User talk:Corinne/Archive 8

I always correct 'most well known' to 'best known', but in this article, it's 'most-known'. Is this acceptable American English? Rothorpe (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the one in the line, "Hunter's most-known line...". I think I've heard it, but I think it is really a shortened form of "most well-known". I think "most well-known" is just a touch more elegant than "best known". There's also "most widely known" and "most famous". CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, 'most well-known' sounds terrible to me: 'most well' is no substitute for 'best'. Another British-American thing? Does 'best-known' sound wrong? Surely not. Fortunately there are further alternatives like your last two. Rothorpe (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Interesting. "Best-known" doesn't sound wrong. I just prefer "most well-known". What if it were "well-versed"? Would you say "best-versed", or "most well-versed"? I think the "well" of "well-known" belongs to the past participle/adjective, so "most" makes the superlative form, like "most important", "most complicated", etc. CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, actually, there should not be many times when "most well-known" (or even "best-known") needs to be used. "Most widely-known" or "most famous" are more accurate, I think. Someone is well-known, and another person is also well-known. And a third person is well-known. They're all well-known. To pick out one of them and say he or she is more well-known -- actually better-known sounds better here -- than the others is unusual, isn't it? But I have heard "best-loved" (not "most well-loved"). I even have a book whose title is Best Known Poems of the American People (can't remember if it has a hyphen or not). So maybe you're right. CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear of that! (Yes, hyphens are another tricky point.) It occurs to me now, though, that I was thinking specifically of the phrase 'most well known for [a particular work]': it's that in particular that I feel compelled to change. Rothorpe (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Best known for...", definitely, and I don't think a hyphen is necessary there. I just read a biography on-line of Elizabeth Barrett Browning and saw "best-known...", just what you were saying. I thought your original question was about this line, in the fifth paragraph of the big section in the article:

Hunter's most-known line is "What a long, strange trip it's been, from that year's "Truckin'".

I don't think "most-known line" is good writing. CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'll change it. And I'll keep the hyphen, as it's in attributive position. Rothorpe (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sminthopsis84: I just wanted to ask you whether you have Twinkle enabled, and, if so, what it looks like now on your "toolbar" at the top of the page. Before, mine just had TW. Now it has a TW, then a large, thin TW over that, and the little box has black triangles, like down-arrows, in it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's O.K. now. CorinneSD (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rothorpe: Did you see my edit to Talk:Picts, and my edit summary? I know you're not supposed to edit others' comments, but this is a heading, and I keep seeing it as I follow the discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would have driven me mad too. (Or crazy, in American.) Rothorpe (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rothorpe: I don't know if you took a look at the discussion regarding the Picts in that section, but if you do, you will see something strange. The editor Navops47 does not use punctuation. It is a little hard to follow his reasoning because there are no commas, no quotation marks, no colons, and very few periods. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he's a native speaker of English. I have to keep myself from writing a note like, "It looks like you were absent on the day punctuation was taught." I've never seen writing with such a complete lack of punctuation, except in the writing of beginning to intermediate level E.S.L. students. CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remarkable. Some people just don't get punctuation. Otherwise the writing is OK, though I did notice an 'accept' for 'except'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how about hiding your Commons main page link under a caption more deserving of those vases? Rothorpe (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Thanks, @Rothorpe:. That's a good idea. However, I tried to add a caption (with the information that's under the same picture on my User page) after a pipe but before the link to Commons, and when I clicked on "Preview", the caption didn't show up, so I didn't save it. Hafspajen, how do I get a caption to show up? CorinneSD (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just replace what I've just typed with your caption. Rothorpe (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...you put the caption inside the double square brackets for the link to Commons. That way the "Commons:Main Page" is hidden and only the caption appears. Very clever. Thank you! Hafs, Rothorpe has answered my question. CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, very good, well done. Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture. Thank you. It's actually a beautiful painting. When I clicked on the picture, I saw it says John Quincy Adams was the "author". Does that mean he painted it? If he did, that's something. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is the painter. AND we don't have an article on him, such a shame - !! Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I didn't take the time to look at his dates. I was wondering whether he was the president. Today, I saw the dates and realized it couldn't be the same person. But there really ought to be an article about this artist. I had never heard of him. CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CorinneSD I don't like gosts because ... that's a long story. I could tell you - but this is Wikipedia and anyone can read everything. Just trust me on that point. No need for anyone to make fun of it, like Sca does and never seems to remember that I hate that kind of things when posting pictures. Everybody has the right to his oppinions and likes and dislikes and that is nobody's business criticizing it, really. Or you can respect others with their likes or you can't and start telling then what they should like and not like. I don't like this style, and never liked it. Maybe it is my ways, but I dislike when people are telling me what I like or dislike is wrong. Or run after me wacking me with fishes... I donä't mean you in this case, or the case above. But I think there are some people who can't tolerate differences once they became friendly with someone. (Not you) . You don't have to respond to this. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD - doesn't it sound like WPPilot is hurt at all? He is not only mad but quite rude too . I will not edit Sighpost more, can't stand rudeness. Just leave it alone. I will not post on your talk either for a while. Maybe after some days passed we can finish the article and nominate the blue house. Don't respond here. He might start stalking edits, and I am not responding to people who are impolite, I don't intend discussing this further. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question that you asked on my talk page wasn't answered there, about Google images: Google doesn't store the images, it finds them at other web sites and displays them. The license information might never be stated, so the assumption for the wiki projects is that the images mustn't be copied from such pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...Thank you. Maybe I would find the licensing information if I go to the website from which the picture was taken by Google. CorinneSD (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: I wonder if you would mind reviewing the edits just made to the article Liberal Christianity by an editor with a red user name. I don't know if all or some of it is original research or his own point of view. There's also an incorrect left-hand "open" parenthesis. CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) As none of the changes was sourced, I reverted and took it to the user's talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Good. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Hi, Crisco 1492! I've seen your exchanges with Hafspajen, and out of curiosity I looked at your User page. I am so impressed that you know the Indonesian language! I'm also impressed by all your user boxes and by all the work you have done on Wikipedia and all your awards. Wonderful work! I just thought I'd point out something on your User page. I don't know whether you intended this to be that way or not, but I thought I'd point it out in case it was unintended. In your list of things you do on a regular basis, you have:

