User talk:Cmr08

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


Have a question for you at my talk again... Connormah (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, any chance you can get the DOD for George Riley (Nova Scotia politician)? Connormah (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you have access to the Globe and Mail article I cited in Ralph F. Fiske? If so, there may be a bit to add from there though I'm not sure as I didn't really read it. Connormah (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I got Riley's obit at the library today, along with Robert Lindsay's. I'll email to you. Connormah (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if you've got my talkpage watchlisted, but I left a reply there. Connormah (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohio Eastern University[edit]

MUHAMED AL SHARAA hello, Wikipedia asked me for Reliable Resources this is the link how mention our university

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

ArtemisCE Thank you for your suggestion about orphan pages. A reference to Nebraska Coast Connection, as well as citations, have been added to Alexander Payne's Wikipedia page. We will continue to add cross references as much as possible. ArtemisCE (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)ArtemisCE

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUHAMED ALSHARAA (talkcontribs) 00:09, 1 December 2014‎ (UTC)

@MUHAMED ALSHARAA: Are you sure that's really a reference you want to use? Page 11 of that book says that Ohio Eastern University, in the context of that book, is a fictional university. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but now the university is a real university! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUHAMED ALSHARAA (talkcontribs) 00:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a real fake university, which sells degrees online. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio Eastern University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Greetings Cmr08. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Sorry your edits (at PEAR) got reverted when going back to a previous version. Your edits seemed just fine. Thank you for taking the time to redo them. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Carybdea sivickisi[edit]

Carybdea sivickisi is a synonym of Copula sivickisi, so I turned your article into a redirect. The Copula article looks good, but you may be able to add some information there. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, I was just trying to be polite. The article it redirects to is fine, so no need to do anything. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankie MacDonald[edit]

Hi. Not entirely sure I did this correctly (Oldtimer's disease...) but Frankie was recognized in the House of Commons 4 Feb. 2015 by MP Mark Eyking. I'm not a big fan of using Youtube references, but this clip is from the Parliamentary video feed and SHOULD be acceptable? [2] If you could look at it and add your thoughts I'd appreciate it. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry. Actual clip is here: [3] Regards,  Aloha27 talk  13:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. That was pretty much the way I saw it as well. Seeing as how Mr. Harper has seen fit to include just about everything said in the House as public domain, I can't really see a problem with including the reference. Time will tell. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  16:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Manson, Gaum, MacLean[edit]

Very late, but finally got around to creating:

Best! Connormah (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, there may be some cleanup to be done at Ralph F. Fiske... Connormah (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, no problem! Also, do you mind checking for death dates for Maurice L. Zinck as well as Charles H. Reardon? I created a few more in addition (take a peek at my contribs). Thanks again! Connormah (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to shoot me an email if any of them need any further investigating (like Gaum). Connormah (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


NP, we all make mistakes, and it was an opportunity to clarify the article a bit. --Macrakis (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Cmr08. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

- in the next 10 minutes... Connormah (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikilink issue on page “Bountiful, Utah”[edit]

I have just addressed the issue related to the Wikilink “Bryan H. Carroll” in the section 'Notable people'. Thank you. R. Shalis (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Charles MacArthur (politician)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Charles MacArthur (politician), Cmr08!

Wikipedia editor WordSeventeen just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this article. It was well done as well as nicely referenced.

To reply, leave a comment on WordSeventeen's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelson Gaetz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duncan MacMillan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Cmr08, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Connormah (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


No worries. The women one was new, but I added it only to people who were already in one of the existing "Province municipal councillors" categories — since I don't have expert background knowledge on every MLA's or MP's prior background, I wouldn't have known who else to add it to if they weren't already categorized as being a municipal councillor. Category:Nova Scotia municipal councillors wasn't new (I did create it originally, but that was almost seven years ago) — I added it to the couple of women that I noticed you'd added the women municipal councillors category to, but I have no other way of knowing who else it still needs to be added to. So if you know more about who else belongs in it than I do, then by all means populate away. Bearcat (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

dcw2003 I am rather certain you did not specifically state that headers follow sentence case. This is unusual as I have worked as a professional writer for many years, and have never seen this convention. I was not trying to ignore you. I would appreciate it if you would be more patient in your reprimands, and more specific. Thank-you for your interest. I was completely unaware of this convention, and you did not specifically mention it in any of your comments. Thank-you for your words of praise. I can only say you may need to more specific in your critiques. I will certainly try to follow your suggestions, but I do ask you try to be more specific.


