User talk:Myrtlegroggins

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


Welcome[edit]

Hello, Myrtlegroggins, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Jac16888 Talk 13:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Thanks Jac, will do my best.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some delectable tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Sometimes, we all need a nice cup of tea. Here you go! :) Writ Keeper 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou so much , kind Writ Keeper! Myrtle.

Don't give up on your good work Myrtle, and you can always come to us (Teahouse!) for support. heather walls (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Heather, good to know all the nice folk at Teahouse are there. :-) Myrtle.

Hello Myrtle. You made a worthwhile effort to copyedit at Alessandra Kersevan and tried to remove some POV language. You mentioned your difficulties with this article in a note at the Teahouse. After examining the other editor's revert, I posted a warning to him. If you are inclined to do further work on this article, you should feel free to call on admins if you see any more attempts to restore language which is not neutral or is badly sourced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Thanks for your note. Much appreciated. I'm going to leave it a little while and then go back to the page after I chat with the other editor and have a read around the topic. Regards, Myrtle.

Dropping by...[edit]

Hi, I'm just dropping by to say Hi. I noticed you at the Teahouse, and then saw that you're also on the Guild of Copy Editors list of new members. I just joined myself. The May drive sounds like fun, but my DIL and grandson will be in town for three weeks, so I bet I'm not on the computer quite as much then. I haven't seen them since Christmas.

When I saw your name I immediately thought of Remington Steele -- are you a fan, or did the name come from someplace else? Happy editing. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Marita Solberg - thanks[edit]

Hello Myrtlegroggins. You did a really nice job on Marita Solberg, and in future I'm going to follow your example of how to deal with musician articles that go into excessive detail about individual performances. I hope you won't mind, but I've changed the template you placed on its talk page from {{GOCEreviewed}}, which means that we've looked at the article and don't think it ready for copy editing, to {{GOCE}}, which means that we've done the needed copy edit. You have, so that's the right template. It doesn't need a signature, as the editor's username goes inside the template itself.

Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stfg! Nice to meet you. Thank you very much for explaining about the difference in the templates. I think I've been adding the wrong one all over the place. Deary me! I'll go back and change them over. I'm glad you liked the edit.

Cheers, Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Village pump post[edit]

Looks like you accidentally deleted your post after making it. I fixed the article issue you brought though. You had bullet points (asterisks *) before each nav box (what you refer to as category boxes). They're meant to be placed without those, that's why they looked all screwy. Equazcion (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Equazcion. I appreciate your help very much. I learn something wiki-ish every day. Sincerely, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Episodes are in quotation marks, like songs[edit]

Not in cursive. --Niemti (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okey. Got it. Sorry for the mistake. Will go and correct. Thanks Niemti, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also there was no "historical" Merlin (probably), there is no reason for sentences to be that short, on Wikipedia words such as "didn't" should be "did not" unless they're being quoted, and so on. Copy edit after a copy edit. Also, it's "okay"... --Niemti (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and advice, Niemti. Also, it's "okey", short for the colloquial term "okey-dokey" :-) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Updated Benboulaïd[edit]

Thank you for copy-editing article "Mustapha Benboulaïd" for the other details. The early deaths of those guys had shocked me, so I lost track. I re-added the wp:autosizing of images, and italicized the French phrases. His young death shocked me, but I when I saw your edit as "(age 95)" then I was relieved to think that, perhaps, he had lived a long life instead, but the template parameters were mixed, and I corrected the {Death date and age}, which really noted "(age 39)". Those events are very sad, as I also read about his friend, "Krim Belkacem". -Wikid77 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is incredibly sad - and never seems to stop. Why is life held in such cheap regard? All I can think is that the answer lies with education of the next generation - not with just facts but with training in logic, philosophy and so on. Maybe education is where WP can help. I hope so.
Thanks for your help with the article. i'm going back to learn how you made the changes so I can improve.
i hope today is a happy editing day for you. Warm regards, MyrtleMyrtlegroggins (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tea House[edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Myrtlegroggins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Cntras (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

-Cntras (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Myrtlegroggins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by benzband (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

I think it's time[edit]

