for that but just slap it on talk pages. Twinkle is most useful if I am editing from a phone, otherwsie I often forget about using it...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
When you say, "I cut and paste templates from my watchlist as I go," what do you mean? How can you save templates on your watchlist? Also, you say you do both. That means you use Twinkle, so could you answer my original question, above? (And I'm puzzled by the word "sigh" that appears in your edit summary. I can see it next to your edit in the revision history of my talk page. The one before it had "Yep".) Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I said "sigh" as I realised my answer to your question was wrong as I only use twinkle intermittently (it is also late here (Sydney) and I was just going to bed and am tired). If I look at my watchlist i can see all the edit summaries. Hence if I want to use one again I can cut and paste from there instead of typing from scratch if I am going back and forth a bit. Like now for instance (see my contribs). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh...I know what it's like to type when one is tired. I can see from your contributions that you have done a lot of work today. Thanks for your efforts and suggestions. CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorinneSD! I use Twinkle extensively. To submit the welcome message, you do click "Submit Query". I am not entirely certain why...I believe it may be related to the computing-related definition at Query. All I know is that it works. :) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! and I'm glad to find another editor interested in science. CorinneSD (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"...would likely have..."[edit]

This example of the adverbial 'likely' is at Earth Similarity Index. As I once mentioned, such usage sounds like rather naff AmE to me, though I eventually got tired of changing it to 'probably'. But didn't you say it was too informal and should be changed? Rothorpe (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even found the adverbial "likely" yet. I got sidetracked reading the article and looking at your other edits. I was puzzled by your addition of "or" to the pairs of figures in the caption of the image. May I ask why you added "or"?
I admit I see red whenever I see a ) followed by a (. But it doesn't explain why there are two figures for two of the four planets. I looked at the footnote and decided it must be a variant estimate. If you understand it differently, please go ahead and change it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, it looks like you placed a period after a reference instead of before it. I thought punctuation belonged before references.
I can't find it, but do change it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it wasn't me. But these things are hard to spot. I see you've put the refs outside the brackets, but I think the MoS makes an exception for parentheses, if the ref concerns the info within. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Third, I skimmed the article from BBC that is linked at reference note 1, and found the following table:
EARTH SIMILARITY INDEX
  • Gliese 581 system
  • Earth - 1.00
  • Gliese 581g - 0.89
  • Gliese 581d - 0.74
  • Gliese 581c - 0.70
  • Mars - 0.70
  • Mercury - 0.60
  • HD 69830 d - 0.60
  • 55 Cnc c - 0.56
  • Moon - 0.56
  • Gliese 581e - 0.53
From where are those pairs of figures taken? I didn't see them in the article. Maybe they're there, but I didn't see them, and they don't match the figures in this table; well, the 0.60 matches for Mercury and 0.70 matches for Mars, but where is the other figure from?. (Here we are, two clueless English teachers trying to edit a science article.)
If you are as puzzled as I am, we can ask Vsmith for help. CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Do please go ahead. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Vsmith: Can you help us, not regarding the adverb "likely" but with the caption in this article (see above)? CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems the values for fig. 1 are from ref #2 (PHL dated 2014 for last update) with the additional values for Mercury and Mars added from ref #1 (BBC dated 2011). I have no idea why it was felt necessary to add the older BBC values for Mars & Mercury to the caption. Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to leave the additional BBC figures or remove them? (I haven't looked at my watch list yet, so you might already have done so.) Are the reference numbers in the right place (see Rothorpe's comment just above)? CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed now. As for those ref #s following the parens, to me that meant the ref was for both #s w/in the parens, moot now unless someone feels the okder BBC numbers need to be re-added. Vsmith (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Now I'll go look for the adverbial "likely". CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I found it. I added a few words to make it adjectival. I hear "likely" used as an adverb all the time. I think it may be just an abbreviated form, for example, saying "would likely have" instead of "would be likely to have". I think that's adjectival, isn't it, after "be"? If it isn't, please let me know so I can undo my edit and change the edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a perfectly good analysis, though I tend to see it as an alternative to 'probably', and of course you can't say 'they are probably to have'. Anyway I like your adjectival version. I suppose this will always trouble me, but I should get used to it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that "They are likely to have" and "They probably will have" pretty much mean the same thing, but don't you think there is a very slight difference in meaning, or cast? Look at:
  • He is likely to miss the turn."
  • He probably will miss the turn." I think this one is stronger...or something. CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'm reminded of Mike Brown's classification of likelies and probablies, linked on my user page. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cherub[edit]

@Hertz1888: Hello, Hertz! I'm almost finished reading the article on Cherub, and I have come across a few things I wanted to ask you about:

1) In the third paragraph in Cherub#Origins is the following sentence:

Early Semitic tradition conceived the cherubim as guardians, being devoid of human feelings, and holding a duty both to represent the gods and to guard sanctuaries from intruders, in a way comparable to an account found on Tablet 9 of the inscriptions found at Nimrud.

I thought the first part of the sentence could be improved; it lacks parallel structure. I wasn't sure how to re-word it, though, without changing the meaning. Perhaps "holding a duty...to" could be reworded more succinctly. Perhaps "being" could be moved to before "guardians". Any ideas?

