User talk:Chaosdruid

Could you tell me what bits are copyrighted etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.216 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Chaosdruid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Robotics1

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Robotics1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help request

The Guild of Copy Editors needs your help! As you already know, the Guild of Copy Editors has a Requests page where editors can list their articles to request a copy edit. During January and February, the requests have been arriving at the rate of several every day, and we are getting a bit behind! As one of our prolific editors and a January winner of a leaderboard award, we are hoping you can spare some time to help us get caught up. If you are interested in lending a hand, please select one or two articles from our Requests page and do a copy edit. Help a little or a lot; it's good karma! Thank you very much for any assistance you can offer. Your GOCE coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk)

Appreciate you

Thanks for the moral support! --Nconwaymicelli (talk) 5:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack!

I've never written on a talk page before, forgive me, I have no idea what I'm doing. Also, I think you may have written at me or something, but I'll go ahead and ignore that possibility. Excalibur was given to Arthur by the Lady of The Lake (or however the capitalisation goes), and was not the sword in the stone. So, one more time, they were not the same sword. In the movie it is referred to as "Excalibur". That is the error. Maybe they just stuck Excalibur in a rock, but.. And, you left "literary orthodoxy" in there. That doesn't work, because there was no longer an inaccuracy listed regarding literary orthodoxy. If that's even a remotely correct term.. Anyway, I hope you understand. If you could still edit the article and try and make it sound better, that'd be great. Though I've come to think it looks just fine. Or sounds, rather. User:Hamiltøn

Red light camera

Hello, Chaosdruid. Earlier this year I see you had commented on the problems with the Red light camera article on the Red light camera discussion page. I have been working on an alternative draft, which I've shared and explained on that page. In my preparation, I have recognized that I have a conflict of interest with the subject, so I think it would probably not be a good idea for me to be too bold here. Please join in there if you have the time or interest to help. Thank you. --VenturaHighway (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid, thanks again for your help with this article. Overall it looks really amazing, and the vast majority of edits since I posted it are very good. I've just been reading through since the changes were made and noticed that I missed one change you made in the draft stage, at the end of the introduction:

"Studies have shown that using these cameras does not necessarily increase safety, in some cases accident rates have increased once they were installed."

While I don't dispute that there are studies with these results (and I did include them in my draft) it seems to me that this isn't as neutral as what I had in the introduction before (here's my original version). There isn't a source given here, and I understand that introductions don't always need them, but I'm concerned that there is not one source that puts those two statements together as you have. They are discussed in the article separately, and I think it is misleading, because wide-ranging, multi-country studies have generally shown that (despite yes, some instances of increases in certain types of accident rates) overall the impact is to lower accident rates. If you agree, then I would like to ask if this statement could be removed and the end of the paragraph restored to the previous version from the draft, which I think is more appropriately balanced between the competing views. Please let me know what you think. --VenturaHighway (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

VenturaHighway, watch out, you are drifting in the direction of MPOV and COI problems. You need to be having this discussion on the article's talk page. This what you're doing by having the discussion on a single editor's talk page begins to approach canvassing, which is looked dimly upon (a diplomatic way of saying it's against the rules). Even when our intent is good and pure, we need to be careful to follow these rules and guidelines because it takes only the appearance of an end-run around the consensus-building process to spoil a great deal of hard work and good contribution, including yours. I've adjusted the wording you're looking at for better neutrality. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Ok, ummm, from largest to smallest, there is a big one used for grabbing spacecraft and berthing(docking) them to the station, moving them from one port to another and doing the same sort of thing with modules, it's called Canadarm2 it's ends kind of remind me of the sandworms in Dune. both of it's ends come off the station by themselves, so it can walk around the station like an inchworm does, although, only the USOS part mostly. (the station is divided in two, the russian orbital section ROS and the US section )There is another one, same deal, but lighter by half or two thirds or so, it can walk about the russian section without breaking anything, and i think the rest of the station) The russian section has generally smaller, more important modules (the us section goes for size not function, except japans laboratory, which is in the USOS, and the largest and best thought out lab up there) The Japanese Kibo laboratory has it's own dedicated robot arm, which takes experiments that are exposed to space out front of the lab on a porch, and sticks those experiments into a little airlock just for experiments, not for people. There is a big russian lab that will be commanded to join the station next year. It has a medium sized arm that is built by esa i think, the ESA site is a good source. That robot does the same job as the kibo arm, grabbing stuff which is exposed, but just stuck randomly about, no porch, and sticks them in an old fashion cylindrical trashcan shaped airlock which joins to the russian lab. That arm, and the trashcan are up there now, they are attatched to the outside of ummm, dont remember, i think rassvert module. They are just stowed there. Probably going into the assembly of the ISS article would show you as each arm was sent up as payload, and to those pages, and give some links that way.

(all russian craft, both manned and unmanned, are robots that don't need any human intervention. Humans monitor them, and only intervene if something is going wrong) European cargo ships (ATV's) are robotic same way. Japans 'white stork' HTV ones aren't too special, they fly same as rockets automatically as expected but can't dock themselves, they are grabbed by the big arm and berthed. the soon to be retired shuttles aren't at all, they are mostly manually flown, with only a small amount of autopilot on launch anyhow, skip shuttles, they aren't robots, and their robot arms are not station robotics obviously.There is a tiny little guy like a stickman about the size of a 4 year old child, it's just got two arms and no legs or head, really skinny too ,and it gets put on the end of the other big arms to fiddle with smaller items around the place, it's called dextre.

