User talk:RLO1729

User • Talk • Thanks • Universe

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of July 2020 
Some of it was fun, a lot of it wasn't. This editor no longer has the energy and resilience to deal with the latter but hopes Wikipedia will continue to grow and improve its editorial review and admin practices.

Welcome to my talk page

Please assume good faith | post new messages at the bottom of this page | sign your message by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks  :)

Your GA nomination of Charles Wilkins (writer)

The article Charles Wilkins (writer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Wilkins (writer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cymmer Colliery explosion

The article Cymmer Colliery explosion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cymmer Colliery explosion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas Stephens (historian)

Hello! Your submission of Thomas Stephens (historian) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Wilkins (writer)

Hello! Your submission of Charles Wilkins (writer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James John Joicey

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James John Joicey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man, looking forward to it.  ~ RLO1729^💬 11:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your date edits to Les Petits Meurtres

I don't know why you changed 2020 to 2019 as end of the series, cast appearances, etc., but: The final episode of Season 2 started streaming in French with English subtitles in Jan 2020 and isn't scheduled to be released in France until September or October 2020 (Antoine Dulery from Season 1 reappears as guest star in the S2 finale); the first episodes of a Season 3 with new lead cast were to start filming in March but had to be postponed due to Covid — they are expected to be released in late 2020. Mirawithani (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mirawithani, the article itself only had episodes up to 2019 (until your recent edit) but the source I relied on was IMDM which gives September 2019 for France and October 2019 for Italy for the last episode "Un cadavre au petit déjeuner". As it is a French series, later release dates in other countries such as in Australia seem a little irrelevant, but that's why I added "(France)" to the final release date in the infobox. Otherwise the article will need to keep track of release dates in all countries. I also think it is better to only include dates for existing series (so up to 2019) rather than assuming further seasons will go ahead, despite announcements. The article can be revised when the new series actually appears.  ~ RLO1729^💬 20:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The infobox item is also called "Original release" so 2019 per the IMDB citation would seem to be the best date to use at present.  ~ RLO1729^💬 21:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just checked, the episode itself is dated 2019 in the credits.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure your date edits are well-intentioned but they're based on incorrect information and also misunderstanding of how TV series Infobox is handled on Wikipedia. IMDB is often incorrect because, like Wikipedia, much of it is user-added and not “official”; any registered user can contribute and IMDB doesn't usually check to see if it's verified — contributions that I've added to IMDB have been accepted immediately. In March 2019, the head of France 2 TV Fiction said publicly that “Un cadavre au petit déjeuner” would be broadcast in France toward the end of 2019, but then the network postponed for a year and nobody bothered to revise it on IMDB — a Google search will indicate that this episode has definitely NOT been released in France yet, other than in an Avant-Premiere at a film festival. (Several episodes of this series have been shown in other countries before France over the years.)

Australia (French with English subtitles) is especially relevant here because this is English-speaking Wikipedia and is available on streaming, although the true initial release was on Italian TV last October —- dubbed in Italian and broadcast only a few times.

It is standard Wikipedia form to use a Start Date followed by -present, -ongoing, or just a plain - for a TV series that has not ended; no date for last episode actually aired. Mirawithani (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. If the last episode is dated 2019 and it was released (anywhere) in 2019, then surely 2019 should be used. Why is released in Italy less important than released in Australia? The infobox item is not titled "First aired in home country" but "Original release", and the last episode of the currently existing series was thus originally released in 2019. Whether or not it was an English-language/subtitled release is irrelevant, especially as we are talking about a French-language serial anyway.

This is really such a minor issue, but I'm suggesting accuracy about the current state of affairs over speculation about the future, and standard Wikipedia form is not always a good guide. The expectation of a third series could be included in the body of the article.  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

“Original release” in the Infobox is the date the series started and is followed by “-date” only if the SERIES has ended; it is never intended for the airdate of just the most recent episode.