Done – by myself.


2) The last sentence in that paragraph is:

This conception of the cherubim is hypothesized as being the reason that cherubim are described as acting as the chariot of the LORD in Ezekiel's visions, the Books of Samuel, the parallel passages in the later Book of Chronicles, and passages in the early Psalms: "and he rode upon a cherub and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind".

I think this sentence is a bit long and wordy, especially the first part (which I italicized). I think it could be made more concise. Perhaps something like this:

It has been hypothesized that this conception of the cherubim -- is the reason that...? is behind...? Any ideas as to how to complete the sentence?
Done – also by myself.

3) In the first paragraph in the section Cherub#Post-biblical Judaism reads:

Many forms of Judaism teach belief in the existence of angels, including Cherubim within the Jewish angelic hierarchy. The existences of angels is generally widely contested within traditional rabbinic Judaism. There is, however, a wide range of beliefs about what angels actually are, and how literally one should interpret biblical passages associated with them.

I have several questions:

(a) "Cherubim" is not capitalized earlier in the article. Does it need to be capitalized here, and in the next paragraph?
Made lower-case.
(b) In the second sentence, it says "existences". Does it need to be plural? The plural is quite unusual.
Changed to singular.
(c) Also in the second sentence, I think "is generally widely" is not the best writing. Are both adverbs necessary?
Fixed.
(d) To me, the third sentence is not a contrast to the second sentence. I don't think "however" is needed, but I thought I'd check with you to see what you think.
Fixed.

4) The second paragraph in the long block quote of Maimonides begins:

"For he {the naive person}..."

I wonder whether those curly brackets are really the right kind of brackets to use here. I should think square brackets would be better. What do you think?

Changed to single square brackets.

5) In the paragraph right after the large block quote, and two paragraphs later, the word "cherubim" is spelled "cherubaim". Is that correct? I didn't know if it was an alternate spelling or not.

Changed to "cherubim".

6) Three paragraphs after the block quote, in the paragraph beginning "Cherubs are discussed within the midrash literature," the word "midrash" is not capitalized here in this sentence. Then, two sentences later it says, "the Midrash", with "midrash" capitalized. Then, the next paragraph begins "A midrash". Are these all correct, or should there be a little more consistency?

7) In the section Cherub#Depictions, shouldn't "all seeing" in "all seeing beings" be hyphenated?

Hyphen added.

8) As I was reading the section Cherub#Origins, I thought of the stone carvings at Persepolis. There's a great photo at Persepolis#Gate of All Nations. I thought it might be interesting to include that photo, or at least mention them in the Origins section. Or do you think it's getting too far from the main topic? What do you think?

Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: I left a note for Hertz about two weeks ago. He replied that this was not his field, so I left a note for Yoninah, and he/she has not replied. Do you feel like helping to answer my questions, above, on Cherub? CorinneSD (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

All of these changes seem reasonable to me. I'd go ahead with it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
All done but item (6) and the photo. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys[edit]

Thanks -- it should have been islands. Rwood128 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating 3[edit]

@Mike Christie: I see another editor has made a number of edits and added a few tags to the article. He/She probably is unaware that the article is nearing the point submitting it for consideration for Featured Article status and unaware of the peer review page and all the work that has recently been put into the article.

I'm a little surprised at the tag "Clarify me" for "the radiocarbon part". Is there a link you can put at the word "radiocarbon" so that you can removed that tag? I don't know about the other tag. From the little I know about the process of getting an article approved for Featured Article status, tags are not good and need to be cleared up and removed.

There is a section that we worked on carefully that this editor has re-worded. I'm wondering whether it would be all right to undo all of this editor's edits and revert to your last edit, and add an edit summary pointing to the peer review page and inviting the editor to make suggestions there, or even place a note on his/her talk page about this. If you want me to undo all the edits and/or place a note on his/her talk page or in the edit summary, let me know. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of you to offer, but I think it's better if I just engage with the editor on the peer review page, and discuss each of their edits. I haven't had time to look through their comments or edits so far -- I hope to do so tomorrow -- so I can't yet say if I agree with them. Please feel free to join the conversation on the PR page if you see a discussion on a point where you have an opinion: getting a consensus on the best way to say something is the goal, so do comment as you see fit. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

colourful text[edit]

I'd been here for years before noting someone else doing the coloured text...but they used a template and templates can lengthen download times..which can be a big deal on the FAC page...I've not seen any colours listed anywhere actually, so I guess it can be a mutual journey of discovery.

so the text....

::<font color="dark green">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="orange">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="red">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="dark red">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="purple">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="grey">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="dark orange">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="pink">I removed the hyphen..</font>

gives....

I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..

Hmmm, let's see which ones work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

damn...that's weird...there has to be a page somewhere .....(sounds of wikipages ruffling)......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Aaah - ok. Template:Font color is good, but would only use on pages that are small....anything that has a massive transclusion (Peer Review or FAC) might be a problem - GAN would be ok. But......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

::<font color="#253529">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="#006A4E">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="#873260">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="#6F4E37">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="#555D50">I removed the hyphen..</font>
::<font color="#4D5D53">I removed the hyphen..</font>

gives....