The links you found are payload experiments not part of the station, nasa has a great tendency to be confusing sometimes, I'll find images for you, I have to go through them regularly anyway, and the nasa interface for their image library is insanely complicated. I give up on it, and have a shortcut into their archives. I'll find pics, to help explain things, I have to find pictures for an existing project that is on the drawing board, and it covers the same images basically, so we don't both need to do the same work there.

I'll look for more and better refs for you mainly for the ESA one i can't name off the top of my head, but the canadarm2 page may have some proper refs in it, i'm not sure though, some of the pages the iss page links to are crap, some are good.

Now Robonaut is a big piece of crap, it's an advertising gimmick by some company so they can say 'hey look we make cars and robots for the iss' it's a payload, and doesn't work, like it is hyped as a Gazillion dollar piece of string, meant to go outside when crew are doing EVA's and hold tools for them, but it cannot go outside, it hasn't been equipped with shielding for radiation or electrical discharges (like static, but much worse on the outer surfaces of the station) plus, it would need modifications to move around the station itself. It hasn't been switched on, according to it's official facebook page, where some nasa twit (the nasa site points to this page) some bloke pretends he IS robonaut, and people ask him questions, like, oh, whats it like outside, and he's like gee I'm sure it's great, but maybe oneday when i'm upgraded i'll get the chance to do that, or some such, and I kid you not "I haven't been switched on yet" I mean, OMG ! hello I'm talking to you whilst I'm switched off. anyhow, the crew used the robonaut for a 'prank' on mission control (wasn't funny, is on youtube), and absolutely everyone on the net uses him as the butt of jokes, and really good ones too I must say.

Well, thats what i can think of straight off the top of my head, now i'll find you what i can on the medium sized European one. so there is canadarm2, something 1/2 the size, another one slightly smaller i think, then Kibo's dedicated arm, then dextre.

Strela cranes, you'll need to mention those also, you can point out they are used for the same function as the robot arms, to hold items and crew members, they look just like telescopic aerials on transistor radios. I don't know how much of them is motorized, best to mention them, they need it as they do the same job, and later I'll find out about them by some in depth research in the russian websites. there are 2 strelas i think on pirs, though it could be pirsk? i'm forgetting its name now, they are a pigeon pair of airlock modules but one has the strelas which make it look exactly like the strelas are it's arms. Penyulap _talk 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Robotic arms, unless showing a reasonable degree of autonomy, are not robots. Most robotic arms do not fall into a "Robot" definition unfortunately. Dextre is referred to as both "robot" and "robotic", as shown in this NASA page [1]. There is also this [2] which gives more info. If the arm can operate autonomously then it would be a robot.

I assumed you were talking more about the PSAs [3] and [4]. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

sorry, it's way past my bedtime, and when I re-read your question, oops!. Kibo one has no name i think, and the ESA arm. So it wouldn't be a robotics section it'd be a robotic arms and cranes section, or, to keep the index tight and simple, just robotic arms ? and the cranes included, but not in the title of the section. See? this is where i need your kind of expertise, I don't know which ships are robots and which are robotic, I'm learning right there. I wasn't clear on the difference between robot or robotic, although I've got the arduino in front of me and enough servos for a hexapod in the corner over there. Penyulap _talk 18:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So how about the progress supply ships, they launch like any rocket does, go into orbit and all, but they spot the ISS form i think it's more than 200kms from memory, then start calculating all the trajectories and vectors and stuff, orienting themselves according to where they are, and close in on the station, then find which docking port they were told to use, and line up with it, and then dock and then harddock, though the guys watch them, they always avoid trying to intervene as it's actually once been unhelpful that way, i think that was what caused the accident on mir, the cargo ship crashed because he turned on his manual override panel, and it just thought WT? and got confused. whitestork sortof lines up, kindof has holdpoints, and does the same sort of thing, but i don't rightly know it's full procedures off by heart. the esa ATV has basically the russian system which the europeans mount onto it.Penyulap _talk 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The psa's if they are designed specifically for the station are a good include, the stargate universe fan who stole the idea got good value for nasa money,. that one is better and probably more useful than robonaut, IF it can go outside the station, otherwise it's more just a toy. If they can send it out the experiment airlocks, thats cool, but inside they have plenty of stuff like that as experiments. If they launch it and it's designed for the ISS and goes outside, then it's in and stays for sure. but if it is only proposed or doesn't go outside then editors will attack it. I won't. I think it should be included and left alone just for the stargate universe appeal alone. Penyulap _talk 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

reading the article fully, it's another nasa toy that won't be used, it'll be in the way up there, it has no mission. anywhere it can go, a crew member can stick their head, there aren't any confined spaces that can be flown through, and if they suspect gas buildup they'll just rip the cables and close the hatches like always. I see another mini robonaut, I like it, it's cute and SGU, but it'll get ripped on by other editors. I'd go with it if you want to though, because maybe enough other editors will like it for the same reason i do, and protect it, or leave it alone. Penyulap _talk 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is whether or not the robotics would warrant their own section (or subsections), as they all provide different functions, or would be more suited to inclusion in the existing sections (which most are, especially the arms and robot supply vehicles).