Comments from dcws2003[edit]

From dcw2003 dcw2003 I am rather certain you did not specifically state that headers follow sentence case. This is unusual as I have worked as a professional writer for many years, and have never seen this convention. I was not trying to ignore you. I would appreciate it if you would be more patient in your reprimands, and more specific. Thank-you for your interest. I was completely unaware of this convention, and you did not specifically mention it in any of your comments. Thank-you for your words of praise. I can only request you may need to more specific in your critiques if you expect me to make quick changes to my articles.


From dcws2003
Once again, I don't know how to access an edit summary, but I read all your comments in detail from your talk page. I appreciate your hard work. I've edited a lot of articles in wiki with run on sentences and few or no inline references. Another common convention is repeated use of parenthesis which are generally frowned upon in writing. (As you've noted, my work does not contain these kinds of issues)
What I'm suggesting is rather than cite sections to read about writing style in wiki for the people whose articles you edit, simply tell a writer specifically what your concern is about the article. You may have found my sentence construction to complex in my article about Sid Terris, and I did go in and try to make some changes there, but what your comment said was that the article had inappropriate information, was difficult to understand, and other comments which are rather vague, and certainly negative. I assume this was one of your talk comments, I'm not certain as it could have been another editors. So all I'm saying, is if you want to critique a writer's writing style, please try to be quite specific, and you might find they are more responsive to your suggestions, rather than simply quoting Wiki's writing style sections for articles, although I will go back and try to read these again. And thank-you for the kind words about my writing. Simply try to be more specific in your critiques, is what I'm trying to get across. I've worked as a professional writer for decades. When a piece is edited, the copy is returned to the writer with specific mark ups to make it very clear where there were problems. Thank-you for your hard work, and please try to be specific about the changes you wish a writer to make. Thanks again.................dcw2003 (Please don't take my suggestions as critisism of your work, I appreciate Wiki editors as I do all editors)
dcw2003 here again
Thank-you for your kindness and words of encouragement. I never saw your edit summaries or I certainly would have changed the headers. The only reason I didn't initially was because I never saw your edit summaries. As they are harder for some writers to access, you should perhaps put them in the warnings. Realize that the concept of informing a writer of small issues with his writing by a Warning is already inherently a bit negative and threatening. Also the wording of most warnings, for some reason is somewhat negative as well.........your article is "difficult to understand", "uses inappropriate language"..."is confusing"...........I may not have responded as quickly to your requests because I did not find much in my articles that fit that description, as I have been writing professionally for decades. Nonetheless, I did try to make changes in both Abie Bain, AND Sid Terris, although I thought Bain was for the most part clearly written in the first place so I wasn't sure what to do.
For what its worth, I also reread the section in the Style guide in regard to Headers, and I thank you for sending me a link to that section. I have to say the part about Sentence case and not using all caps is buried in this section, and it seems clear to me it was probably written by a programmer, not a technical writer, or someone versed in learning theory. (Not that that's a bad thing) My background sometimes included editing the writing of programmers, and I understand how they write. They're not succinct enough, and they sometimes focus more on the functionality of a feature (Like Headers) than prioritizing what is the most essential information for a user. (Like understanding what case to put the headers in in the first place). My point is, even reading the section on headers is no guarantee even a well educated person will understand it the first time. I know because I spent decades writing instruction manuals.
It is always better to succinctly communicate what a writer needs to know if you are editing his work than to assume he has read this information, especially in an online environment where you can't talk to the person face to face. I know it is a bit more work for you, but it may be worth it ultimately.
Please accept my assurance you will not have to correct another header in my articles and my thanks for your hard work.
Thank-you for your kind words, and especially your Barnstar

dcw2003, last note[edit]