I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..
I removed the hyphen..

Aah right = so go to List of colors: A–F ad get the hex code. You could also choose a slightly lighter colour and bold it too. Anyway, I've learnt something new too...cool....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for the information and the links! That article on List of colors: A–F is very interesting. I even looked at the article that was in a link, Web-safe colors. (Look at the very last paragraph, recently added, regarding the color purple, in Web-safe colors#CSS colors.) Do you think it's necessary to choose a web-safe color, or is that just for designing web pages? CorinneSD (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow - so much info. the websafe ones at the bottom are all too pale so I wouldn't worry - the purple is good but the rationale behind the name is sad ....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
But there is a nice selection in the middle of the article Web-safe colors. CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis[edit]

@BatteryIncluded: Hello, BatteryIncluded! I've been following the discussion on the talk page of Abiogenesis for some time. I have seen the efforts by you and several other editors to defend the wording in the article and convince the creationist editors that they are wrong and that abiogenesis is a fact. I'm glad you are all doing that. It's important. If you don't mind, I would like to share some thoughts with you. I can see that, like Apokryltaros and others, you know the science, and you are articulate. I would just like to say that I think you will be more successful -- if anyone can be when arguing with creationists -- if you keep your emotions out of your comments as much as possible (I know it can be difficult). The creationists are also articulate and persuasive, and they are persistent. The only way to have any chance of convincing them, or any reader whose mind is not yet made up, is to be as persistent as they are and to convince by logically presented, reasoned statements, referring to specific research (or sources mentioned in the article) when possible -- as you have done. I think it is also effective to point out specific fallacious reasoning in their comments, which you and Apokryltaros have also done. You need to be more like a kind and patient teacher. You know you are right, but you need to find a way to persuade the other editor. If, in your comments, you allow yourself to get carried away by your emotions, or criticize the other editor personally, or the other editor's religious beliefs, your arguments lose power. You've almost fallen into the creationists' trap. At some point in these types of discussions, it's better just to stop participating because creationists are not usually convinced by either logic or scientific evidence. ("Don't bother me with the facts -- my mind is already made up.") You will just upset yourself if you continue. CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You are 100% right, and I do have a low threshold for BS. However, Wikipedia is hardly a debate forum, and long time ago I lost interest in debating religion-science anyway. In Wikipedia, our edits are as good as the references we bring forward, but creationists just deny all listed references, research, and current scientific consensus; an attitude difficult change but very easy to deal with. Now when I intervene is just to stop the creationists' Teach the Controversy infection in Wikipedia (e.g. I take out the garbage). I don't want to debate them to change their minds or even help them understand the scientific method, evolution or chemical evolution, but just prevent their debasing biological sciences in Wikipedia as "wild guess hypotheses". Perhaps I should write less in the Talk pages and limit myself to editing the article, for the good of Wikipedia. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyre, Lebanon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convert. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The link goes to the Conversion dab page, so I think they just want you to specify which one on that page, with a piped link. Anyway, it's been fixed, I checked earlier. Rothorpe (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cynocephaly[edit]

Hi, on the danish wiki, if someone makes a mistake, we usually ask that person to revise it first by himself providing guidance on how to do so, rather than just delete :-(so if something is still wrong please let me know and I'll fix it. --Honymand (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Honymand! Thanks for your note. I think the custom on the English Wikipedia is a little different. See WP:BOLD.
If someone makes a good edit, but there is something still a bit wrong with it, or there's a typo, I would probably leave a note for that editor so he/she can fix it or discuss further, but if it is clearly wrong or poorly written, we just undo the edit with an edit summary. You can always ask the editor for an explanation, or politely disagree, either on the article's talk page or on the editor's talk page. But that's the custom. By the way, I often discuss edits with fellow editors who are as interested in precise, concise and elegant wording as I am, before undoing something. Not always, but often. I'd be more than happy to explain any edit I make or discuss it and work out a mutually agreed-upon solution. CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the article again and saw your edit. Now I can add something further to my comment, above. If the problem had been just the incorrect verb form, I would have corrected it myself. That's a simple copy-edit. The main problem was that the added material was unsourced, and it is is customary on English Wikipedia to undo that type of addition to an article, adding in the edit summary that it was unsourced. Then the editor who had added the material can re-add the material with the appropriate reference. See WP:RS. Occasionally, material is left in an article if it seems to be appropriate for the article and well-written, but then a "citation needed" tag is added, but usually that is done for material that has been in the article for a while. CorinneSD (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorinneSD, thanks for your answer - and point taken. I simply thought it wasn't necessary to use the < ref > tag as the link to the feature itself contains multiple references to different versions of the feature. But if using the ref tag is mandatory I have no problem with that. --Honymand (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
No. A reference in a linked article is not enough. It's got to be there. It looks fine now. CorinneSD (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleanth Brooks[edit]

@Rothorpe: See my comment at User talk:Omnipaedista#Cleanth Brooks. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I dislike them too, but it seems they are acceptable. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Stroma[edit]

@Prioryman: I saw your brief exchange on Ben MacDui's talk page about Stroma, and I thought I'd read the article. Would you mind if I make minor edits to the article and/or point out any issues I see? I've just started to read the article and have found only one issue so far. It is in the third paragraph of the lead. You have the following enclosed in a pair of en-dashes:

"the most recent occurring as recently as 1993".