As it stands the arms have been included but, as you rightly point out, the PSAs and Robonaut2 are not.

The PSAs are only able to work in a gaseous environment as they use fans for propulsion. The PSAs are not really mentioned much after 2004 and may have been discontinued, but they are not to be confused with the SPHERES which are an experiment. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

PS I am unsure as to whether or not Dextre is autonomous, though the NASA page does amusingly refer to it as a person ("on his workbench")

Lolz. well you can't write for Germans the way you can write for Americans I guess. Umm, cool. so long as they are all covered, it's good. The strela cranes though, are they something you can identify about as prominently as they should be ?. I guess my desire to bring lets call it the manipulators together into a section was to make it easy to read about them in one place, and say how those cranes can actually move about. Inchworm movement and Strelas I'd say, but I'd take my hat off to you for pointing out that they are not robots. I need a slap now and then. Do you make any of your own robots at all btw ? Or play with any cool ones? I should go now, I'm quite tired.Penyulap _talk 19:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a page on NASA robots which is in dire need of some work - there are not even summaries for Dextre and SPHERES.

The individual mentions (in the ISS article) are quite hard to find, but should be covered in the "see also" section I suspect, though a separate section on "Robots and robotics" could easily be added with a very short summary and a lot of links to the individual elements. Perhaps in table form. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Omg this 'which can function as an equivalent to humans' reminds me of my effort on the robonaut page, how i explained how it provided Xpounds of valuable ballast, which decreased the rate of orbital decay, thereby lengthening the time in freefall between reboosts, which is all true. I think it's more accurate to say it's meant to replace a piece of string that usually holds tools for astronauts. however, it doesn't have shielding, can't go outside the iss, can't move about and hasn't ever been turned on. Ideal really. It hasn't killed anyone yet which is very positive. so far. Penyulap _talk 19:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't be fixing the robot page unfortunately, I have too much to do, plus existing new projects, plus i need to rest, totally ! Penyulap _talk 19:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can grab that robot page, if it was space robots I'd be in it, as I'm a sucker for underdogs and NEU, and I'll incorporate your ideas into the ISS article later no problems. nite Penyulap _talk 20:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Empire State of Mind II

I've given up the translation, the article has a lot of copy-pasted phrases and information not verified by the sources. I'm afraid it isn't able to be a GA here anymore due to this. Greetings, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

TC help

Hi Chaosdruid, as you might know, I'm currently the person in charge of managing the Triple Crown nomination process. Well, now I have a nomination of my own, and it seems strange to award myself. I'm wondering if you can do me a big favor and award it to me? You can copy the template from here, and just change the name and signature stamp. You don't need to do anything else. I'll do the rest after that. Thanks so much! Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Excellent, thank you! – SMasters (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Index of robotics articles

Per your request, I've narrowed it down. It's incomplete, but a good starting point for additions. The Transhumanist 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs removed

Hi

Can you please explain why you are removing google book references from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because of crowdedness. I've pasted them. Now I think that users who are interested in that issue understand facts. If you want, you can paste them again. Takabeg (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I do not understand what you are trying to say.

"Because of crowdedness" - They only appear in the references section and not in the main body of text.

"Now I think that users who are interested in that issue understand facts" - if you mean that they understand it and so do not need the refs that is highly against Wikipedia policy of sourcing facts. The urls show the text from the source in context. It is highly irregular to remove them.

I suspect that I do not understand your points due to English not being your first language, perhaps you can try and simplify what you are saying to make it more clear. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, English is my fifth language :) You can do as you want. Takabeg (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

July 2011

I am enjoying the sun (shame that it will be humid and showery Tuesday-Friday, according to Mr. Johnny Weather Forecast lol). Funny enough, your idea of keeping the "moss" as I call it in a separate tab might be a good idea...

Drive-wise now, and I seem to be coping reasonably well, learning lessons first encountered last time; i.e: I'm no longer rushing headlong into the drive (gees, that "headlong" sounds familiar). My method is simple: section by section (sometimes with a two-hour tea break in the middle :P!!) and then a finishing scan of the whole article. As of yet, there have been no major problems, but note use of the word "yet". It's only the third day of the drive, and it ends on the 31st, and there may be a bit of slight destruction between now and then :D!!

Hopefully things are fine with you, and I wish you good luck in the drive!--The wikifyer's corner 21:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'l probably tackle them tomorrow. It's 22:30 here and I am beginning to feel as if I slept in a room full of Scotch.--The wikifyer's corner 21:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They will be done by tomorrow evening. I am going to Cavan tomorrow. Good night.--The wikifyer's corner 21:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, before I went to bed I was watching the Robot Wars Series 4 Semi-Finals. Got to go.

This summer I am going to England, where I was born, and hopefully it won't be wet lol.