If you want to change the year of “Cadavre” back to 2019 from 2020 because Italy aired it first, feel free to do so. Problem is finding a reference with the date because networks tend to remove the page shortly after they first broadcast it. It took some contortions to find even one because Googling for Fox Crime + the series or the episode produces only the current schedule. Here it is, but no guarantee it won't expire any minute: Mirawithani (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, which I'll add in and hopefully it will be archived somewhere. Re the Infobox, I've revised the Original release info per the template parameter description and hope that resolves this discussion.  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James John Joicey

The article James John Joicey you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:James John Joicey for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Cast/Episodes headers on Les Petits Meurtres

No idea how they got screwed up when I added Barbara Schulz to cast box and appreciate your getting them back in the right places. Mirawithani (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks page gallery edit

@Tholme: Thanks for the recent edit to my User Thanks page. It is certainly more efficient to have the center style at beginning of the gallery syntax but that has also centred the whole gallery on the page. I would prefer it to be left justified. Can that be done efficiently too? And the user names below each gallery image are now not centred.   ~ RLO1729^💬 00:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Think I've sorted it using div tags as recommended here.  ~ RLO1729^💬 09:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy that you got it fixed :) I'm sorry, i didn't notice that gallery was centered as well, it was supposed to look the same. I think your solution is the simplest and best to the have the layout you want. Another simpler alternative would be using <gallery mode=nolines>, but then the images would have no border, and thats maybe not what you want. The third alternative is to use TemplateStyles, but thats probably overkill in this case.Tholme (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal for Collapsible Cast on Les Petits Meurtres

I think it's unnecessary because the entry page is so short anyway, but regardless of whether Collapsible is used, the leads — Duléry and Colucci for S1 and Labarthe, Bellavoir, and Frenck for S2 —should be in the lede or somewhere in the top of the narrative and probably also in the Infobox. Lead actors in a series are always shown prominently. I'd attempt it myself but you'd just have to fix it because, in case you haven't figured this out yet, although I've been on Wiki for years, I'm competent to do only simple edits that don't require understanding the Wiki “system.” Mirawithani (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, although the number of brackets in the top section seems a little cluttered, moving back to the French Police ranks would help that too - what do you think? Also, not sure why the existence of an episode means we don't need a citation but happy to go with that edit.  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If films and TV shows have already been released, cast members don't get citations in list or Infobox because the work itself is considered the source. Same reason Plot descriptions don't have citations unless an editor includes something parenthetical that isn't in the plot. You can check some random TV shows and films if you're in doubt but I've never seen citations used other than for as yet unreleased projects, e.g., citations would be necessary for the new main cast and guests who have been announced for Season 3 of LPM. Mirawithani (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, that seems to be an approach that has evolved in this area of Wikipedia that relies mainly on the primary source (the film/episode etc itself) and so doesn't meet the usual Wikipedia injunctions that sources should generally be reliable secondary sources. The approach for film and TV seems to be like stating that Mt Everest is a certain height (check it if you like). I'd say the statements below from WP:PSTS are relevant and mean we shouldn't be adding original plot descriptions because they are interpretations of primary sources (but summarising existing plot descriptions from a reliable source would be OK):

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
• Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
• Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

There is possibly some uncertainty in the above as to whether plot descriptions are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" or "interpretation", but the dot points above are pretty clear in relation to the whole "Episodes" section of the Les Petits Meurtres article.  ~ RLO1729^💬 23:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see MOS:TVPLOT says "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given" so it seems we just need to ensure the plot descriptions are only basic.  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James John Joicey

The article James John Joicey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James John Joicey for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Joicey and Elwes

Thanks. I take the point. Salmon implies that Elwes had considerable influence over the curation of his collection when it was in the Natural History Museum. I don't necessarily regard Salmon as 100% reliable, and it is frequently unclear what his sources were. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue. It prompted me to provide a little more detail – and a citation, which for some reason I had neglected! Will you be revising the last sentence of that section?  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Elwes, Joicey

It should be possible to sort out some of the contradictions by checking sources quoted by Salmon: Riley and Stearn. These are traceable publications, but it may be difficult to consult them when most of the libraries which should hold them are locked down!

I will make some enquiries; but this is likely to take a week or more. I guess that for most purposes this is now satisfactory on the Elwes page, in that we are not claiming 100% accuracy, and the reader is alerted to the fact that there may be alternative narratives.