"Most of my students are in junior high school school."

Did you really mean to write "school" twice?

Also, above that, you have "the Windsor". Did you really mean to write "the Windsor", and not just "Windsor"?

Best regards. (Now I'm going to read some of the articles on Indonesia, which I think is a fascinating country.) CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Corinne. I've fixed both errors (removed one "school" and finished the sentence which had "the Windsor"). I'm glad you are interested in the country... the culture is quite diverse and dynamic, perhaps even more so during the age of globalization. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CorinneSD - there is only an hour left, for God's sake. Don't answer this. Also this pic by Christen Dalsgaard would make nice FP, woyuld you like to try? Hafspajen (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: I wasn't sure what you meant by the last heading on your Talk page: "God to have.". I think I've seen you spell the word "good" as "god" before. Did you mean "Good to have"? or "God to have"? I understand "Good to have" but not "God to have". There is a difference between "good" and "God". God may be good, but good isn't necessarily God. Your other spelling errors are not so bad and can be overlooked, but this one carries a lot of meaning. CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Yes. Fixed. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, what do you think about this article? Christen Dalsgaard. It has weird expressions. In 1914 the artist's widow contributed a portion of his folk costume collection to the National Museum... and such. ^{Almost like mine} Hafspajen (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call that a weird expression. As soon as I started reading the article, I found errors in both grammar and word usage, and I corrected them as I read. I made quite a few minor copy-edits. I was glad to learn about an artist I had never heard of before. I really like his paintings. (What did you mean by "Almost like mine" just before your user name?) Hafs, I love the pictures you put on your, Sminthopsis's and my talk pages. I would just prefer that you not put my user name in the caption of pictures so often. Once in a while is O.K. But the pictures, and even the humorous and/or interesting captions, are fine. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, will not mention you in captions any more. Everybody have different tastes. Some like it, some not. Hafspajen (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: I've just seen your edits to Ananias and Sapphira. They all look fine, and I'm sure you know the subject matter. There is one sentence, however, that to me doesn't read quite right (and it's not something you have just worked on). It is the following:

"Acts chapter 4:32 closes by stating that the first followers of Jesus did not consider their possessions to be their own but held all things in common, in order to use what they had on behalf of those in want."

