User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2016/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your conduct during this especially-difficult RfA has been impressive, confirming Harry's confidence in you. It's up to the 'crats now. Good luck (if, indeed, you still want the mop back after this :-)) and all the best, Miniapolis 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Wanted to thank you for the copy-edits you made on the Teresia Sampsonia article. :-) It was much needed. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. The prose was stilted and I was concerned about plagiarism (the sources are all print, so I couldn't check), but it may have originally been written by a non-native English speaker. Good luck with DYK and all the best, Miniapolis 14:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nasty business, and I don't think you deserved what you got; it confirms my belief that COI and paid editing may be the undoing of WP. Encyclopedia Brittanica editors are compensated by the encyclopedia, not by the subjects of the articles they write—a crucial difference. Relax, have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll do a great job. Congratulations, welcome to the mop brigade and all the best, Miniapolis 14:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your help with the San Juan Bay article. It reads much better now thanks to your contribution.

Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love cats :-). Glad to help, and I especially enjoy copyediting articles like this one. Good luck again and all the best, Miniapolis 00:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

Moving sanctions from 2015 to 2016[edit]

Hello Miniapolis. Recently you made this edit of DSLOG-related files. Could you explain the thinking? I had always assumed that the sanctions were logged in the year recorded. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I copied (not moved) existing sanctions—indef topic bans and the like—from the 2015 to the 2016 logs per a request by Callanecc on clerks-l. They're still on the 2015 log. All the best, Miniapolis 21:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Miniapolis I just meant the headers not the actual sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize for the misunderstanding; I thought you also wanted a clerk to copy the sanctions still in effect, time permitting. All the best, Miniapolis 23:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and now (after checking the diff) I realize that you meant all the headers, even those on empty sections. Sorry about that. Miniapolis 01:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion in progress[edit]

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of People Like Us, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 12:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I appreciate your work on Blair House, but I'm having to repair a lot of your edits that incorporate phrasing that doesn't use proper English or, in some cases, just doesn't make sense. For instance, you changed -

  • In the early 1980s, Congress appropriated $9.7 million for the property's further renovation and improvement. Federally appropriated funds were augmented with $5 million in private donations.

- to this -

  • During the early 1980s Congress appropriated $9.7 million for further renovation and improvement, and to the federal funds were added with $5 million in private donations.

I started trying to fix these one by one but it would take so long to comb through the entire article to locate instances of the incorporation of unusual or broken phrasing I'm going to just roll back your edits en masse and then try to restore each of your edits one by one. This process will probably take awhile due to the sheer size and volume. I just wanted to let you know I'm not trying to edit war since the mass undo might seem that way. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My phrasing wasn't the best in that sentence, but I've been trying to improve the flow of choppy sentence structure (in addition to cleaning up and moving free images to Commons, adding alt text, combining too-short sections and trying to eliminate text sandwiched between images). I'd rephrase the sentence you cited as "During the early 1980s Congress appropriated $9.7 million for further renovation and improvement, and private donations added $5 million to the federal funds." I'm doing my best, but since you're dissatisfied I'll mark it  Partly done on WP:GOCE/REQ and not where I left off. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You also, among others, changed "The President's Guest House is larger than the White House and, unlike that building, is closed to the public." to "The President's Guest House, larger than the White House, is (unlike the latter) closed to the public." As a general grammar rule, placing two paranthetical expressions into a short sentence becomes very confusing for the reader and should be avoided. Anyway, I think I've restored about 75-percent of your edits, and I'll keep working at it shortly. Thanks for your amicability. LavaBaron (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanlal filmography[edit]

Please help copy edit this for grammar, writing style, and prose. It was submitted at WP:GOCE and was copy edited by a user with only few minor changes, but appreciable work. But I think there are more.--Inside the Valley (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't accept direct copyedit requests (and am busy with another request anyway). If you have a problem with Corinne's copyedit, leave a note on their talk page. All the best, Miniapolis 20:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the copyedit, and it looks good to me. The copyeditor is quite capable and although a copyedit certainly helps an FLC, professional-grade prose is less important than it is in an FAC. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 20:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His edits were perfect. I was just curious if there might be any other improvements in another editors point of view. Thanks for your reply. --Inside the Valley (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Super Bowl XLVI halftime show copy edit[edit]

Thank you for your very thorough review and copy edit of this article. No doubt you have improved the article and will (hopefully) help its promotion to FA status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words; as you know, the FA prose bar is pretty high :-). I'm trying to tone down the article's PR aspects and make it more encyclopedic, and will ping you when I'm done (I primarily work top to bottom, so you can check my progress in the history). All the best, Miniapolis 20:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am not the main editor working to promote the article to FA status, but I am helping on the periphery. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the peer review. Miniapolis 22:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't thank you enough for your Copyediting. —IB [ Poke ] 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, and I'll ping you (as the requester at WP:GOCE/REQ) when I'm done. All the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7[edit]

Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess in the Birdcage Kingdom[edit]

Thanks for the copyedit as usual. I'll try to make it a GA. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help again, and it's a nice article. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 22:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2016/February&oldid=1143170140"