Time to finally fix up all the ninjutsu articles. Tomorrow i'm going to start with Hatsumi, then go on to Takamatsu and then Toda. Then either Bujinkan or Modern School of Ninjutsu. After that, i'll have to see. But it's finally time to fix up all these articles, make them look good and, most important of all, make them neutral and without either the positive pontification or the negative histrionics. SilverserenC 03:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silverseren, Thanks for your note. I agree with you entirely. The two opinions, positive and negative can still be presented in as much detail as anyone would like but they need to be identified as opinions and supported with evidence. WP is only as helpful to people in the future as its current standards. Please let me know if you would like me to do anything to help - I'd be more than happy to contribute. I'll back you up 100%, Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a Bit of FUN[edit]

Howdy, Myrtle. It's great to see you jump right in and improve some Wikipedia articles. When you need a break, have a bit of Wikifun; check out Pluma's Fun stuff to pretty up your user page. Some are important, too. For example, if you are read and write in other languages, adding the appropriate Babel userbox automatically adds you to a list of editors with language skills. Most Userboxes are just for fun, to tell visitors a bit about yourself quickly. Hope you enjoy and take care, DocTree (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 CR Vasco da Gama season[edit]

Hello, Myrtle. It's great that the page is the best possible readable in English. But, as I'm a most editor of the page, I would like to stay in the same format. At the same time, because I'm a Brazilian Carioca and a Portuguese speaker and don't have much knowledge of English (I mean the very basic), a help in a translation is a great, ok? BalbinoFelipe (talk) 03:40, 05 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Balbino. Keeping the format as you would like is no problem. Let me know if you would like any assistance with translation. Regards, Myrtle.

Please stick with it[edit]

Hello Myrtle,

I could see, from your comments at the Teahouse, that you are feeling a bit frustrated. My guess is that the other editor was acting in good faith, but was acting too quickly, without examining your contributions carefully enough. I hate to see new women editors discouraged by an occasional negative response. In my opinion, you are exactly the kind of editor we need most, someone willing to take on an article on a fringe topic, and work to make it more neutral. This work can be tough, but it can be very rewarding. You will need a thick skin and a good understanding of our policies and guidelines. But if you stick with it, you can make exceptionally valuable contributions here. We need you. Feel free to ask me questions at any time. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Cullen. I was thinking the quick revert was because the editing was all wrong and the other editor was very angry with me. But from what you say perhaps that is not it at all. I got into the same bind with a page about Nijitsu a while back. I love copy editing and I believe in Wikipedia so thankyou for the support. I will definitely accept any constructive criticism with gratitude. Myrtle (all calm now) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Myrtlegroggins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari[edit]

Ah, we meet again :-); I began copyediting this article because it had a {{copyedit}} tag. As I suggested before on my talk page, would you please remove the tag (or use {{GOCEinuse}}—your choice, just so I know someone's already working on it without having to check the edit history) before you start a copyedit? You can have this one this time, and I'll do another. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 00:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

oh, hello again. Ok, sure. I always check the edit history and talk page before I start and I assumed others would too but it's easy to remove the tag as well. Happy editing! :-) Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Myrtlegroggins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Yunshui  13:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Keep up the good work![edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg Merry Christmas!
Wishing you fabulous editing on Wikipedia in 2014! Kerry (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kerry! Merry Christmas! - see you soon, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Myrtlegroggins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by benzband (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Magicians of Xanth[edit]

While you are at it, please disambiguate flashbacks to flashbacks. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for that.:-)Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oral rehydration therapy[edit]

Thank for your work regarding Oral rehydration therapy. If you have time, there's an issue where some publications recommend 1 teaspoon salt and 6 teaspoons sugar per liter water whereas others recommend only 1/2 teaspoon salt (along with 6 teaspoons sugar). I think we should probably include sources recommending both. Please take a look at this if you have the time and interest. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cool Nerd. Thanks for your message. I am interested to work this out and have an explanation. One thing that occurs to me is to look to see whether the small change in salt has any clinical impact. I'll look into it for sure. Cheers, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've made some changes trying to hit the high points sooner. Please feel free to change them back or experiment. I view it very much as a work in progress.
With the differing ORS recipes, I think there's a difference. I mean, it's twice as much salt. But even more than that, I don't want us to put ourselves in a position of making clinical judgments. All we can do is pull from WHO, CDC, and other well-regarded publications and summarize in straightforward fashion, at least as it seems to me. And I am not a doctor, I want to be clear about that. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Cool Nerd, hi again, If you have a moment, could you have a look and see that I have kept all the points you wanted to include? Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Okay, you've asked if it's kept all the points? No, I'm sorry. I'd rather not use the valuable real estate of the opening paragraph on the history. I'd rather discuss what ORT is right now, including that it's more than just the solution itself.