Is it that the first followers of Jesus

• did not consider their possessions to be their own but instead [considered] that all things are held in common,

or:

• did not consider their possessions to be their own but [rather that their possessions are] held in common.

-- CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your watchfulness! Out of those, number 2 is a better match, e.g. ESV. Feel free to re-word it better if needed. – Fayenatic London 23:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Hope it's all right now. I have another question about that same sentence. What would you say to adding "to be able" so that it reads:

"...in order to be able to use what they had on behalf of those in want"? or do you think it is unnecessary? CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't strike me as necessary, but then I'm pretty familiar with the text. That clause is an interpretation rather than part of the original text, so it should be kept concise. – Fayenatic London 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Re:

"...as well as the graciousness of God who more often defers judgment."

1) More often than what? When you use the comparative form, the thing to which you are comparing ought to be clear, and I don't see it. Do you want to say "more often than not"? That's a little strange for this context. How about "usually", or leave it simply "often"?

2) Whatever you decide, note that there's an extra space after "God" and before "who". There probably should be a comma there. CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

;

Hi Corinne, Hafspajen recommended you as a skilled copy editor, interested in art history. I want to ask if you could look over Last Judgement (van der Weyden) if you ever get a chance. Ceoil (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go over the article. Thanks for asking. CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: and @Victoriaearle: I have gone over the article. It was quite well-written. I only found a few typos and a few minor issues, most of which I fixed. I left a number of "clarification needed" tags with notes to editors for you and Victoria. Remember that I am not an art historian. I read it as an average, educated reader, and if it wasn't clear to me, then it would probably not be clear to other average readers.

Please ask me if you have any questions.

I also want you to know that there are one or two things I want to ask a fellow editor about (we often work on articles together; he's another retired English teacher), so I'm not finished yet. CorinneSD (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have you on board Corinne; collabrating is the name of the game here. Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Glad to be of help. I enjoyed reading the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne is higlighting sentences that need work. Its short term tagging, that will be addressed today. I dont see an issue, though I would if it was drive by. I asked her to help, and that is extactly what she is doiing. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to explain wings and panels. Hafspajen (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ceoil and Victoria will be able to answer the questions and resolve the issues I posed. Regarding wings and panels, I think the non-expert might need a bit of explanation, even if in parenthetical phrases or synonyms set off by a pair of commas or parentheses, for wings and panels so that the reader knows precisely what they are.