I have also been to Enniskillen in Northern Ireland.--The wikifyer's corner 09:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479#2nd_parachute_brigade's talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Summer Wars

You gave me three things to work on. One and three are done. What do you mean by number 2? And I'm assuming that the "after what?" bit corresponds with "after the film".--The wikifyer's corner 17:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'l look on it afterwards. I need dinner and a shower, and we are heading to Navan tomorrow.--The wikifyer's corner 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what needs done with your second bit of advice? I still don't have a clue.--The wikifyer's corner 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at The Master of Mayhem's talk page.
Message added 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Thanks a lot for the copyedit. Maybe the 6th FAC will be the charm :). --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced banner

Hi

The unreferenced banner is only for articles or sections that do not have any refs. The section you added it to in the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus had 3 refs in there already. It also says "article". To change it to "section", add the section parameter:

• {{unreferenced|section|date=July 2011}} which gives:

If you want to ask for more references you can use these banners:

• Template:Refimprove - asking for more sources
• Template:Primary_sources - asking for secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary ones
• Template:Verify_credibility (inline) - questions the validity of a particular source

I have also corrected some of the grammar from your recent edits today :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Çok Merci. I put {{Citation needed|date=July 2011}} in that section of the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus, because there is no sources of third party. Takabeg (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Klemens von Metternich (redux)

Hey Chaosdruid. Just a courtesy note to let you know that I have not been ignoring your talkpage messages to me, but rather pontificating on if and how a split should be made. I could then move forward with a new GAN. This process may take several weeks (mainly because I'm doing a lot of travelling). In the meantime, thanks for your comments on the article, your post at WT:GAN, etc, I do appreciate it. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to reject any helping in tidying my sometimes waffly prose :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)  Done

GA Mentor

Hi, yes. Let me know when you have completed the first pass of your review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, how is the review of Ditton, Kent going? The nominator seems to think that issues are fixed. Jezhotwells (talk)

Vacation

Just to let you know, I will be on vacation from July 17-19. I am going down to Southern Utah to visit Silver Reef and a couple other historic sites. I will also be unavailable most of the day on the 20th, as I will be in Eureka visiting the Tintic Mining Museum. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From a GOCE drive participant

Please don't kill me but I just tallied up my numbers for the May drive. Since I didn't make any of the awards, I am allowed to transfer all my words from that effort into "Rollover Words" for the current effort yes? Or do I wait for you or one of the other drive administrators to do it for me? Sorry for being such an ignoramus.--Aichikawa (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I think the deadline passed for that one! I did notice there is quite a large gap in your contributions though from mid May to the end of June.

I have checked your edits and the two you have added were indeed completed in May, and therefore before the deadline.

01:06 01-06-2011 : 4 articles = 2188 [5] Drive closed, page locked.

The drive page is then moved to Final numbers, after which it is copied over to the "Barnstars page", from which the barnstars are awarded. As you can see you had not added No.5 or No.6.

Anyway, the reality of the situation is that your total was 7,912.

We need to consider the reasons for the omission, please can you answer these questions for me:

• Did you add your own articles and word count during the drive, or did someone else do it for you?

I added half of the article names and word count during the drive, half after.--Aichikawa (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why did you not say anything at the time?

I got busy with a bunch of other things and had limited access to the Internet: I actually, amazingly, don't have Internet connection at home (on purpose because at work I have too much access to it), and I was off work. But now I'm b-a-c-k!--Aichikawa (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up:)--Aichikawa (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Chinese Indonesians Copyedit July 2011

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Talk: Chinese Indonesians.
Message added 18:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Talk: Chinese Indonesians.
Message added 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've reworded the sentence in question in the second bullet of your concerns with the "Gender and kinship" section of the article. Let me know if it's still unclear. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spanish Civil War

Chaosdruid- Thanks for taking the time to go through a newbie's edits. The things like units vs. units', were mistakes I was planning to correct in the morning, as I said in my most recent edit, and I'm really sorry you had to go through the article like you did. Clearly I shouldn't have said the page was done when it wasn't.

I understand that copy editing is not editing, but generally I thought rewriting sections helped the article say what it meant. For example, the introduction's section about new types of warfare was never covered in the article. Neither was press coverage, which was included in the same paragraph. I couldn't see why those topics needed to be part of the introduction, as the article was not about them.

Some of Your Observations

• My confusion about the numbers of soldiers ("forty thousand foreign nationals fought with the Brigades, though no more than 18,000") stemmed from reading the MOS, which said that "when expressing large approximate quantities, it is preferable to write them spelled out, or partly in figures and part as a spelled‑out named number." I misunderstood that directive.
• I added "finally" in "When the ships did finally leave," because ships could not leave while supplies were lost, but it's clearly OR and needs to be removed.
• When I wrote that "their journeys were extremely slow," I suppose I assumed that the hundreds of artillery pieces, tanks, and planes (though they could fly), if transported by boat, would not fit on one boat, and thus more than one boat would undertake a "journey" to move weapons (at the same time or not). There is no way I can know, however.
• I changed the quote from Hugh Thomas into a non-quote because I didn't think the article was trying to assign importance to Hugh Thomas, but rather what he said.

I've really just begun with copyediting. I'll try honing my skills some more. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qizix (talk • contribs) 07:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditton, Kent

Thanks for your helpful comments about this article. Since your review, serious editing has taken place and I think the points you raised have now been addressed. Also, the photo of Odo Bushop of Bayeux has been removed, together with those considered superfluous. There have been a couple of developments not directly linked to your review - two photos in the Economy section have been replaced (Aylesford Newsprint and Ditton Laboratory) with new ones (of the same subject) and one completely new photo of the Hermitage Quarry has been added. Shaibalahmar (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks very much for all your help and patience. This was my first Good Article and I have learned a lot about editing, not to mention Ditton. CheersShaibalahmar (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE template (banners)

Reminder!