Thanks again for the words of praise and the Barnstar. I would recommend if a writer is not responding to your warnings (you left three.......) or your summaries, just send a short note. In fact, if you had left a note in the first place, letting me know what IN the style guide I had most violated, I would have made the change immediately. As I've said I've read the style guide repeatedly concerning headers and noted that the information about heading case is buried and difficult to find in that section. You also never mentioned in the three warnings how to access your edit summaries or what an edit summary was. I apologize for making extra work for you. Wouldn't it have been easier to just leave me a simple note the first time using simple English? Please note that all your Warnings, whether intended to be or not (AND this is NOT your fault) are worded negatively, are extremely vague and at best cite a Manual of Style that is at least 40 pages long and written cryptically with more complexity than clarity. I urge you to rise above Wiki's organizational flaws so aptly demonstrated by the wording of the Warning messages in their vagueness, negativity, and lack of clarity, and inform the subjects of your edits how to access your edit summaries before you spend your precious time having to re-edit their work. If you have time, and only if you have time, you may write a brief, studied, and polite reply to this request. I'm sorry I'm tired, and I'm not sure you quite got my point. Please realize I appreciate your praise. By the way, your edit summaries were not insulting, but quite informative and to the point. However, you assumed I could access them without ever describing how to access them in your warnings, or in any other notes. I think this sums it up. Please realize I appreciate your help in editing my work, and hope only to be of service to you. Apparently you have done quite a bit of editing. It is hard to employ the human approach and use simple communication in this environment. I've done a good bit of Wiki editing as well. I was slightly taken aback when you wrote, "You cannot write whatever you want in Wiki, there are editors that must conform to a Manual of Style." Though unintended by you, this phrase could also be taken as insulting, considering I have also spent hours editing others work in Wiki, and have years writing to different manuals of style in a variety of corporate settings. (I know you were getting flustered by the third warning, but I was not feeling so great either)

Thank-you for your time. (Please don't delete my Barnstar)

Just Kidding David dcw2003

I was not implying you did anything wrong[edit]

I am not implying you did anything wrong. I was merely implying the text of the warnings are negative and insulting. I realize they are written that way, but certainly you realized they are neither informative, specific, descriptive, or particularly helpful. I was suggesting you try to correspond directly with writers as to issues you have with their writing, rather than sending warnings. Or attaching useful critique information to those warnings if you must. I was hoping you could see the value of this suggestion. Either way thanks for describing the method for locating editing summaries. I do hundreds of revisions of my documents per day. It is not easy for me to find edit summaries as a result. I only hope I can improve the process by which you notify writers of your editing work. I'm not trying to criticize anything you did but improve the process. I hope you understand that and can see the difference. I also appreciate you did not want to send me any more warnings. I would prefer you acknowledge the system can be improved or that you will try to communicate more effectively with writers than that you never edit my work again, but I'm fine if you prefer not to edit my work. Thank-you for your time.

My best to your efforts, And PLEASE FORGIVE MY PERSISTENCE


Bentley Kyle Evans[edit]

Need assistance. Sent this over to the person who reversed the edits and have not received any assistance. Can you help?


An edit was done to Mr. Evans page that should have not been reversed. The information that was done by ImShannonDotCom is indeed correct and not spam nor vandalism. It follows the same format as his creative partner Mr. Martin Lawrence who he has produced a film and tv show with. We are currently in pre-production on a second film right now. I am able to verify the information by phone or email if needed. Please let me know how we can get this issued resolved ASAP. Furious Freddy is our web developer and ImShannonDotCom handles the content. I believe she was falsely blocked when she submitted the updates on our behalf as well.

I didn't reverse the submission in fear of being blocked myself so I'm leaving a messaging hoping we can fix this ASAP. Thanks again.

Iamaniesia (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Blitzen Trapper edits[edit]

Thank you very much for bringing me up to Wiki style. This is the first major thing I've worked on, and your stylistic edits have been extremely helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevbot217 (talkcontribs) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite web[edit]

Don't worry about it, it's not really a big deal that requires urgent correction everywhere it might have happened — I just fixed it in those three cases because they were brand new articles, so I noticed the issue while I was reviewing them for other possible content and sourcing expansions. By all means change it over if and when you happen to come across an article that needs that fix — but please don't feel like you have to go out of your way to actively seek all the articles where you might have done that before, and don't beat yourself up about it. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things — just change it over if and when you happen to see an article that's making that mistake, but don't make a project of looking for them all right now. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Drachen Fire article[edit]

Hello there! Thank you for cleaning up the sources. This was my first wikipedia entry, so I actually wasn't sure how to consolidate the sources which were used multiple times. It looks much better now, thank you!