By the way, I like your Joicey page (I think you did indeed originate it?) Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you can find, no hurry of course. Glad you liked the Joicey article, I didn't create the page but have enjoyed the journey expanding it from Start to GA; he's a distant relative.  ~ RLO1729^💬 13:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Stephens (historian)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Stephens (historian) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sainsf.  ~ RLO1729^💬 21:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Wilkins (writer)

On 19 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Wilkins (writer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Wilkins, who wrote prolifically about the history of Wales, was described as "an Englishman with a Welshman's enthusiasm"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wilkins (writer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Wilkins (writer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Stephens (historian)

The article Thomas Stephens (historian) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Stephens (historian) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Red Dragon (magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Red Dragon (magazine) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Stephens (historian)

On 21 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Stephens (historian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historian Thomas Stephens is considered to have done more to raise the standards of the National Eisteddfod of Wales than any other Welshman of his time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Stephens (historian). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Stephens (historian)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Red Dragon (magazine)

The article The Red Dragon (magazine) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Red Dragon (magazine) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agatha Christie

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agatha Christie you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for George Insole

On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George Insole, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Insole pioneered the introduction and early success of South Wales steam coal in the London and international markets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Insole. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George Insole), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Christie

Hi RLO1729. I see someone has picked up the Christie GAN. Good luck with it. There are some things that need to be addressed before it should pass, which you may want to focus on before the proper review starts. There are way too many unreferenced passages, particularly towards the end ("Archaeology" have numerous uncited parts; "Portrayals" has only five cites). Some of the bullet-pointed lists (which shouldn't be in a prose piece) are only partly sourced. There are several POV claims (her "best-known novels", "Notable television adaptations include" etc - they may be notable to you, but you need a source to identify the "best-known" or "notable" examples) and a couple of the sources (IMDB and YouTube) are unreliable and should be replaced. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. As I mentioned to Sainsf, the article has been around for a long time and revised by numerous editors, so there are sections my co-Agatha-editor Tbytheriver and I have revised heavily and others for which we are not responsible except for trying to tighten it academically and style-wise, though not always completely successfully. I've tentatively put my hand up to take the resulting article through the GAN process but know there is still room for improvement. I appreciate you casting a fresh pair of eyes over the article and will address the points you raise.  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No probs - and kudos for taking on such a big project too. BTW, in terms of the lists within the page, you could follow the example in footnote "n "in this FA, so the paragraph that starts "Notable television adaptations include:" could all be dropped into a footnote at the end of a sentence "There have been numerous adaptations of Christie's work on television(citation)(footnoted list)". This way there is no loss of information for those that want to see the details, and a smoother read for those who are reading for a general overview and don't want the detail. I'll leave it up to you whether to do it or not. It's a personal preference as much as anything, but I find the reading easier and the presentation better with such extraneous details elsewhere. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: Also thanks for raising these issues without blasting them all over the article :).

Here are a few general comments on the points above:

Archaeology: The unsourced paragraphs at the end of the section are basic descriptions of the books mentioned. There are precedents for not needing to cite these basic descriptions as the books themselves are available; for example, see MOS:TVPLOT for "basic descriptions" of TV plots using the relevant episode as the source:

"Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given."

Portrayals: The references provided seem to cover the substantive points made, but I will double check. The remaining unsourced paragraphs relate to existing works and could also be considered "self-sourced" basic descriptions.

Bullet points: Thanks for the footnote suggestion which my co-editor and I will certainly consider. You say bullet points "shouldn't be in a prose piece"; is there a MOS reference for not including bullet points in article body text? From what I have read of Wikipedia style guides, they would seem to be a stylistic choice rather than being proscribed – but perhaps that's more what you are saying in your most recent message above?

POV: Agree with removing/citing expressions such as "best-known" throughout the article; will revise (again).

Unreliable sources: will review and revise.

Thanks again.  ~ RLO1729^💬 08:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think relying on TVPLOT to avoid citations is a slightly slippery slope (particularly as they can be found relatively easily), and if you are claiming there are "influences" (which you are), then they definitely need a source. The other point is that although you've listed, for example, four "archaeological" works and three "portrayals", how do you know that these are the only ones – or even the most notable ones? That's what a citation helps with - it stops the "fact" being challenged later on. The "portrayals" is very much in need of sources: as they are portrayals of Christie, that's not a plot – that's a character. Searches of Google Books and the BFI (and possibly the AFI) should be able to easily provide the answers to these, if the sources you have to hand don't cover them.