While this phrase is factually and grammatically correct, it would be better writing style to avoid using two forms of the same word: "recent" and "recently". I'd like to suggest one of the following alternatives and let you choose:

  • the latest one occurring as recently as 1993";
  • one occurred as recently as 1993" -- a sentence -- or
  • the most recent occurring in 1993" -- probably the best one.

CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

2) The second sentence in the fourth paragraph in the lead is as follows:

"Its population fell gradually through the first half of the 20th century as inhabitants drifted away to seek better economic opportunities elsewhere, as economic problems and Stroma's isolation made life on the island increasingly unsupportable".

You will notice that you have the word "economic" twice in close proximity. If possible, it would be better to eliminate one. I think the first one is not necessary. It would read fine as follows:

"Its population fell gradually through the first half of the 20th century as inhabitants drifted away to seek better opportunities elsewhere, as economic problems and Stroma's isolation made life on the island increasingly unsupportable".

You could even leave out the word "better":

"Its population fell gradually through the first half of the 20th century as inhabitants drifted away to seek opportunities elsewhere, as economic problems and Stroma's isolation made life on the island increasingly unsupportable".

CorinneSD (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do feel free to comment and make any changes you see fit. I appreciate the help. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article. It's passed GA now, so I've nominated it for FAC - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stroma, Scotland/archive1. Feel free to comment or offer any suggestions there! Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan[edit]

I decided I should BE BOLD!!! Rothorpe (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

All marvelous. I still cannot believe that "for the first expedition from Europe to Asia by the West" is standard in the literature and I have never heard it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden controversy[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa[edit]

@Macropneuma: Please excuse my ignorance of botanical matters, but may I ask you something about your modification to the following sentence?

"Epacris impressa regenerates after bushfire by seed and re-sprouting".

1) To me, "by seed and re-sprouting" is a little unclear. If this means that the seeds germinate and then sprout, then couldn't you say,

"Epacris impressa re-sprouts after bushfire"? Why do you have to say, "regenerates...by...re-sprouting"?
Isn't it clear enough in the original wording ("regenerates...by seed") that the plant will only regenerate if the seeds sprout?


2) If you really want to make it clear that regeneration happens only after seeds sprout, how about:

Epacris impressa regenerates after bushfire...
  • when seeds which have survived the fire sprout;
  • ...; seeds which survive the fire sprout; or
  • ...; seeds which survive the fire sprout and become seedlings."

3) If "by seed" and "[by] re-sprouting" are two different methods of regeneration, then I don't understand what re-sprouting is. CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In Western Australia they talk of sprouters (regrowing from a lignotuber) vs seeders (dying and growing from seed) as bushfire strategy, so I removed remove "re-sprouting" as it can have opposite connotation to what is meant...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
NB:I think we covered everything else you've pointed out CorinneSD...or have we missed something...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


See: Resprouter! —all too brief article. Epacris impressa regenerates after bushfires by seed regeneration and by pre–existing plants whose foliage was scorched re-sprouting from their roots. [long, wordy and thus overly explicit wording version—as do the majority of SE Australian heathland woody species, and other vegetation types’ plant species. Cas, standard science all over Australia; yes, in WA but not only in WA —References: A. Malcolm Gill’s and others’, body of many published scientific papers on seed regeneration vs. re-sprouting, from places all over Australia.] Okay! if the words of this section, above these of mine—to me, unclear about the facts—mean that i needed to add clearer, better, more articulated, wording to the article sentence, considering for all readers and globally. Also CorinneSD, i took the tiny liberty of correcting your second no. 2 list item to no. three so that i may accurately refer to that list item.

It is item no. 3 in your list above. Please find a chance to read or skim read the scholarly published, reliable, reference source, that of course i purposefully added, and by means of the information learned from reading that source, please stay easy and have no need to trouble with making up or guessing meanings. It’s not a big issue, really. I feel disappointed, with this trifling incident.

On the other hand, of course, i greatly value you two editors’ informed opinions. Is it sufficient to merely wikilink re-sprouting, thus: "Epacris impressa regenerates after bushfire by seed and re-sprouting"? Or do i/we need to articulate the meaning of re-sprouting in more words?

The bit more substantial issue is it was seriously inaccurate to describe Epacris impressa as regenerating after bushfires, implicitly–or–explicitly–*only* by seed regeneration. In fact, published across the body of scientific literature on this species and in the common knowledge of us, humble, professional, field botanists–ecologists–ecological–restorationists, it has long been well known that many/most individual plants of this species survive most natural bushfires in the form of surviving roots '±lignotubers' which subsequently vigorously resprout.

('±lignotubers': may be a different botanical technical term in this case—i’ll have to look up which is the correct botanical technical term; this is about the cell structures and types in the re-sprouting part of the root system, and i’m only a, humble, field–focussed botanist, not an expert laboratory and cell physiology focussed (academic or government research institute) botanist).