Hi Cmr08,

Thank you for reviewing my articles. I want to ask you: Do you review all the articles I create? I'm just wondering. Robert4565 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Nino Valdez the boxer[edit]

Hello I'm trying to find information about Nino Valdez, specifically if he had children. Chrishowie66 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


I don't know of any way to get through to User:Besmircher. He is set in his way on how is going to do things, feeling what is incorrect will simply be corrected by other wiki-editors. Even when instructed, politely or more sternly, he refuses to change how he does basic wiki-editing. He continues to put in links to disambiguation or other incorrect pages, rarely adds any sources and, when he does, refuses to use citations. Is it OK that he just simply leaves it up to everyone else to clean up his mess? Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of cold blooded fact, I correct so much misinformation and errors in the articles that I update it's not even funny. That alone should excuse me from having to deal with citations and other odds and sods. I should also reiterate that I always state where every quotation comes from, whether it be a magazine, autobiography, or video, and I also list the author. If others are content to, as you put it, "clean up my mess" (which I appreciate very much), why should it bother you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Besmircher (talkcontribs) 00:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Besmircher: I, for one, am not content to do it. I do it to improve the encyclopedia, which it seems is the one thing we have in common. I also strive to educate others on the ways of Wikimarkup and editing, which you try to do to a small degree but even given advice on your talk page or helping you on the article you create, you simply ignore it and go on doing the same type of "donkey work" as you call it. For example, why would you keep linking something that doesn't need to be linked or have it link to an incorrect page? This work is just as important to the aims of the encyclopedia as are the articles that impart reliable and informative details on notable topics. While you do include an author's name or book title in the text, you are not providing sources for every bit of information you provide, such as a song's chart position or your "common sense" original research. Thank you (and thank you Cmr08 for letting me respond on your talk page). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg For all those edits, you deserve a break and a cup of coffee. JakeR2002 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hubert Marcoux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Rajeev Jain (Cinematographer)[edit]


Please check and help me if I have done the right thing. I used Find link tool to introduce links to this page from related articles link to it.


VishwanathanNair (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cmr08 (talk),

I can see the earlier article of Rajeev Jain (Cinematographer) deleted. Is it possible to see the last article of Rajeev Jain (Cinematographer)?? so I shouldn't make the same mistake on my article, which I am trying to create:

Regards Judeibinge (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes[edit]

No, there's no consensus to go back to them. A succession footer is allowed to be there if the position isn't already covered in an infobox or a dedicated position template (although replacing it with an infobox is still preferred), but it's not supposed to be readded to any article that does already have an infobox with the succession info for that position already noted in it. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just took a quick gander at your last little bit of edit history to see what articles you might have had in mind when you talk about being confused about what to remove, and didn't see any where there was actually an obvious problem — every one I looked at, the newly readded footer that you removed again was the only one there at all. Could you show me an actual example of a specific article that has you confused about it? Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry Koopman[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up — I listed it for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Koopman. Nobody's participated in that discussion yet after five days, however, so it would help if you were willing to add a comment. And you're right that there are others (there always are); so far I've identified Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Morneau and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Jodouin, who don't have any other comments yet either, and somebody else listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius tiangson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Crewson last week as well. (I also speedied one already whose article was completely unsourced on even the candidacy.) So it would help all of the cases if you were willing to comment in the AFDs. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox term dates[edit]

I really have no firm reason to oppose this although like you, I do not like it. You might try Bearcat (talk). He he quite opinionated and has recently made one of these term date reverts [4]. He might have a good reason. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's been a lot of back and forth over the years about the issue of what exact date should be used — whether it's the date of the election, the date of the first actual sitting of the legislature after the election, or the date of the official swearing-in sometime in between those — with the problem having always been that the swearing-in date is quite commonly unverifiable in reliable sources except very occasionally in the event of a by-election. So as a general rule, the consensus opted to go with the date of the election itself on the grounds that we were left deciding between arbitrary alternatives. The end date, conversely, is supposed to be the date on which the writs were dropped to initiate the election in which the person retired or was defeated.
However, there's never been any consensus that the term_start= and term_end= dates in the infobox should directly link to the articles on the elections involved — both fields should contain either the exact dates, unlinked, or just the years involved, unlinked. You will sometimes see a few leftovers where that was done on MPs whose articles were created before the consensus was established — but then again, you'll also sometimes see sloppily-designed infoboxes that have half the biographical data crammed in between predecessor= and successor= for no obvious or specific reason, or which have a "party_colour =" field included even though it's deprecated and no value you could possibly enter into that field has any effect on anything at all — just because an old, bad version of the box was being used at that time, and nobody's gotten around to correcting it yet.
So if you see an article where direct links to the elections are being added to the infobox, it is correct to remove or revert them. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


I have been working with the Keshen Goodman Public Library in Halifax to have two training nights and a Saturday Edit-thon. I have booked the library for March 19, from 12-4:45, for the edit-thon and the Feburary 16 & 23 at 7PM for a training nights. I could really use some help setting this up on Wikipdia. JBignell (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll[edit]

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire[edit]

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)