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators#GOCE_banners_on_talk_pages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chaosdruid (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder, starting tomorrow I will not be completely available until the 21st, as I will be on vacation. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

St. John's

Hi, I was wondering if you would be able to review the introduction of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador to see if it is up to GA standards. The article was originally reviewed earlier this year and the only outstanding issue was the introduction, which has since been expanded and fixed. The member who reviewed originally reviewed the article has since helped with the introduction and now they don't feel they can pass it as a GA. So I was wondering if you could help. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mid-drive newsletter available for editing

Hi, Chaosdruid. I have made a first draft of a mid-drive newsletter and it is available here for further work. If you have time to check it over that would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Current situation map

You could ask user Rafy, he did most of the maps. He may be able to do it. EkoGraf (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive update GOCE July 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter. Participation So far, 45 people have signed up for the drive, of which 30 are actively participating, a very high participation rate. If you have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us. Progress report Progress has been less than that needed to meet our target for the drive (which would reduce the backlog by about 400 articles). Remember though, if everyone copy edits one or two articles every day, we will easily meet our goal. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. Reducing the number of articles on this list has been a major success of this drive. Thanks for participating! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce

Hi. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you have done. Much appreciated. Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

cite templates cause lag

[6] TCO (reviews needed) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the Ukraine Wikiproject page

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Invest in knowledge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Invest in knowledge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Led Zeppelin copy edit

Hi, i think I've finished working on Led Zeppelin. It is time for your copy edit I suppose. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you hold off on that please since the recent edits go against several hard fought points of consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstandment

Guess there was some kind of mix-up. Please check my reply on User_talk:Slon02#Copyediting. --Jollyroger (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Talk:Led_Zeppelin#'Album oriented rock' in lead.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

End-of-drive newsletter

The first draft of the end-of-drive newsletter for the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 drive is available for editing here. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/August 2011#Figures.
Message added 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack pages

Keeping a list of everything bad user:XXX did in your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Perhaps we should both focus on the many positive things to do rather than the very occasional misbehavior? DrKiernan (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing that you didn't really mean to compare a user page that has something called "bitey admins" to an attack page?

I am also guessing that you want me to remove the material? If you had perhaps not been so bitey towards me on that FAR, maybe been a little more open to working collaboratively, and less off-hand with your comments I would perhaps not have wanted to keep it. Maybe you should consider why a user has kept that?

I really wanted to collaborate with you and get the article through FAR. I offered olive branches and various other offerings but you refused to even contemplate the possibility of entertaining anyone else working on it. So much so that I just let you get on with it - it seemed anything I did was going to be against what you wanted and that there was even a little WP:OWNage creeping in. Nonetheless, I still tried to collaborate and you totally ignored my message on your talk page. Perhaps that was best, as that response to the other editor was less than cordial. You even sounded like you were annoyed that you had to do the work to get it through FAR. I understand that you were frustrated with the previous events and dealing with editors that were less than helpful, but I expected more of an experienced editor regarding good faith, perhaps even more as you are an admin.

Ah well, if you are going to have such a bizarre flight of fancy as far as to calling it an attack page then perhaps I will remove it. Maybe you should also look at how you interact with others? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you've kept it.

You say I "refused to even contemplate the possibility of entertaining anyone else working on it". Yet, I let Horkana have his way. Did I revert RoyBoy? No, he's written virtually the whole article. Did I revert Bignole? No. Did I revert Skomorokh? No. Did I revert Brad? No, unless you wish to count this edit in which I try to integrate the concerns of an anon IP that Brad dismissed out of hand.

You say I "totally ignored" a message on my talk page. I replied there, and at the FAR, and on the article talk page.

Instead of basing your judgement of my character on a brief fling of incivility, the private circumstances of which you are unaware, you should be basing it on the larger picture of my successful collaborations and more usual moderate language. DrKiernan (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let us get one thing straight - I have not commented on your character as I do not know what that is. I have merely commented on my on-wiki experience of interactions with you. Horkana, Roy boy, Bignole and Skomorokh have not even edited the article since I first made those changes to the refs. Let me also be clear that it was the refs that were the "it" as they were the only thing left to do on the FAR, apart from the image licences which I had already started working on with Brads guidance.

The point is that you felt that your way of doing the refs was the only way to do it ("sufficient little numbers interrupting the text already. Page numbers should be restricted to the notes"), you reverted them without an edit summary and then proceeded to leave obtuse messages. My last question on your talk page is still unanswered, it asks how "we" are going to proceed. The answer was obvious though, as there was never going to be a "we".

Leaving comments such as; the one I have just mentioned, "I let Horkana" (though I suppose you could be being sarcastic), the whole series of dialogue on Talk:Blade_Runner#Page_numbers, the discussion (if you can call it that) on your talk page, on the FAR, and on the article talk page all led me to think that perhaps you were bitey (if not downright grumpy and curt) and your refusal to allow page numbers in a different form than the one you prefer a little owney. These are all especially unnecessary and against collaboration for an admin who I, rightly or wrongly, expected to adhere to a higher standard. I appreciate that we all have good and bad days, and weeks, and obviously I am unaware of any "private circumstances".