Someday i’ll try to find, dig out and upload to commons, one re-sprouting Epacris impressa example of my 20 year old photos from my many files, or if i can’t find it then i’ll make a new photograph when i’m back in the bushlands in springtime, in Melbourne or SE Oz, where i grew up. Cheers!, i hope that now has made some clarity. Let’s get back to our lives as in reality this is a tiny trifle of an issue. Jason Stewart. --Macropneuma 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the headaches of wikipedia is when published literature does not correspond with what one knows about certain subjects (such as some aussie birds and plants....don't get me started on psych medications...one reason why I don't edit medical articles much.....but htat's another topic)
I will look at the second ref - if any ref says they resprout I will re-add in a nanosecond. readded a nd linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Cas Liber. According to a large body of scholarly scientific published sources (and general knowledge in SE Oz), none of that fact of common re-sprouting was at issue; i already read and learned from that 1989 ref i added the citation of, when it was first published 25 years ago—i grew up there in Sandringham, Melb., i’m acquainted with the main field botanist author of that paper, D.F., and for many years i worked thousands of hours, either voluntarily or professionally, on the sites that paper studied of George st. reserve and Bay road heathland and others nearby. I also worked voluntarily in Anglesea in the late 1980s with Mary White, the great plant woman, one of the authors of the other paper i gave you the citation of earlier in the talk page. There are many many published papers in the body of vegetation ecology literature, evidencing the same small point of re-sprouting.
I expect to be taken in good faith as adding the reliable source, having read it, not taken as lying. I expect to have that good faith of my editorship given further confirmation when you read the paper yourself. Disappointed! —not asking me, the adding editor, in good faith before deleting it. —not reading the source i, of course, purposefully added for that point. —not taking the word re-sprouting in the way most commonly taken. —wasting so much of my valuable real life time, a worse act of offence—and i do not take offence, only verbalise here the real cause of the problem(s), as it is my happy disposition and spirit not to take offence, but certainly neither take any victim role rather stand up based on the evidence. —WP disappoints again … . PS.: also the disappointing mistaken repetition in the response of Sminthopsis (on their talk page, reply to CorinneSD). PPS.: the real world critiques of WP processes have borne out again in evidence here, for a trifling incident in effect used for a pretend mob stand over—no wonder thousands of us have given up on this when you the supposedly best quality editors play this game –'mob'* —W.C!. --Macropneuma 01:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Macropneuma Sorry about that - one of the other refs called it an obligate seeder...and I guess I couldn't imagine a tiny little plant resprouting. My sincere apologies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Macropneuma: I'm really surprised at your reply. If you read my comments on the peer review for FA, the link to which Cas Liber provided me about two weeks ago, you will see that I am mainly interested in ensuring clarity for the average reader. If you look at my user page you will see that I have no background in botany, only an interest in it. Also, you will recall that in the first line of my comment, above, I said that I am ignorant of botanical matters. Until you explained it to me, I had no idea that re-sprouting was different from the sprouting of a seed. Thus, I couldn't understand the need for even mentioning the word "sprouting" or "re-sprouting". I only knew that the sprouting of a seed is the only way a seed can develop into a plant. My suggested re-wordings in 2), above, were based on my understanding of sprouting always being in connection with a seed. Now I understand that re-sprouting is a kind of regeneration from special kinds of roots. I haven't read the article about re-sprouting yet, but if it explains re-sprouting, then I think a link at "re-sprouting" may be sufficient. Cas, what do you think?
I only asked User:Sminthopsis84 because I thought, if "by seed and re-sprouting" was perfectly clear, then perhaps I was worrying about something unnecessarily. I have had many exchanges with Sminthopsis84 about other articles. I only recently started exchanging comments with Cas Liber, and I had never had any dealings with you, Macropneuma. I just wanted Sminths' opinion about my judgment, not yours.
I think you have gotten upset (you say "disappointed") needlessly. I think you have taken things as a personal criticism when none was meant. My question to you was in no way a criticism of you. I often find words, phrases, and sentences in articles that I feel are not crystal clear to an average reader (not an expert in the field). If I can improve the clarity myself, I do so. If I'm unsure, I ask another editor. Regarding the subject matter, I always defer to a more knowledgeable editor, and I'm always happy to learn something new.
Cas Liber removed "re-sprouting" based on the sources she had at the time. Perhaps she was too quick to do so, but even that was not something to get so upset about. All you have to do is explain that you have a reliable reference that supports the use of the word. Maybe you provided it but Cas neglected to read it right away. Even that should not make you so upset. Of course your opinions, knowledge and experience are respected. People make mistakes sometimes. That often happens when an editor is tired. Haven't you ever edited for a couple of hours, or late into the night? Don't take things so personally. Think of us as friends. We're working long-distance to improve an article. Miscommunication and mistakes occasionally happen. Have confidence in your knowledge and calmly explain to the other editor that he/she has made an error and why it is an error. There may be some back-and-forth before agreement is reached.
In summary, I'm glad to know you, and I look forward to being of help in editing articles with both you and Cas Liber in the future. CorinneSD (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Macropneuma: responding as one of those editors who you say has upset you: all that wikipedia needs here is a citation, so that we don't run afoul of WP:OR. I don't doubt that you are correct, but there are lots of published reports that list other species as regenerating after fire by resprouting, and E. impressa regenerating *only* by seed, as in the source cited on the page. I'm sure that is because severe fires have been studied more than less severe ones. I've tried quite hard to find statements that E. impressa has a lignotuber, but so far have only come up with Keith, D.A. (2002). "Population dynamics of an endangered heathland shrub, Epacris stuartii (Epacridaceae): Recruitment, establishment and survival". Austral Ecology 27 (1): 67–76. doi:10.1046/j.1442-9993.2002.01160.x. , which says that that species has no lignotuber but can resprout from basal stems. Perhaps E. impressa does likewise. I'm sorry that I don't have time just now to continue this hunt for literature, and also sorry that you have taken my comments elsewhere, not directed to you, to be hurtful. Wikipedia is a mine-field, as we all know, and I don't have the stamina to deal with that at present. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The definitions can be a bit woolly, so some species that resprout don't necessarily have a lignotuber as such - e.g. Banksia integrifolia does from epicormic shooting, so the source for E. impressa just notes "facultative resprouter"....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Isatis tinctoria[edit]