We have MOS:USEPROSE as the main part of the guideline. For the bullet points, if you look through the best examples of the biographies we have on WP, or the most thorough print biographies, you probably won't find bullet points in the prose. I hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

They do, thanks. :)   ~ RLO1729^💬 09:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: SchroCat, could you let me know of any other POV claims you noticed in the article please? Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 10:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sainsf: We've had another go at the article, hopefully addressing most of the points raised here. Your GAN comments on the current version would be very welcome when convenient. Thanks.  ~ RLO1729^💬 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I will take some time to read through it, busy writing a few articles at the moment. Cheers, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 05:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for James John Joicey

On 27 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James John Joicey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that amateur entomologist James John Joicey had a collection of 1.5 million butterflies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James John Joicey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James John Joicey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for James Harvey Insole

On 1 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Harvey Insole, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the modern legacy of South Wales colliery proprietor James Harvey Insole is his Victorian mansion Insole Court at Llandaff, Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Harvey Insole. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Harvey Insole), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick Vincent Theobald

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frederick Vincent Theobald you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick Vincent Theobald

The article Frederick Vincent Theobald you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frederick Vincent Theobald for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Frederick Vincent Theobald

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Vincent Theobald, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that entomologist Frederick Vincent Theobald wrote a five-volume monograph and sixty scientific papers on mosquitoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick Vincent Theobald. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Frederick Vincent Theobald), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious

good biographies

Thank you for quality biographies, expanded and created, such as Frederick Vincent Theobald, Agatha Christie, James John Joicey, Charles Wilkins (writer) and James Harvey Insole, for an amazing record of turning them to good articles, - guitar-playing mathematician, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2397 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda Arendt! I am sincerely grateful for this award and for your thoughtfulness in presenting it.  ~ RLO1729^💬 22:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful way to react, - I'd normally just click thank you, but that doesn't work on this page, did you know? - I guess it is because of your lovely image on top, or do you intentionally suppress it somehow? - I hope you don't mind that the award comes from the "cabal of the outcast" of which you are a member by what you do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, not sure why "Thank" isn't working for you, it's not intentional. When I look at the Talk page "View history" I can see "thank" options next to other editors' names.  ~ RLO1729^💬 07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm lazy. (See first thread on my talk: I am the master of the lazy thank-you clicks.) - You are right, when I go to the talk history, I have the thank option, but I tried right in the diff to which I was pinged, where I saw no options. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare this similar ping diff. - Nothing important though. Could you perhaps look at Monteverdi's vespers, post peer review? Composer's birthday coming up, and I want it in good shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. I'll just jump in and make changes directly, if that's OK, and perhaps add other suggestions to the talk page if necessary. Please view any edits as friendly suggestions and feel free to revert (and/or discuss if you'd like) any as you see fit, especially if I've misunderstood something along the way. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 09:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you please do as you proposed, make changes in the article, and note other things (such as "when") on the talk? Because I may not have time to address them all in the remaining few days. The background section tries to supply the context, and I'm not sure how many years are needed, or may bore those who know. "emerging" opera, the first one, - all these things have articles for those who really don't know. Someone interested in the Vespers, however, might not even want the repetition of historic dates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, tags removed. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Hammersley

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Hammersley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar

For your excellent contributions to Agatha Christie (and other articles of yours that I had the pleasure to review) via your impeccable collaboration with Tbytheriver. This must not have been a simple job for an article like this, and you guys have set an amazing example! It was a pleasure reviewing a beautiful article on my favorite author :) All the best for your future endeavors. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 14:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sainsf, it was a pleasure working with you, as always. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 14:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agatha Christie

The article Agatha Christie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agatha Christie for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For excellence in editing the Agatha Christie article. Your skills and commitment to this project over the past six months are the key reasons this article has achieved GA status. Tbytheriver (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Million Award for Agatha Christie

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Agatha Christie (estimated annual readership: 1,880,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for improving this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Hammersley

The article Peter Hammersley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter Hammersley for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Governor's Body Guard of Light Horse

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Governor's Body Guard of Light Horse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Agatha Christie

On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agatha Christie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that public reaction to Agatha Christie's eleven-day disappearance in 1926 included speculation the incident was an attempt to frame Archie Christie, her then husband, for murder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agatha Christie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agatha Christie), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Governor's Body Guard of Light Horse

The article Governor's Body Guard of Light Horse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Governor's Body Guard of Light Horse for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cymmer Colliery explosion

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

If/when you submit the article for FAC consideration the reviewer may suggest that the legacy section be rewritten in paragraph form.