Did it cross your mind to perhaps try and apologise? Maybe extend an olive branch? Ask that I ignore your previous two weeks behavuiour as "out of my normal character due to private circumstances"? No, you escalated to "attack page" - to accuse me of an attack page took it from "close to bitey" to "like a crocodiles mouth" when in fact there is clearly no attack inherent in that page whatsoever.

Please clarify what you mean by "a brief fling of incivility", are you referring to simply the comments that you want removed from my user space? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You say I "reverted them without an edit summary and then proceeded to leave obtuse messages". The edit without a summary was made at exactly the same time as I opened the talk page discussion[7][8]. You reverted,[9] (without discussion and without addressing the complaint in the edit summary, although I appreciate that this revert may have been the result of confusion after an edit conflict), so my second revert was accompanied by an extensive edit summary[10]. I see nothing obtuse in either the talk page comment or the edit summary. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you haven't answered a question, you continue to beat the dead horse and generally pursue a course of contradiction with a sprinkling of rose tinted glasses.

That is exactly the problem: you do not see your actions and replies (or lack of them) as obtuse; you cannot see your comment "There are sufficient little numbers interrupting the text already. Page numbers should be restricted to the notes where they do not disturb the flow of the article." as owney; you cannot see your talk page comments as obtuse - "Look at the top of the FAR and you'll see my name. Look at the FAR and you'll see my comment." and "There's a talk page at the article. Look there"; "You are undoing that by adding cite web templates" (a direct lie as I only introduced one among 35 that were already cite web - until you changed them all to yuor preferred style); "The year is unnecessary; adding it merely lengthens the page for no reason" - really? (And there was me thinking that it would be best to include the year a book was published as there is no title in there? And especially at FA); "and I was too exhausted by the inanity of the argument to put up a fight" - Yet there you are carrying on as if I am that editor instead of assuming GF.

Admit you were out of order for the "attack page" accusation, apologise for your disingenuous comments and off-hand attitude, or drop the stick and go-out-and-do-something-less-boring-instead.

I tried to be nice and that didn't work, I tried to collaborate but you decided to do it your way, I left you to it - but you came here and escalated. The ball is in your court, do not simply twat it back aiming for my head again or attempt to send it off the field of play. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an attack page. It is a user space page that focuses on a single editor and lists their faults. That contravenes the policy. DrKiernan (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject."

It is not a page about you (it is for any admin that I consider bitey) and it does not disparage you (there is nothing on there that is written by me, nor anything that says anything negative about you). There is certainly no threat on it.

It does not list your faults, it is (at present) merely a note on where we first met and a copy of a conversation you had as there have been other admins I consider bitey, but as you have raised issue with it I am trying to address any legitimate concerns you may have brought up before adding any others to it. This conversation could easily be considered as pointless, fruitless, against good faith, a little threatening to start with, and many others, all you had to do was say something nice and ask me to remove it, something I have pointed out a couple of times now.

Just so you know where I stand on this:

"Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI)." I have not discussed you, your behaviour or the posts you made, I have not publicised it, put it anywhere in plain sight on my user page or talk page, nor have I used it against you in any way shape or form.

I followed Wikipedia:EQ#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette. Can you please direct me to where a policy or guideline says that I am not allowed to use another editors posts as a quote? I have seen many people putting other users quotes on their user pages - this is even hidden deep in a set of double tabs and is clearly not intended to be seen by anyone taking a cursory look at any of my user pages, in fact you would have to click on "user boxes" and then guess at which tab it is as it is not even labelled (unless you are already on the page in question).

I am a patient person, and I still have hope that you will simply see the point in either: apologising and laughing it off; dropping the stick; ignoring this matter; or any other outcome where you say that you regret having accused me of an attack page and admitting you had a bad week. After we have come to that sort of conclusion maybe then I can be persuaded that it was just a bad week and I will take a similarly appropriate action? This is, after all, time we could both spend on more important tasks? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

award

	The King Canute Award
	Awarded for your valiant efforts in holding back the tide of foolishness on my talk page. Much appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was King Cnut, not Canute. Have I missed something? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cnut on some coins, Knútr on some runestones, Cnut as now the most common name and historically accurate - but "also known as" Canute in common English tradition most closely associated with the possibly apocryphal tale of him trying to hold back the tide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Design management

I was looking at this article (as you may recall, it's the one that's been sitting on the Requests page since June that we decided to leave until after the drive) and there is a notice on the talk page that it is being depeloped in tandem with the parallel article on de.wiki. So I am no longer interested in re-vamping the article or treating it as a re-write. I think the best thing to do is treat is as a normal copy edit. I have copy edited the section titled "Differnet types". If you would like to have a go next, please find one or two sections of the article that you find manageable and do copy edits. Then, pass it along to another GOCE coordinator for more work. You can post on the Requests page as to which sections you were able to complete. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer on this difficult article. --Dianna (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Chain mail to Utah :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Almost did Dianna's, but I completed the section "Definition of related terms," and it's over to Slon now. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

J. Choo Limited

Dear Chaosdruid,

I am trying, unsuccessfully, to update the J. Choo Limited page to create an accurate picture of the company for the public to view.

