User talk:Odysseus1479

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Odysseus1479.

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Odysseus1479! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! œ 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Identifications[edit]

[consolidated from previous locations]

I see that you commented on the talk of sub pages, sorry as this page was not created due to my absence, but If you wish, I can identify them for you. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[from User talk:Bugboy52.40] Thanks for your offer (several months ago now!) to help identify insect photos. Here are a couple from a suburban environment near the Aegean coast of Turkey: [dead link] (something like a shield-bug, fairly large: about 25 mm long) and [dead link] (a scarabaeus? of similar size). Please advise also whether or not you think they’d be useful (i.e. of adequate quality and not duplicating existing shots) if I were to upload them to Commons. Can you identify arachnids as well?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be glad to help you, even though I don't remember that I said that (probably because it was such a long time ago). Also, its not to difficult to identify arachnids as I have a few text that include them, and I've written a few articles. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I finally got around to collecting some of my photos: please look at these images when you get a chance, and let me know if you think any (that you can identify) could be used in articles, or at least would be worth uploading to Commons.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't pick up on this when I got the chance, but unfortunately it seems whatever pictures were there are no longer. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for checking back! The link above should be working now: please try again.–Odysseus1479 07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comets[edit]

With respect to your comment "I note that there are many more comet articles currently using the en-dash", this is solely due to them incorrectly, and without discussion, being renamed recently, in what I refer to as the great endash folly of 2011. Apteva (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That’s as it may be, but I still don’t think it’s appropriate to put up a ‘test case’ when there are evidently quite a few editors who agree with the “folly”. IMO some sort of consensus needs to be reached and reflected at WT:AT.
Have you sought an opinion from the Astronomy project? (If any editors from there have been involved in the other recent discussions I haven’t noticed them identifying themselves.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This was not intended to be a "test case". I checked Wikipedia talk:MOS and the last post on the issue was that it should be a hyphen, and two weeks later there was no response. So I figured it was a settled issue. I don't think anyone at WP:AT disagrees that it should follow common use whatever that may be. It is only the folks over at WP:MOS that were promoting an endash. Apteva (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

thank you dear Odysseus for your explaning and help. i just have sent a message to dr.Izady, he did agree the non commercial using of the maps in WP, and we will do that soon.

happy new year Sagapane (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Same to you, and you’re welcome!
I’m afraid a non-commercial licence for the map will not be sufficient. I’m not expert in these matters, but my understanding is that the only conditions acceptable to WP are 1) requiring attribution and 2) that further copying or distribution is to be done only under a compatible licence. That is, the strongest protection offered to contributors is the Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. This does not forbid commercial reuse, but it does require that the author or creator be credited. I hope Dr. Izady will be amenable to granting such a licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much for your answer. happy new year !!!Sagapane (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Copy Edit of Campaign of Danture (1594)[edit]

Thank you good sir, Thank you very much. I really appreciate your valuable contribution to the article. I was amazed by the effort and critical thinking that you have put into the copy edit. Above all, I learned a lot from you. Better words, better phrases, better ways to link sentences etc. So once again, thank you very much. (According to our customs a proper thank should have three “Thank you”s)

At the same time I think that I owe you an apology and some explanations from my part.

  • Regarding “Lascarin”, cross-reference links, map captions and Bible rock. I agree with you.
  • Portuguese names: I’ll ask a Portuguese editor to look in to the names.
  • Choices of quote or cquote: Actually the reason is bit naïve. I wanted to make the Kandy terrain photo more prominent since it describes the terrain better than the text. Former quote template attracted less attention. (See, naïve.)
  • Regarding Kekiri: A huge negligence from my part. I’m ashamed. Thanks for saving my honor and credibility.
  • Vanguard: Again my fault. I should have described it in the text. Referring to a battle in 1557, Fernao de Queyroz state that, “…According to the practice in Ceylon due to the paucity of soldiers they called it (vanguard) the advance guard (dianteyra) and called the center (batatha) the vanguard, thus altering the military terms.” But it won’t make a much difference. Although historians like Paul E Peiris and S G Perera used the altered military terms to keep the historical authenticity the newer scholars like C. Gaston Perera and Channa W’sinhe are using the classical terms (vanguard, canter, and rearguard) to avoid confusion. (Same reason you mentioned)
  • Year in the article title: Actually I personally believe the year should be mentioned in a battle title. You’ll understand when you see the list of Battles involving Portugal. Titles with a year make better sense as it gives the feeling about the era. So I have decided to keep the year for the moment and I’ll take other editors opinion at Wiki project Military history.