Now, this said, I am in favor of experimentation and continued research. So, yes, I'm in favor of trying things. And it is remarkable that ORT is (widely?) regarded as one of the most relevant health advances (the last thirty years?). But I still do want the right now. Unfortunately, it will probably be the middle of the week before I can put a good chunk of time in it. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool Nerd, I appreciate and I admire how invested you are in this article. I feel that you see it in your mind's eye in a very particular way. However, I'm honestly not seeing a great deal of willingness to compromise on your part at the moment, especially when it comes to adopting an encyclopaedic structure for the article, so I'll wish you happy editing and move on. My only other suggestions would be firstly, to try to avoid too many direct quotes and a "how to" tone in the article and also try to avoid overly long sentences for the sake of readability. Kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Myrtle, you said you were going to graciously bow out. Actually, I'd rather you be in there helping. I think there are some real issues that well warrant some additional research. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. When I did the copy edit, I read the available scientific literature and it seemed to me that the main concepts were covered in the article. Perhaps you can explain again what you feel are the unresolved issues? Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the differing recipes, whether the fluid itself and starting early is by far the most important part, because some contexts really emphasize the zinc (and maybe the continued eating as well), the JAMA editorial that the original compromise has been pushed to the breaking point. Specially, that the reduced-osmolarity solution, whereas it's okay and certainly better than nothing, is not the best formula for adults with cholera. This editorial is now almost ten years old. I would hope that there's been some work and some investigation since then, but maybe not. Again, I am not a doctor. I am just very interested in these issues. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Perhaps I can help by giving some practical background experience and expertise. With respect to differing recipes: there could be several explanations - for instance, the advice given to the SA soccer folk might have been directed towards unwell adult sports tourists whereas, the WHO is more concerned with feeble sick children in refugee camps - so, differing recipes for differing potential patient groups; or, there are errors or elements of misinformation about - this is possible, not everyone is lovely and precise as you or I :-). If we take the case of parents making up an ORT fluid, they will use what they have available at the time to save their child's life, even boiled rice water.
The differences in the recipes that you have noted are not likely to have any major clinical impact. Yes, the amount of sugar may be double that of in another, but, when mixing a half or one teaspoon of sugar in 1000 ml water, the difference in the overall concentration (as a *portion* of the much greater amount of water) is is minimal. If it were a half or one teaspoon of sugar in 10 or 100 ml water, it would be a very different case. In a real world sense, these differences are able to be tolerated. I think I did point out in my copy edit the existence of different recipes.
With respect to the fluid versus the adjuncts (eating and zinc), I can, without any doubt, say that however a previous document is written or seems to say, the fluid is definitely the most important element in preventing deaths from cholera. If a baby or child is dehydrated from the fluid lost in the diarrhoea, no amount of feeding or zinc supplementation will make any difference to whether the child lives or dies. There is good physiological reasoning behind this and no one would ever do a head to head trial of food and or zinc versus ORT fluid because to do so would be a criminal act. I can't say strongly enough that the article must *not* suggest in any way or form that the ORT fluid is not the most important element.
If I understand correctly, the 'reduced osmolality' data was used specifically to provide manufacturing guidelines for the pre-prepared powders. True, in the future, the manufacturing guidelines may take account of differing patient groups as you suggest and be revised again. However, Wiki can only say what is true of today, that's the nature of an encyclopaedia. It can't speculate what might be determined to be right or wrong in the future.
To move forward, I think we need to first carefully look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSINTRO#Introductory_text and work on the lead of the article, probably combining both our concepts of what it should be.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the part with the differing recipes refers to salt. Some recommend one teaspoon (and not only the pamphlet for the World Cup), and some recommend one-half. Looking at it one way, it's double the amount. Looking at it from the other direction, it's a reduction of 50%. I'm not at all ready to say this doesn't matter.

I personally agree with you that starting the fluid early and often is the single most important thing, but . . we've got to go with the references. And diving into the references with a specific question, even a very good specific question, that is often harder than one might think.

I really like the approach with writing, assume my reader is slightly smarter than I am. They just don't happen to know this particular information. So, I don't need to talk down to them or overexplain in any manner. I can just present the information in a very straightforward manner. So, even a parent with little formal information, with what affects their child, the parent is likely to be very smart indeed. And this parent is likely to have a healthy interplay between officialdom information and facts on the ground so to speak, perhaps a healthier interplay than I have. Again, they're slightly smarter, I try to approach it that way.