Statements regarding J. Choo Limited's intellectual property like those currently on the page are not accurate. The story relating to Kookychoo is not a true representation of the facts and damages the reputation of the company without true cause. Furthermore, the case involving Kookychoo has long been settled and is no longer relevant to the company's history or profile.

Basic facts regarding J. Choo Limited are incorrect on the article's page. For example, the company's name is not 'Jimmy Choo Ltd'it is 'J. Choo Limited', commonly referred to as ‘Jimmy Choo’. Tamara Mellon has been awarded an OBE and as such 'OBE' should follow her name. Her title in the company is 'Founder and Chief Creative Officer'.

I understood from Wikipedia's principles that the website strives to achieve free content that ANYONE can edit and that the material should be written from a neutral tone. Well the comments regarding Kookychoo and Jimmy Choo are far from neutral, they are damaging and create a negative image of the company. Furthermore, despite my best efforts to bring the article page up to date and to correct its factual mistakes, my edits have been repeatedly undone and I have received threats of blockage.

I would be happy to work on an article discussing the company's history, achievements and future aspirations from an unbiased viewpoint, complete with references and pictures, if I could be assured that such an article would not be removed. However, if I, or anyone else who wishes to expand the article to create a true representation of the company, am unable to do this, then surely Wikipedia is failing to meet its five founding pillars?

I look forward to your reply and I hope we can come to some agreement to allow the inaccurate statements regarding a historic case to be removed, and the necessary corrections made to make the article more accurate and relevant.

Kind regards,

217.205.109.74 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me try and lay out a timeline so that we can address the issues.

• Jimmy Choo Ltd covers the limited company, started by Mellon and Choo, and its history up to the present day.
• Jimmy Choo addresses the person.
• Tamara Mellon addresses the person.
• Equinox Luxury Holdings Ltd buy out Choo's controlling shares in 2001
• TowerBrook buy "Jimmy Choo" in 2007
• Labelux buy "Jimmy Choo" in 2011
• Jimmy Choo is the name the present company uses, as quoted by Mellon, as its brand name.[11]

First, can we establish that the company is the correct one? From companies house I get these listings:

• 03185783 - J. Choo Limited
• 05282753 - The J. Choo Group Ltd
• 05991660 - J. CHOO GROUP HOLDING LIMITED
• 06772270 - J. CHOO HONG KONG JV LIMITED
• 05500654 - J.CHOO JAPAN JV LTD
• FC026604 - J. CHOO (JERSEY) LIMITED
• BR008659 - J. CHOO (JERSEY) LIMITED
• 07611298 - J. CHOO (OS) LIMITED

From this I would agree that there is not a company currently registered in the UK with the title "Jimmy Choo Ltd.", more importantly the image of the letter sent to Kookychoo appears to be using the title "J. Choo (Jersey) Limited", which is on that list.

I would say there is a reasonable cause to look at referencing the company name as J. Choo (Jersey) Limited, but only if that is indeed the company name. For that there would have to be other secondary sources saying that the company is the one under that registered company name.

Secondly, let me try and address your specific issues:

• An accurate picture of the company would be what it was, what it did, what happened to it, what it was involved with and what it is now, what it does now, and what it is currently involved with. It would also include who started it, who owned it and who owns it now.
• You say: "Statements regarding J. Choo Limited's intellectual property like those currently on the page are not accurate." Please can you elaborate on this? Also, as far as I am aware, "Jimmy Choo Couture" is the same company as the brand name "Jimmy Choo".
• The items regarding Kookychoo.com are as reported on the linked reference [12], and verified in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Brisbane Times, The China Post, and 3News New Zealand. It is notable, having received international coverage, and verifiable and is still being talked about at present in the media and on websites. Undue weight would be the only way in which this could be removed, but I do not think that would apply. "Jimmy Choo" began the action and it has been settled. All these details are covered, without bias, in the article. THe unfortunate thing is that we do not have any secondary sources having printed a reply or statement from "Jimmy Choo". If there was such a statement that had been printed, then that should be included in the article to ensure a WP:NPOV and a balanced and fair article. As one is not apparent, and not available from sources searched so far, the omission is moot. The fact that the case is settled does not mean that it is not part of the companies history, as you can see there is no mention of the struggle between Mellon and Robert Bensoussan, nor Mellon and her mother, Ann Yeardye. Those topics were considered, at least by me, for inclusion, but I felt that they probably were only worth mentioning in passing, and I have not, as yet, added them.
• I agree that stating Tamara Mellon, OBE would be preferable, but this would only be used once and where it states her name first. After that it would simply be "Mellon" (Mellon stated, Mellon did this, Mellon had that etc.). This is the case on all WIkipedia articles, as it is in most media, and you can see examples of this on Cliff Richard, Elton John and Margaret Thatcher. I have added OBE to the first mention of Mellon and linked it.
• Your statement "Her title in the company is 'Founder and Chief Creative Officer'." would not be added as such, it may be added that her position is Chief Creative officer (if that is backed up by a reference) and it does already say that she was one of the two founders (see opening paragraph).