Once again, Thanks.Nishadhi (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and for the interesting article in an area that’s not well covered in popular histories.
Regarding the Portuguese “vanguard”, that’s a detail of which I was quite unaware. It might well be worth restoring, especially for the benefit of those readers who may be motivated to further reading in the period. Perhaps the contemporary terms (are they Port. or Sinhala?) could be used, in italics, with a parenthetical explanation where they’re introduced. This might also be worth bringing up at MilHist, while you’re at it, to see how this issue has been treated elsewhere (if at all).
As for the quotation, while I see your point about distraction I might counter with the general observation that a stronger break in the flow of text can encourage the reader to pause and look around. OTOH in this particular case there’s already a section heading immediately above, giving the quote a certain prominence even without the ‘decorations’.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Great picture[edit]

Hallo! Thank you for added historic FIBA key at Wikimedia Commons. Your picture File:Basketball keys.svg is much better than mine File:Basketball keys.png and this file: File:Basketball key.png. I express my respect! Very good job! :) Thanks again! Best Regards Mariusz Swornóg (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all; since I already had done drawings for the courts, per a vectorization request at the Illustration Workshop quite a while ago, it was easy to extract the elements. (This demonstrates one of the advantages of SVG & similar formats: that parts of a drawing can be isolated, combined, or modified much more easily than can be done with raster images.) Anyway, I’m glad you approve of the result. I already have a couple of illustrations on my to-do list, but if there’s anything else I can help with—and you’re not in a hurry—feel free to ask.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. You're very nice. You're right. SVG graphics are better. I'm really interested in basketball terminology and FIBA rules of basketball. I'm always very happy, when somebody add good basketball graphics. If I have any question, I will feel free to ask. I wish there are at Wikipedia more users like you. :) Mariusz Swornóg (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I am impressed by your wonderful ce of Jainism. You justified topic and its importance. Thanks a lot. Nizil (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE January barnstars[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Odysseus1479 for copy editing articles totalling over 12,000 words in the GOCE January copy edit drive. Thank you very much for participating! Dianna (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Goce silver barnstar.png Leaderboard Award—5K articles—4th Place (tied)
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Odysseus1479 for copy editing two articles of 5,000 words or more during the GOCE January copy edit drive. Your contributions are much appreciated! Dianna (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE[edit]

Thanks for the copy edit. Moagim (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 blitz barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for participating in the Guild of Copy Editors' February 2013 blitz! For being one of only two editors to top 10,000 words in a week, please accept this award from a very appreciative Guild. We hope you'll be back in March! —Torchiest talkedits 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Heylo,[edit]

Thanks for your feedback at #Carry over from #New_template thread.

