User talk:Outlook

First of all, thanks to all authors for expending the great energy and time it takes to write articles.

I focus on using my limited abilities as a copywriter to improve punctuation, typography, and sentence structure.

I am not a re-write expert and endeavor to leave the article in as close to original form as possible with full respect to the author.

If you have left a comment on this page, I thank you, for it can only improve my work. Outlook 14:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editing help[edit]

Outlook, thanks for making the minor editing changes to Astaxanthin. I authored it many months ago, but it was an exhausting effort. I should say, after reading ones own writing so much, it is difficult to find obvious errors. Hence, I thank you.

One minor fix I made. "shrimp meat" may or may not be Pandalus Borealis. USDA does not have strict regulations on this yet. Hence, marketing of "shrimp meat" could be any other species, or maybe brine shrimp, or bay shrimp. In any case, Pandalus Borealis is specifically marketed as "shrimp meat", but "shrimp meat" does not gauranttee Pandalus Borealis. I hope this is clear. meatclerk 05:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook, I am honoured by your comments. Thank you again, and perhaps you might be able to honour me with your fine work once I complete the article on Monterey clipper. -- meatclerk 04:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon[edit]

Sadly the article is not mine. I monitor it (along with a dozen other people) and an working on a complete re-write. Salmon used to found, in Europe, as far south as northen Spain along the north Iberian Peninsula; what now is above Portugal and east to France. Salmon may have also been along the Mediterranean Sea as far south as Rome, possibly in the last minor Ice Age about 7,000-10,000 years ago.

To answer your question, there are generally six points in the life cycle of salmon. In example, fry is used to indicate a small salmon before going to the ocean. fingerling is another common term for salmon released from the hatchery; the size being that of a finger.

whitling is one of many terms, I believe this is English. The other promeinent languages still in use for salmon are Scotish, Norwiegn, Irish (Gaelic, I think), and others where salmon can still be found, respectively. Scotish dominates the english language because Scotland remains a premier, although endangered, fish area (Angling). In my investigations, some words are common, like fry, smolt, and salmon. Although each word reprents a time period in the lifecycle of the salmon, some references have as few as four(4), some as many as ten(10). Does this help? meatclerk 19:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't answer your other questions now. I am on my way out. I did update the response, hopefully you read it after my last edit. Please message me back, so I remember to answer to it tonight. Thanks meatclerk 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit tags[edit]

All tags are at the discreetion(sp?) of the editor. The hope is that each article will, in time, approach some sense of perfection. As with any tag, do as much as you can. However, I've worked some of the more difficult areas; such as, Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years. From experience, if you have too many troubles or feel frustrated, move to another area. There are more than 1,000,000 articles that need improvement. In our lifetime, we might see 70,000-10,000 articles. Someone will eventually fix extremely bad articles, or a group concises will form.

One of the theories on wikipedia is that a person, or group, will eventually take ownership of an article, or group of articles; thereby, assuring quality. To test an article's loyalty, first see if anyone links to it, then try deleting it with WP:PROD. Does this answer your question? --meatclerk 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaivism vs. Saivism[edit]

Saivism is technically worse, because it obliterates the distinction between two consonants that are spelled differently in Devanāgarī and pronounced differently in most Indian languages (Bengali's the only exception I can think of) — basically, it conflates a letter pronounced s with another pronounced sh. The best practice would be to spell it Śaivism throughout, since ś is (for better or worst) the conventional Indological transcription of the Devanāgarī letter in question. But not everybody configures their browser to be able to see characters like ś properly (this is s with an acute accent), so there's an argument for substituting sh for ś. Probably more detail than you wanted to know! Best, Quartier Latin1968 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better to be consistent throughout? You bet! Quartier Latin1968

16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Outlook, thanks for copyediting the article about Breisach.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: And, your user page is a work of art.

Thanks, but I actually didn't design it, User:Webdinger did. He's part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help, who help folks like me, who can't create good-looking user pages.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Please make sure you're only copyediting articles, not discussion pages. Changing others' comments is generally unacceptable, even if they violate Strunk's rules. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent copyedit[edit]

You recently copyedited Aziz Abdul Naji. Would you please look at the comments I made about the previous copy-editing on Talk:Aziz Abdul Naji?

I think the ball is in the other guy's court now. He or she left a note on my User page, telling me he still felt the original wording did not conform to WP:NPOV, but he or she didn't think they knew enough to address my concerns about their edit.

If no one comes to address my concerns, within a reasonable period of time, I plan to restore the original wording.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors[edit]

Hi there! I came across your edits and noticed that you do a fair amount of copy-editing. I'm a member of the League of Copyeditors, a project dedicated to managing the sizable backlog of articles needing a copy-edit. We're always looking for new members, and you'd make a great addition to the project! We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you're interested, you can help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the ready for final proofread section.
Select a different article to proofread from the ready for final proofread section.

Thanks, and happy editing! BuddingJournalist 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Great to have you on board! As far as navigating the "ready for final proofread section", I was a bit unsure what you were asking, but if you were talking about the easiest way to move articles from "ready" to "proofread complete", I find it easiest to edit the "Backlog status" heading. As far as removing the copyedit tag, it's up to you. I remove it when I feel satisfied that my copyedit is complete and the article is ready for proofread. Some other editors leave it on for the proofreader to remove. In either case, the tag should definitely be removed after it has been proofread. Hope this answered your questions! If not, drop me a line. BuddingJournalist 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey what part don't you see about PAGE IN USE . I am reediting all copywright . please leave me to this Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half of what you deleted was in the middle of being copy edited this is why I added the major edit tag. However in thinking its probably not best to save copywright until it has been completely restructed and rewritten. I am planning a the next section on themes of suicide in his work yet from various sources. I thought it might be more clearer to divide the cinematic style into sub paragraphs addressing each theme or technique in turn? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey look at the edit history to see who is doing the work here!! I too don't want to waste time in working on something that someone is going to completely ignore!! My time too is precious which is why I don't want people to completely remove my attempts at copy editing and imporiving this greatly Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you don't mean to say you have been working on this wihtout saving and then did it all in one go? Ah I have had the inuse {{inuse}} tag on it for ages while I have been working! APologies if you corrected any grammar but please don't delete large sections I have reworded and edited. Cheers. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem . Unlucky timing!! All the time you were copy editing probably the major page edit tag was there!! which others could see apart from you!-so you can see why I was a bit annoyed when I had seen somebody had edited when the major edit tag was there!! I have added the full filmography today I beleive another user has done most of the copy editing but I am aming to bulk up that style section and increase the neutrality over the reception which I hope I am doing. I see you do a good job in copy editing on other articles so keep it up! All the best and respect Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent‎ FAC[edit]

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a Wikiproject Grammar member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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