Rothorpe and Sminthopsis84 What do you think of the latest edits to Isatis tinctoria? (This was an article I went through carefully about six months ago.) I can go along with changing "became prosperous" to "prospered", but I don't care for some of the other changes. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this ping. Will examine the evidence now. Rothorpe (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rothorpe: You missed it because I put the wrong kind of brackets, I think. You'll see that Sminthopsis84 undid most of the edits, and I undid most of the rest of them. (I'd love to undo all of them, but I thought I'd leave a few undone.) Feel free to make any other improvements. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I see you've already done that. All good edits (of course). I was wondering whether I should add a hyphen between "woad" and "growing", and I'm glad you went ahead and added it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Saadi Shirazi[edit]

@Fayenatic london:, @Ugog Nizdast: I left a comment with some questions on Dougweller's talk page regarding Saadi Shirazi, but he hasn't replied. I don't know if it is because he is busy with other things or because he just doesn't want to deal with it. Do either of you feel like answering my questions, either here or there? CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and was waiting for him to reply first. Why don't we continue on Talk:Saadi Shirazi, if I'm not mistaken, I mentioned in my last reply there that some work was still left to be done. As to your queries, I'll answer them there itself shortly. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, CorinneSD! I saw the questions you mention above and thought I’d opine here instead of there … I would say that if you’ve substantially improved an article WRT the problems identified in a notice, you should feel free to remove the template. If the taggers didn’t take the time to describe any specific concerns on the Talk page, IMO they haven’t set the bar for improvement very high. If one of the “multiple issues” still remains inadequately addressed, you can replace that template with a more specific one, {{Refimprove}} for example.—Odysseus1479 06:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding you, in case you didn't see it again Smile.png, that I've replied on Talk:Saadi Shirazi. You can fully go ahead with copy editing the bio section and adding any quotations you would like in the works section. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Yes. Thank you for the reminder. I did see your note on the article's talk page. I will work on it, maybe tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bridges[edit]

Hi CorinneSD. I see you like bridges, so do I. I almmost launched a newspaper in Namibia, ut at the last minutes the partners couldn't get it together because of legal issues. If it had gone ahead it would have been called "A Ponte", that is, "The Bridge" in Portuguese. In Portugal I know there is a bridge - the only one in the world, apparently - that curves horizontally as it traverses the river. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it, neither here nor the rest of the internet - that after spending hours, literally. Thanks for your support at Madeleine McCann. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