I took a look at your user page and noticed that you had declared yourself a PowerPC Mac user. If this is still the case you might find Linux MintPPC to be of interest. It did wonders for a 333MHz G3 iMac my Mom had.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but offhand I don’t see what benefit there would be to changing my G5’s Tiger OS–what exactly do you mean by “wonders”? I can already run a variety of ’nix applications from a terminal or under X11. The main reason I chose that machine, rather than waiting a few weeks for its Intel-based successors to come out, was so I could continue to run “Classic” Mac applications, especially FreeHand. Although it has some problems with ‘new-fangled’ Web content and Microsoft documents e.g., the G5 still does OK here and at most of the other sites I frequent.–Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Well the G3 333MHz iMac (w/ 320 MB of RAM) was unable to run Tiger (OS 10.4). But obviously that's not a problem for your G5. Come to think of it, It was after I added the Enlightenment (E17) GUI that things really came together. While still not spry, it became usable. LXDE had been lagging on such meager resources.
There might still be some advantages, for you, to having MintPPC as a dual boot option though. On a separate hard drive would be simplest, but it can also be set up to share a disk with Tiger. It would deal with "‘new-fangled’ Web content", receive current updates for most packages, and likely run 'more spryly' (demand less CPU and RAM). Especially with the Enlightenment option. Document software (like LibreOffice) could be installed to handle modern formats.
Really depends on how comfortable/savvy you are with computers as to whether I'd advise you to give it a go. One doesn't have to be any sort of Jedi guru or anything, but some understanding (vocabulary) beyond that of a casual app user is needed. I suspect that you already have such.
I'd be happy to share more detail from my experience and advise as I can if it's of further interest to you. Might be best WP:talk_page etiquette if we shifted to a subpage (or email) for that though as it's not directly Wikipedia related.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and thanks again. It wouldn’t hurt for me to learn something about Linux … I‘ll think on it some more and drop you a line if I get serious about the idea.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I copied the above dialog to PowerPC Linux#Initial Conversation. It occurred to me that if I get around to adding some links and some more notes that I may well end up with the base of an article. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Heylo again, I noticed your WikiGrahpist icon...[edit]

I was about to email you regarding a few more Linux on PowerPC thoughts when I noticed your "WikiGrahpist" icon.

I've got some experience using the GIMP to alter photos (fun example here) and such, but no experience doing vector graphics for charts or the like. Anyway, if folks need help with cropping, color tweaking, editing out (or in) details, etc, I may enjoy helping out the WikiGrahpics project.

Do you think my skills might fit in? And what's your own experience been like?

p.s. I went ahead and skipped the email and opted for picking up the PPC Linux topic on a sub of my talk page at PowerPC Linux#Morning Musing I've kinda' become hooked on wikimarkup. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven’t been around there much recently, as I’ve got a bit of a backlog of drawing projects. If you’d like to help with raster images, check out the Photography Workshop. The requests posted there range from simple cropping, level adjustments, or removal of extraneous markings, to extensive restorative work. All three boards (the other two are for illustrations and maps) have a Top section, which is a template populated more or less automatically with straightforward or routine tasks taken from a queue; below that are individual requests, often more complicated, with related discussions. IME most requesters are quite appreciative, and of course editing in these areas is usually uncontroversial.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sweet. Just the sort of answer I needed. Photography Workshop sounds like the place for me. Both to contribute some GIMP skills and as an 'uncontroversial editing' refuge when words get tiresome. Thanks much. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of links[edit]

Hi Odysseus. Please do not simply remove links from pages as you did here without taking a moment to find where the linked page or tool server stats have gone. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove it, just tagged it as dead, as I got a 404 error. Where a server or domain still exists I do generally try searching or browsing a site-map to see where something may have been moved, to repair the link instead of tagging it (or deleting, if it’s in the “See also“ section of an article and not a cited source). But I have no idea how to search the tool server, and “ec” seemed a very unpromising search-term anyway. I would appreciate it if you could point me to an explanation of how that’s done.—Odysseus1479 01:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
My bad, you did not remove it - that's just a custom template I use. Many tool server links got changed recently. You opted in for this yourself so you can check back and see how it's done here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I have used that tool (well, often just tried—it seems only slightly less likely than not to time out, but that’s different from getting an immediate 404), having found its link on my “Contributions” page. The essay already links to the edit-counter several times with the hypertext “pie chart”, so in context I thought something “in addition” must be, well, somewhere else. Anyway, what I don’t follow is how you get from “soxred93” to “tparis”, or from “ec” to “pcount”. Is there a list of tools with descriptions somewhere, from which I would have been able to infer that the same one must have been meant?—Odysseus1479 04:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters but I have no idea how the toolserver works. I do know that X! tools were teken over by TParis so they will have different URLs. I wrote that admin advice essay quite a while back and I haven't updated it much since, so I only get to know about issues when someone like you points them out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your message. Yes, best to remain vigilant but not jump to hasty conclusions. I read the guidelines and think I was overreacting on what is only a hunch. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LQ[edit]