Thirdly we need to address the Wikipedia issues you raise:

• You need to declare a possible conflict of interest - under WP:COI, and all further edits should be clearly to non-contentious and non-promotional text. It would also be best if you post on a talk page about the edits rather than doing them yourself, such a COI, without it being declared, would probably result in unfavourable action (as there have already been so many reversions and removals).
• I would also advise you to start a Wikipedia account to give you a fresh start and isolate from the IP address you have been using. It would also make it clear that this is just one person, rather than perhaps a group.
• I would agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but that must be done in accordance with policies and guidelines. I have given those in my welcome message that I have just added on your talk page.
• Neutral tone - It may be that this does seem to be non-neutral, though that is why we ask that COI is declared, having a close relationship to something or someone can often make something neutral appear less so. As I have stated above, there is no apparent statement or quote from Jimmy Choo, or Mellon, that gives the other side to that story. That is not an omission on behalf of any Wikipedia editors, rather that it does not exist and so cannot be included. I could not even find a "No comment" in any of the fifteen or so interviews and hundreds of web pages I have trawled to try and find "the other side of the story".
• Your edits removed factual information that was referenced and verified. They were reversed on those very points. The material you included was promotional rather than encyclopaedic and was removed for that reason.

In conclusion, regarding the article content, I would agree that the article:

• is in need of some serious work.
• history section seems unfairly biased towards Choo.
• needs further expansion of the details of the company itself, rather than just concentrating on the shoes.
• should have more detail about the development of the product lines from their beginnings to the present day.
• should have more about the products in general

I hope this has given us a clear starting point from which the article can be developed? I appreciate this has been a frustrating time for you so far, but I hope that we can address these issues and get the article into a better and more detailed state. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a small amount of material from that section that was sourced only to blogs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid,

As you can see I have now created a user account. I am to happy to declare a COI and to suggest possible edits on the talk page rather than editing directly myself.

To answer your points above:

- J. Choo Limited is the company that needs to be on the article, J. Choo (Jersey) Limited is a subsidiary company and is no longer the 'umbrella' company. You can find references to the company here:

- Jimmy Choo (J. Choo Limited) and Jimmy Choo Couture are separate businesses. J.Choo Limited grants Mr Choo a licence to continue trading.

- Tamara Mellon, OBE is the 'Founder and Chief Creative Officer' is her official working title within the company To call her just 'Chief Creative Officer is incorrect. However, I agree with the decision to just refer to her OBE the first time.

- I suggest that as there are no avaliable comments from Jimmy Choo, as at the time the Company did not wish to comment, we cut down the size of the story and leave it with a few references, for example:

"In December 2008 a small IP dispute between a New Zealand website, Kookychoo.com and J.Choo Limited took place, but was settled in 2009. Kookychoo sell a variety of items such as toys, jewellery and bean bags. The fact that "choo" is in the name was at the crux of the issue."

If people want to know more about the issue then they can look at the links avaliable.

In addition:

I will start discussing possible additions on the Jimmy Choo Ltd talk page, I would be grateful for your commentary and your assistance in arranging for them to go on to the page. I look forward to working with you to improve the article.

Many thanks,

Victoria VictoriaJC (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikiwelcomed you on your new talk page :¬)

My only concern with the company title used as the article title is which company it was at the start, when Mellon and Choo founded it. If the company was the same one, J. Choo Limited, then all is well and good - but if the company has changed names then this also has to be reflected in the history and page title.

I would really appreciate a reference for J. Choo Limited licensing Mr Choo, if at all possible, that would certainly ease matters on the names of the business and shops etc. Is Jimmy Choo Couture Mr Choo's current business name, as I believe it is?

• I have found one myself, "he is under licence from Jimmy Choo Ltd to make Jimmy Choo Couture shoes" (The Guardian 5 November 2004), but it it could do with verifying with another one if possible.

I have reflected on the position/title more at the article talk page.

The problem with your description of events appear slightly incorrect. The letter sent to Kookychoo, and the references, all state that the order was to desist selling, not just an IP naming dispute (though I realise that may have been an error). We cannot call it "small", "large" or any other sizing term; as that would be misleading. Who is to say what small is? To the owner of Kookychoo it was pretty large, standing to lose everything she owned, and to Jimmy Choo it was small, probably a minor event in a large pool of such cases on trademark and copyright. As such it is best described without sizing.

I suggest that further discussion abou the article content is continued on the article talk pages from now on - if you do not object I can copy the last few parts of this over and add it to the material already there? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chaosdruid. You have new messages at The Utahraptor's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have come up with a way to reduce the backlog on the Guild's Requests page. Each of the Guild's coordinators will copy edit one article per day for however long it takes to completely reduce the backlog. We should start with the oldest requests first, then work our way to the more recent requests. As it has happened before, there are probably several users who requested a copy edit of an article in July that are dissatisfied because their request hasn't been taken care of yet. Also, to prevent this from ever happening again, I think at least one of our coordinators and several volunteers should keep a constant eye on the Requests page in between Backlog elimination drives. What do you think? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would normally have already started on it, unfortunately I have had a few things to catch up on - should be dealt with by tomorrow, though one of them is going to put around 12-15 articles on the requests page over the next two weeks, or I will have to do them to keep them off, either way it is going to mean I have little effect on the backlog for a week or two.

Did you also notice my update to the little research item on the newsletter talk page? Maybe I should move it to the coordinators page... Chaosdruid (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ohh?

Anyway could you re-word it or something if you think its copied? because all the information is up to date and real information 86.160.202.216 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)