@John Carter: I saw your note on Dougweller's talk page and decided to look at the talk page of Historicity of Jesus to see what was going on. I haven't yet read the article -- but I will -- and just a glance at it suggests that it is a well-written article -- but I read most of the exchanges in the last three sections beginning with Historicity of Jesus#Almost universal assent. I think you are to be commended for maintaining a calm, courteous, and straightforward tone in the face of unhelpful and irrational statements from "Fear of Reprisal" and "HiLo48". I think you're up against some difficult editors there. In response to your clear, logical, potentially helpful suggestion of three different articles, Fear's response, "I'd say the 'first priority' would be for you to state your understanding of the current consensus scope of this article. Then, if you disagree with that, propose a new consensus scope" shows an unwillingness to compromise or to consider a new approach to the problems that have already been discussed. S/he should have responded specifically to your suggestion, and s/he didn't. I think Wdford's comments in the "Almost universal assent" section are also very good, especially the last comment. I think Fear and HiLo quibble about word choice in order to distract from the larger issues. They don't even seem to accept what scholarly research is, and why its results are to be valued over mere opinions. Because I haven't read the article yet, and haven't been following what has been going on, I don't really understand the reason for your suggestion of three different articles, but that's all right. Wouldn't the same division as sections within this article serve the same purpose? You don't even have to answer. You just seemed to want feedback on who was at fault, or who started the "argument" on the talk page, and I just wanted to assure you that you are communicating clearly, logically, and courteously. CorinneSD (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The atheist belief as I called it is something SlimVirgin argued for some years ago on the basis atheists believed it. And Dawkins among others seems to have supported it earlier. That's why I referred to it as such, although Fear's first recent comments on this subject at WT:X could indicate new deists might believe it as well. Another newbie, recently unblocked, referred to other forms of study of historicity of Jesus I've never specifically heard of, or seen in reference works, but which might be notable anyway. If they are, WEIGHT probably means spinout for most of that content. The "atheist belief" seems to have somewhat faded in recent years, because, among other things, academia has concluded the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't Christian, but the earlier questions from that era and on are different enough to probably merit separate attention. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@John Carter: Hello, John. You know that I support your position at Historicity of Jesus completely, and I've read your comments with interest. Speaking as a retired teacher of English and writing, would you mind if I made a few comments about your writing? You write well, and there are very few errors, and I know that writing style is a very individual thing, but I think your writing would be more powerful and effective if you did a few things:
1) Use punctuation, particularly well-placed commas, more in order to make the phrasing stand out.
2) Cut out any unnecessary words -- you can do this even after you have written a comment off the top of your head -- go back and re-read it and cut out a few words. You seem to be overdoing the use of adverbs. Sometimes less is more. Cut, cut, cut.
3) Read through your comment carefully. Some of your sentences run on a little too long, and a few end up being ungrammatical because you've lost sight of what the original grammatical subject is. It's worth taking a few minutes to re-read what you have written with a critical eye.
I have taken your last comment and copied it here. You'll see where I would add a comma and what words I would omit. You'll also see one ungrammatical sentence that I've fixed by ending it and starting a new sentence.
Your opinions are, of course, your own concern but in no way supercede supersede https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supercede [I've made this mistake, too.] policies or guidelines, particularly considering that none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your own extremely obvious history of basically demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is apparently your own extreme preconceptions of what it should be about. Regarding your continuing insistence as above that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule, that belief is in no way supported by any policies or guidelines and is something that the ArbCom would certainly take into account were this matter to be brought to them. Your apparently ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic. You have been advised repeatedly [beginning of noun clause] that your time might be better spent trying to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for an article on the the "historicity" of Jesus according to the definition of that term you favor your definition [end the sentence here] That would be a more constructive use of your time than these problematic postings here, and your apparently choosing not to do so raises very serious questions as to whether suggests that you might [It's already speculative.] have concluded already that you would not be able to establish sufficient notability and are thus attempting to game the system by insisting that the article must conform to your own personal views which rather clearly deviate from the consensus views of the other editors who have been involved to date.

So, with these changes your paragraph would read as follows:

Your opinions are, of course, your own concern but in no way supersede policies or guidelines, particularly considering that none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your history of demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is your own preconceptions of what it should be about. Regarding your continuing insistence that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule, that belief is in no way supported by any policies or guidelines and is something that the ArbCom would certainly take into account were this matter to be brought to them. Your ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic. You have been advised repeatedly that your time might be better spent trying to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for an article on the "historicity" of Jesus according to your definition. That would be a more constructive use of your time than these problematic postings here, and your choosing not to do so suggests that you have concluded that you would not be able to establish sufficient notability and are thus attempting to game the system by insisting that the article must conform to your own personal views which rather clearly deviate from the consensus views of the other editors who have been involved to date.
Do you see that I didn't change much? I merely deleted unnecessary modifiers (mostly adverbs), added a few commas, substituted a short phrase for a longer phrase (twice), and fixed one run-on sentence. If you prefer, I'd be happy to delete this latest comment; just let me know; and of course I won't do this again unless you ask me for suggestions in the future. CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon[edit]

Hello Corinne! (Love the bridges.)

One professional to another, I wanted to answer your comment on Rothorpe's page about an edit made by an IP user. After reviewing the changes, I believe the IP user was acting in good faith and her/his edits were valid (with a minor exception).

Speaking as a professional in publishing, we almost always dele excess uses of 'that'. In other words, if it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, it should be omitted. The issue isn't correctness– both are correct– but readability. An example might be "I told her [that] I was going to work."

In fiction, it's common to see sentences beginning with conjunctions (but, and), especially in dialogue, but it's bad form in non-fiction.