Re your comment at Stfg's page "Fowler and, AFAICT, Hart disagree with CMOS":

  • From New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press, 2005): "In US practice, commas and full points are set inside the closing quotation mark regardless of whether they are part of the quoted material ... This style is also followed in much of British fiction and journalism."(p.155) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • From Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2004): "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to sense. If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise."(p.646) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure the original Hart's Rules did not address “US practice“ at all, because its first publication was intended for use by the OUP. I agree, however, that your quote from the modern version indicates agreement with CMOS. OTOH Fowler’s “according to sense” and “but not otherwise” directly contradict them both.—Odysseus1479 02:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a very good point about the contradiction. From my reading, it seems that the full entry on quotation marks in Fowler's advocates a situational approach, rather than a one-size fits all rule, i.e. Fowler's seems to contradict itself. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Despite the way he’s sometimes caricatured, as a rulebook-wielding prescriptivist, Fowler’s positions are usually quite nuanced, albeit opinionated. BTW quite a lot of the recent “Fowler‘s“, including the QUOTATION MARKS article, is actually by Burchfield; it’s become something of a franchise like the various “Webster’s” dictionaries (or the “Roget’s” thesaurus that’s ordered alphabetically instead of conceptually, missing the entire point IMO). I’ve seen Fowler fans on Usenet refer to the third edition of MEU in such terms as “the Burchfield abomination” (but not because of this particular issue AFAICT). Anyway, where do you see a contradiction?—Odysseus1479 03:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I see a contradiction between what reads like an unequivocal prescription: "If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark", and what seems like a situational editor discretion advisement: "If the quotation is intermediate between a single word and a complete sentence, or it is not clear whether it is a complete sentence or not, judgement must be used in placing the final point." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that can be resolved by interpreting that “extract” in the introductory section as the portion of the original text you wish to quote; the matter of judgement in case (ii) is whether or not to include the terminal punctuation in said portion. But I may be reading too much into the choice of words.
FWIW Fowler himself covers the question in much less detail; aside from discussion of examples, and the summary recommendation I quoted on Stfg’s page, his description of LQ is pretty well covered by “put [stops] outside except when they actually form part of the quotation.“ He doesn’t address the ‘corner case’ where a quoted fragment ends with (or, depending on how you look at it, is followed by) a stop. My own inclination, as you might infer from my comment at WT:MOS, would be to put a period inside the marks either where the quotation could stand as a complete sentence or when I let it finish my own sentence for me, so to speak, but outside the marks otherwise.—Odysseus1479 05:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you regarding Fowler's ambiguous use of the term extract. However, if by extract he exclusively means a complete sentence, then the statement is embarrassingly redundant with the whole of the entry, which explains in detail that a quoted complete sentence should include the full stop within the quote marks (perhaps this speaks to your above point regarding Fowler's recent move towards the Webster/Roget business model), but who would even argue that a full complete sentence quotation should not include the full stop where the original source had placed it; isn't that one of the more obvious editorial choices? Also, Fowler elaborates to some length that the issue is not resolved in the sense that editorial inconsistency and variation are common amongst publishers. My main issue is that he is obviously in the minority in that regard if you look at the multitude of style guides that outright disagree with him. Nice chatting with you, BTW. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Likewise! But no, I don‘t think Burchfield’s “extract” is necessarily a complete sentence; it could be anything from a word to several sentences. And terminal punctuation is left out in the middle of a framing sentence: “I shall return” was MacArthur’s slogan. LQ in general, whether Hart‘s, Fowler’s, or Burchfield’s version, is at odds with most current style guides, as many discussions at WT:MOS will show—including some recent agitation for its restriction to articles that otherwise use British English. I don‘t think it’s a matter of national English varieties myself, but we‘ll see what happens …—Odysseus1479 06:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree that this is not really a WP:ENGVAR issue per se and I also agree that it will most likely boil down to that for most. I am all for globalization and respect for national writing styles, but in the end the Wikipedia servers are in Florida, not London. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you so much for the help you so freely give others. Your input on my talk page has been tremendously appreciated. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Axial precession[edit]