I think an introduction becomes a no man's land that few people read. Whereas with the lead, as long it's well-written without too much repetitive information, people will keep reading it. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good luck with it. I'll put our discussion on the talk page of the article so everyone can see where you are up to with the collaboration side of things. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources[edit]

Please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, that will need a copy-edit after your copy-edit[edit]

Never start any sentences from "Also". ("Also, support from the United States was expected but did not eventuate.")

Don't post any single-sentence paragraphs.

Don't write awkward sentences such as "In southern Iraq, Iraqi Army troops (Shia conscripts) and anti-regime groups such as the Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) rebelled."

"The uprisings were precipitated by the perception that the rule of the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was weak." -???? What? It was hisvpower being weakened, not his rule weak (it was anything but weak, he was a 'strongman', for many years killing off any oposition.)

Don't post change things into factually incorrect and misleading "The uprisings gained momentum when these events were reported in the news and Bush made his radio broadcast.[13]" - receiving news is not the same as "reported in the news", and by now you should know that the radio broadcasts came first.

And so on. Like it should be always "Saddam", not just "Hussein"; Hussein was in Jordan. Don't change the titlesn in the references. It's BBC News, not "BBC news". And so many other things that were correct but you turn into errors. --Niemti (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You turned the infobox into total chaos, too. Please start again all over. --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Niemti, hello. Your comments are harsh but valid and I appreciate your feedback very much. I'm working hard to improve and I have learnt the lesson that I should not "save" until everything is completely correct because a 'work in progress' disturbs people such as yourself. I will "start over" as you say, reverting to before I made any changes. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, are you American? The section title and your tone suggest you are. Kind regards and thank you once again, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Niemti, hello again. Now I am confused. I went to look at the article's revision history and I noticed you were doing work on the article at the end of January but you had not removed the copy edit request tag. How is that? I see you have reverted back to how you like the article and as I have no interest in the topic, I'll leave you to it. Once again, yours etc. Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Had a read of Niemti's talk page this morning - I feel poor Niemti has a lot of confrontation and little wiki-love. Does the GOCE Tea House make a decent espresso coffee? And, by the way, how do I order a "flat white" in America? Have a good day, everyone, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Myrtlegroggins. You have new messages at Epicgenius's talk page.
Message added 23:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

Sorry about my recent edit to Video game controversies. I hope it didn't mess you up. I didn't realize there was a major cleanup going on... -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem!! :-) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Video Game Controversies[edit]

For what it may be worth, I think you've done a bang up job on the "video game controversies" page which was desperately in need of copyediting. Well done! Avalongod (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Avalongod, thank you very much for your kind words. I appreciate your encouragement. Happy editing and best to you, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agricultural Research Organization (ARO) - Volcani Center[edit]

Hi Myrtle! I just wanted to touch bases on the above linked article. Firstly, thanks for working on the article. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If you have questions or don't understand the identified issue, please contact the editor who recognized the concern and placed the templates. More than happy to help or answer questions anytime. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 02:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cindy, Thankyou for your note, very much. I didn't get back to finish resolving the problems as quickly as I would have liked to, so mea culpa++. Just so I am sure (and please note I know nothing about the topic of the article - I found this article on the copyedit needed list at GOCE), the templates say:

1. "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (March 2014)."
I think it probably does but I can fix this with better references?
You can find the notability guidelines for organizations at WP:ORG, while the general notability guidelines can be found at WP:GNG
2. "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (March 2014)"
This too should be fixed with better references?
Yes, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this point, all we have is an indication that the subject exists.
3. "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: image formatting, captions, italics, embedded links; see WP:MOS. (March 2014)"
I don't understand the concern with the image formatting or captions? I'm about half way through fixing the article's embedded links and I'll check the MOS for italics again.
Essentially, the image layout, size, and captions did not meet the guidelines.
4. "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (March 2014)" and "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (March 2014)".
Not sure about these. Too short? I agree it is concise. That would be easier to fix when the rest of the article is corrected. I usually do that last.
The lead section needs to summarize the article content, while specifically stating why or how the subject is significant or important.
5. "This article may have too many links to other articles, and could require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2014)."
I agree there are a lot of links but I was making them for someone like me who has no knowledge of agricultural science. I agree more cleanup needs to be done and I was going to get back to it as soon as I could.
I've removed the redundant and insignificant wikilinks.