Kind regards, --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 14:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@UnicornTapestry: Hello, UnicornTapestry! I love your user name. I remember seeing the unicorn tapestries at the Cloisters, the uptown branch of the Metropolitian Museum of Art in Manhattan. I love tapestries in general, and admired the detail and the work that went into making those tapestries, but I didn't like the colors (I know they might have faded over the centuries). But anyway...
I appreciate and understand your comments, but I disagree about readability. I think leaving "that" out makes a sentence more difficult to read. I think cutting out the word is more related to reducing the amount of text in a published work, especially in newspapers, magazines, and textbooks. Less text means less ink and less paper so is ultimately a cost savings. I can go along with eliminating "that" after "I told you...", but for other verbs, I think a sentence is eminently more readable when the word "that" is left in. I think eliminating "that" where it is not absolutely necessary has become a habit of editors in the publishing world, but is not necessarily an improvement in the writing. Since cost savings is not an issue in WP articles, I think the word "that" should be left in and not deleted.
Regarding sentences beginning with "But" or "And", I agree that it is less formal than either joining the sentence to the previous sentence or using another transitional word, or even leaving the words out, but on the other hand, even the best writers occasionally use sentences beginning with "But" and "And". As long as it is not overdone, it can be a style choice that adds a certain punch, like an afterthought with a bit of emphasis. I agree that it is mostly done in fiction, but it is also done in essays. I find that a lot of the writing in WP is colorless and a bit boring. I think an occasional stylistic flourish or unusual word makes an article more interesting. But if it's WP style, I don't mind avoiding it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The Cloisters are wonderful, aren't they? Thanks, Corinne. --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks from me too. Rothorpe (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@UnicornTapestry: and @Rothorpe: I was about to selectively restore some of the deleted instances of "that", and was re-reading the following sentence to see if there were a way to avoid using "that" but still be clear, when I realized that something was wrong with this sentence. Since you're both watching this page, I thought I'd hash it out here:
"Cinnamon has been known from remote antiquity. It was imported to Egypt as early as 2000 BC, but those who report it had come from China confuse it with cassia".
In "but those who report it had come from China", the pronoun "it" is slightly ambiguous. It could refer to cinnamon in general, or it could refer to the cinnamon that was imported to Egypt. If it refers to cinnamon that was imported to Egypt, then who are "those"? The people who imported cinnamon to Egypt 4,000 years ago? I guess not. "Those" must be referring to modern people, and they must be reporting something about cinnamon in general. So the second half of this sentence has very little to do with the first half of the sentence. Any suggestions on how to revise this sentence? I think that pronoun, "it", needs to be clarified, and I'm not sure "but" is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the idea is that it didn't come from China, and those who say it did are confusing it with cassia. Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Rothorpe. I understand that part. My question is, what is "it"? If it is cinnamon in general, even today, it should be in a separate sentence. When this is joined to the clause about Egypt, it could mean that cinnamon; then the sentence would not make sense. CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I should've been clearer. A hot tiring day! It = cinnamon in general. I am now more awake to the slight ambiguity, and I agree it needs separating: '2000 BC; those who...' - a semicolon should clarify. For once I'd change the past perfect to a simple past: 'BC; reports that it came from China are confusing it with cassia' perhaps? Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Or 'originated in China', perhaps? Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it needs to be a separate sentence and the noun "cinnamon" used instead of the pronoun "it". CorinneSD (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree; that's one awkward sentence. I also think the preposition should read "imported into Egypt…". --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 15:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of edits ranking[edit]

@Fayenatic london: Hi, Fayenatic london. I was just curious to see where I fall on the list of editors ranked by number of edits (or recent edits, either one). I looked for the right template and placed something on my user page, but it doesn't look right so I guess I haven't typed the right thing. Can you fix it for me? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, the template does not automatically retrieve the result; you have to enter it manually. I had to click on the link for Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000 to find your current ranking. My pleasure! – Fayenatic London 11:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

D.S. Senanayake[edit]

@Fayenatic london: I was looking at the latest edit to D.S. Senanayake in which an editor added a photograph. I decided to remove the period from the caption since it was a sentence fragment. Then I decided to do the same for the captions of other photos in the article and, while I was at it, to add a space between "D." and "S." in his name throughout the article (and even add a missing period after the "S"). But I stopped short of changing the spacing in the name in the infobox and in the title of the article. I thought there should always be a space between the initials of a name where initials are used instead of names.

(a) Was I right to add the space between "D." and "S." in the article? and

(b) If so, shouldn't the name(s) in the infobox and the name in the title also have the space added?

CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For comparison, see H. L. Mencken and F. W. de Klerk, but H.D.. CorinneSD (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "yes" to both. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Initials. H.D. is clearly exceptional, as her surname was commonly not written in full. As I understand it, wherever full stops are included in a full name, then spaces should follow in Wikipedia. I'll move the page, as you would not be able to do so (the new page name had old history as a disambiguation page, but this was considered unnecessary). – Fayenatic London 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I see that page also wants tidying up around hyphens and dashes, see WP:DASH. Enjoy! – Fayenatic London 15:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

*[edit]

@Carrite: Hi, Tim -- Thanks for your nice note on Sminthopsis' talk page. I'd just like to suggest that you read "Paid Editing Notice" again. You clearly have a sense of humor, so it may have been deliberate. CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything awry, it must be intentional! I got a late start on North American Phalanx today and have another day of work ahead of me on it. You can see how the graphics have already gone from being excessive to insufficient. I'd REALLY love to find an image of the scrip they used... It has to be an insane numismatic rarity though. As for the "white space" between the lead and the body, that's not a bad thing, methinks. The lead is what people seen on mobile, the body is the less-read in depth stuff. A border between the two sections ain't bad. I've noticed on my user page that the graphics aren't "wrapping" the same way they used to and wonder if maybe there is some similar technological issue that you are experiencing. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)