Thanks for trying to provide a citation in the Axial precession article. However, in an article chock full of numbers, a meaningful citation would have to give the exact page number, and probably the equation number, to lead a reader to the part of the source that actually supports the claim. This is particularly the case in an article where an editor has been inserting small numerical changes with no comments. It is necessary to have in black and white that Capitaine et al. say the period of precession is 25,772 years, not 25,770 or 25780. Thus this citation is not really adequate. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

After looking through both the Wikipedia article and the cited article more, I've found the relevant expression and modified the citation to point to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This should probably take place on the article’s Talk page, but briefly:
  • The detailed citation should probably go with the calculation under Values, not in the general discussion. It‘s on page 581, equation 39 (first coefficient of pA). Sorry, I don’t know how to make a specific page-number & equation citation, without implying that all the other refs using the source are for the same point; if you do, I’d appreciate it if you could update it for me.
  • The sentence in question need not give a high- (or medium-) precision figure IMO: the 26,000-year approximation, as in the lead would probably be fine.
  • This is all about varying levels of precision: for two figures we have not only the aforementioned 26,000 a, but the ‘traditional’ 50″/a → 25,920 a being pushed by the IP; for three figures my RASC Observer’s Handbook gives 25,800 a (50.29″/a); for four figures [Wolfram] has 25,770 a (citing Beatty et al. 1990) … take your pick.
  • Finding an explicit, precise presentation of this value in astronomical literature is unlikely, because it has no physical significance except as the inverse of the instantaneous rate at J2000.0. Even by now the rate will have changed slightly; with a little WP:OR on my pocket calculator I make the period 25,770.0 a, for the epoch of J2013.8. This is one of those cases where a less precise figure is actually more accurate.—Odysseus1479 06:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have adopted your suggestion to use the approximate value for the sentence in question. I moved the article citation to the bibliography (which didn't have its own section until I created one) and placed footnotes that refer to the exact page and expression. This way the exact page and expression are given in the footnote, while the page range for the entire article is in the bibliography. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jc3s5h: looks good.—Odysseus1479 01:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your rollback request[edit]

Hi Odysseus1479, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 09:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the October blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA[edit]

I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates. sroc 💬 08:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Odysseus1479. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha[edit]

You are doing a fine job, but its not intentionally you are making a mistake by deleting the edits on Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha. He is truly a famous and loving poet so, give me and to my nation a favor in the form of this poet. Please undo your changes. I hope you will consider my explanation. Further will be provide if needed. Umar Taha (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe you have mistaken me for someone else: I have neither edited that article nor participated in any discussions about it.—Odysseus1479 01:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation[edit]

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Requesting deletion of private informaton[edit]

Apologies, I got as far as the emergency stuff before skipping over that box. Will read more carefully in future. --Jameboy (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

March GOCE copyedit drive[edit]

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of Writkeeper's view on me do you most agree with?[edit]

Hi, Odysseus. It is good to get the participation of newcomers at my RFC/U. It would not be obvious to you, but the vast majority of those commenting there have tracked me for months saying "block, block, block" all the way. They don't come to the RFC/U because they normally participate in RFC/Us. Rathe, they've watchlisted my talkpage over my protests and follow me to a new place where they can say "block him" some more. In my opinion that's a strange way to participate in Wikipedia. Anyhow, I'm interested in which part of Writkeeper's view you most agree with. Is it that I've done a minority of my block evading for things other than seeking unblock? If so, you have to consider that I was an avid editor, almost completely a content editor, who once made several hundreds of edits a year. So to just turn that off is not that easy. I've made maybe 24 non-unblock-seeking edits over like 18 months. Well maybe at some of those occurrences I revert flash reverts so it might be literally more than 24 edits, but it was about 24 distinct editing occurrences or groupings. If there is anything I can do to assist you in understanding my actions enough to support my unblock, then let me know. This is Colt on Co5mic. 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the April blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here.

Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles.

Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)