Best of luck with the article moving forward. It's in great shape.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Twofingered Typist, excellent work! Cheers,  ~ RLO1729^💬 12:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Many Thanks for adding the Conway Circle page

Dear user:RLO1729, many thanks for adding this article, it was also in my list of "to do things". Are you interested in synthetic geometry as well? Best Regards Count Von Aubel (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Count Von Aubel, you're very welcome. I'm hoping to expand the article as time permits. I'm certainly interested in geometry but no specialist. Cheers  ~ RLO1729^💬 13:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi user:RLO1729, I think the theorem statement is well written and the diagram very nice and essential. I have written one small article like yours: Bottema's theorem and contributed to this other one: Van Aubel's theorem. I am also not a professional mathematician but I do my best to contribute to geometry. Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Count Von Aubel. The articles you mention are interesting, I've made some suggested revisions to the Bottema article, happy to discuss any of the changes if you'd like. (I am a professional mathematician, just not a geometer.) Cheers  ~ RLO1729^💬 02:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear RLO1729, many thanks. And I am very sorry for my misunderstanding that relegated you between the not-professional mathematicians. I saw those minor changes, of course I am completely fine with them. I am not a native English speaker (I assume you are - but sorry for an eventual second misunderstanding), so my exposition might be not so good sometimes, but I see that here in wikipedia many other editors help a lot. Of course your revision over my work will be very much appreciated. About this Conway circle, it is really true that I wanted to add that page as I am a bit interested in circles pertinent to various geometrical configurations. I was very surprised back at the first year of University (Space Engineering) when I read about the Nine-point circle. I have written a paper about a circle pertinent to the quadrilateral configuration, I hope you find it interesting, if you have the will to have a look at it: https://ijgeometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5-13a.pdf (it is a reference I added at the Van Aubel's theorem). Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Count Von Aubel, your paper is very interesting, well done! I wonder if a similar result holds more generally for (convex?) polygons.  ~ RLO1729^💬 07:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Many Thanks RLO1729. Well, I do not know, I did not look at that possible path, for laziness and difficulty. I enjoy very much the synthetic method. Starting with a more complex configuration, maybe the analytical-algebraic approach could be better (and this one I enjoy less!). There's a famous theorem that goes in that direction: the Petr–Douglas–Neumann theorem but does not go for circles. Instead, I went backwards the other way, the simple one, to see what happens when the quadrilateral degenerates in a triangle and indeed I have found, in my opinion, some interesting results. These can be found in the current latest issue of the International Journal of Geometry: On a Six-Point Circles Family for the Triangle, if you are interested. Sorry if it seems I am doing self-advertising, I am only an amateur geometer in the end. Somehow I got this interest from secondary school! Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And sorry I was forgetting, that six-point circle, it does not matter if the quadrilateral is convex or not. It works for any quadrilateral, re-entrant or self-intersecting! Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:INOROUT

Hello:

I found this example in the MOS which clarifies for me the use of quotations with a period as discussed in the MOS: "If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark."

LaVesque's report stated: "The equipment was selected for its low price. This is the primary reason for criticism of the program."

LaVesque's report said that "the equipment was selected for its low price".

I shall be correcting the punctuation in Agatha Christie, where necessary, to conform to this as I do my final vetting of the article.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks Twofingered Typist. I also wondered about the revision of spaced dashes to unspaced dashes. If this is a stylistic preference rather than grammatical, could we go back to the original spaced dashes please? (I could do that after you have finished your edits.) You're doing a great job on the article, thanks for working through it so carefully. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 23:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Hello:

I have now finished my copy edit of the article Agatha Christie. Do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Another editor removed all the spaced en dashes where they appeared in quotations. I could not revert their edits so had to go back through the article to restore them. I think I caught every instance. I certainly have no problem with you replacing em dashes. That editor also "fixed" the spacing in many citations. I left that alone.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks again Twofingered Typist. Cheers,  ~ RLO1729^💬 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello ... --Brogo13 (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edits and pages

Sorry to see you are retiring. I'm most impressed with your portfolio, and would like to thank you, from encounters with some of your pages, for the outstanding quality of your work on the lives of various biologists: they are exemplary, and produce pages that feel that I can trust Wikipedia to be a reliable and well-ordered source of information. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)