If it is ok, I would like to keep working on the article. (I am GMT+10 so not likely to be awake if someone in the US of UK wishes to discuss, so not being rude in not replying immediately.) Kind regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, girl, I don't take your reply or lack as rude at all! We all have real lives. And we all need to sleep. I went ahead and did a major cleanup on this article, before I saw your note here. I've gone back and forth with the article creator to no end. I tried to give some feedback, but it was either misunderstood or disregarded. I had some time today, so I jumped in to help. I figure some people learn by seeing examples and whatnot. If you have questions, please feel free to drop me a line. One of the primary things to remember is not to remove the maintenance templates until after the issues are addressed. In essence, the templates place the article in a queue, much like you found at GOCE. When the templates were removed, this removed the article from the specific queues. We have a lot of bad articles slip through the cracks. Who needs another? Anyway, hope you are doing well. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 08:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Cindy, Thank you so much for your help. I'm taking your notes carefully on board for the future and I saw the great changes you made on the ARO page. I definitely won't remove the tags first (even if I intend to address all the issues) I can see now how that is a problem. I hope you have a lovely day and many hours of happy editing, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A.L.Steiner[edit]

Hi Myrtle,

Thank you for the edit to A.L.Steiner's page though her name is actually just signed A.L. —I don't know what the initials stand for but "Aisha Khalilah" is actually the birth name of her collaborator A.K. Burns. I am editing this back to be just A.L.Steiner.

Thanks again!Morelcasares (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)morelcasares

Hi! Thank you for your note and thank you for your corrections! I'm very sorry for any inconvenience. Have a great day, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agricultural Research Organization - Volcani Center[edit]

Hi Myrtlegroggins! I see you have also been working on the Volcani page - thanks for the help! Not sure why cindamuse thought I was dis-respecting her - I removed content and replaced it according to her comments and issues, but she was right, I guess I did need to see an example. In any event, I did A LOT of work on the page today. I added about a billion references (OK, 30, but who's counting), the vast majority to outside sources - books, journal articles, newspaper articles, websites. I also tried to format the references correctly, but if you have a chance to check my work, that will be great, as I am still learning this stuff. It seems to me now that no one could question either Volcani's notability or the quality of the citations, so I removed these issue notes. Please, let me know what you think, e1baa340@opayq.com (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ergraber, I think as first step, we should put all the discussions about the article on the talk page. I'm going to do that now (and I should have done it before). Then we can move forwards to make it a really great article. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agricultural Research Organization - Volcani Center[edit]

Hi Myrtlegroggins - I moved some other talk between Cindamuse and me into the Agri talk page. If you have no objections, I will leave you to deal with the new issues that have come up for now; you have a lot more experience than me. I can understand if the formatting still wasn't good, but I can't understand why these issues are still featuring:

The vast majority of the references (>75%) are now third-party sources, and they can all be verified by clicking on the links and reading them. They were not invented for the occasion. Do you know what is not satisfactory? Thanks, e1baa340@opayq.com (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ergraberle, Sure, no problem. I had a look this evening at the article again and tweeked a few things. I'll have a look at the sources too when I have a moment. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Video Game Controversies[edit]

I wonder if you might be willing to take a look back at the Video Game Controversies article again. I've been kind of both working and fighting, haha, with DavidA about changes to the page. We both have some strong opinions I think and see things different, and even read some articles differently. Anyway, I know you did a lot of work on the page recently and I thought it looked pretty good when you had gotten through with it. So I'd appreciate your having a look at it and the various edits. I think I'll take a step back from it as I don't think going back and forth endlessly with DavidA will help the page much. It probably needs some fresh eyes though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Certainly, I'd be glad to have a look and see if there are any suggestions I can make. I'm glad my copy edit has led to people such as yourself being able to carry the page forward. Please know I have no special interest in video games - I can't even play them with out falling over with vertigo! Regards, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem much better at summarising than I am, could you please take a look at the "Public Debate" section. It seems unnecessarily long and clumsy. Thanks. David A (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For sure, but it might take me a little while because I am flat out work wise at the moment. Regards, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry about being a bother. David A (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, no bother :-) Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about being a bother, but the legal case mentioned here, which I just added a comment to, is also mentioned more extensively here. But it all seems out of place crammed into the fMRI science section. Would it be acceptable if I moved all of it to the mention in the government legislation section? David A (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I made a preliminary edit here. Please check if this is acceptable, and othervise you can change it back. Thanks. David A (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)