Also, especially since part of the polyptych is painted on both front and back, it is essential to clarify which panels are being discussed at any one point. Very precise language must be used, and new terms must not suddenly be introduced "out of the blue". I can help with that if need be. CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, I'm sorry you didn't know that Ceoil had asked me to review the article, and I'm sorry that the ping didn't work. It was blue, so I thought it was all right. I guess I don't know what to put there. Can you show me how you think it should be? All the tags and notes to editors I added must have come as a shock to you. I hope your migraine headache has gone away. I used to get those and I know what they're like. As I said above, the article was quite well-written as a whole, so you can be proud of yourself. CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that I do have a degree in Fine Arts in addition to an M.A. in TESOL and have spent many, many hours in art museums. I know what a tryptych looks like. The polyptych is something I'm not familiar with. It would be nice to read a precise and concise description of the panels somewhere near the beginning of the article so that I can follow the later detailed descriptions. That is, which panels are stationary, which ones are wings that fold in (and can be closed?) (there's your definition), and which ones are painted on both sides. Maybe it's there, but I didn't see it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing -- I don't see why there is a rush. Is there no chance the article will reach acceptable status as a Featured Article if it is not done by a certain date? It shouldn't take long to resolve the issues I raised, and the tags and notes could have been cleared up and deleted as the issues are resolved. But, it's your article, so I leave it to you. (I did spend quite a bit of time on it, though.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Corinne, just wanted to drop by. Thanks for the excellent suggestions you made yesterday - I can see what you meant to say. I don't think it's really worth deconstructing much here, or discussing on pages other than the article or those of the primary editors. I notice that you have a number of queries here on your own page and I'd urge you to be confident in using article talk pages which are meant for discussion of content (rather than editors). Just as a sidenote, I didn't react well to the tags - to me they're like a splinters in the brain and so it's difficult to see beyond them. At this point my greatest concern is getting the content right before wordsmithing (which, or course, is important) and that's difficult when working from multiple sources and trying to meld them all into a cohesive whole which flows well. I suspect it will take some time. Oh, btw - I don't know why the ping didn't work. These things happen sometimes, but serve to highlight another reason to place comments where they are seen. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: I'm writing because I'm a little upset by the way you responded to my attempt to improve the article -- specifically, the way it was written -- in response to a request by you and Ceoil. No one told me there was a deadline. No one informed Victoria in advance. No one told me where to post my questions and concerns -- and you can see from Ceoil's comments that he was not disturbed by the tags or notes to editors I placed -- he knew they could be removed easily. No one told me that tags hurts the chances of an article being given featured article status, if that is the case. I did the best job I could in response to a request by one of the two primary editors. I also saw two of your edit summaries -- "Sigh" -- upon your adding very simplistic definitions to the article, as if wishing they were not necessary. You know, there are ways to add a synonym or brief definition -- enclosed in a pair of commas, dashes, or parentheses -- that are not simplistic and do not distract from the flow of the sentence, and I'm sure Victoria and Ceoil know how to do that. I did not see a succinct, clear description of the layout of the panels and wings of the altarpiece, and I said that if one were placed near the beginning of the article, everything that came after that would be clearer. I thought we were "friends" (editor-friends, at least), and I feel your response (including talking about my work on the article with other editors in a negative way, and demanding here on my own talk page that I tell you what was unclear, when I had already done that in my notes to editors) was a bit disrespectful, and I was disappointed. I respect you for your knowledge of art, art history, plants, and editing, including picture formatting. I think I deserve the same respect for my knowledge of the English language and what constitutes good writing. Just because I may have inadvertently disrupted Victoria's time-table for getting Featured Article status and created a bit more work for Victoria and Ceoil doesn't mean that I was wrong in what I did or said. CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I didn't told you about is and it was probably quite stupid of me. But I never thought you will tagg the article. Maybe I should. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best to let it go. These things are usually good, because articles end up being improved. The g-book gods have been good today and allowed me to see a page I need to so as to provide a source for the description that was lacking. Working on it now. No ill feelings at all!!. Time to smile and move. Victoria (tk) 20:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those g-books... Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and yes, we are friends. Hafspajen (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so, too. CorinneSD (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I asked Omnipaedista for recommendations of editors who were knowledgeable in European and Mediterranean history, and he referred me to you. I like to read articles on history, and as I read I correct minor errors in syntax, verb forms and tenses, word usage, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. I also notice when something is not clear. Rather than doing the research myself, I just prefer to point these out to editors knowledgeable in that field. Would you mind if I occasionally ask you to help clear up unclear or ambiguous passages in articles on history and ancient civilizations, or ask you to review recent edits that I'm not sure are improvements?

In the article Seleucid Empire, an editor just added Pakistan to a list of modern-day countries whose territory was included in the Seleucid Empire. I just wondered if that were correct. I have seen the same addition made in a number of articles, with some of them being reverted by other editors. Since I don't know the history very well, I can't judge whether that addition is correct or not.

Also, I read the article on Cilicia and made a few minor copy-edits. I had a few questions and listed them on Omnipaedista's talk page a few days ago. He made some good edits that resolved most of the issues, but I'm still working on figuring out whether he got to all of the questions, particularly the first few. Can you look at the first few questions I posed? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cilicia, all my questions have been answered. CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

I skimmed the article on Google Translation, but I still don't know where to find it or how to use it. Can you tell me how? CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What article, what are you trying to accomplish? Please reactivate the help me request when you are ready to ask your question. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the address is in the infobox and in the External links section: translate.google.com. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How to use googletrans on a text on wikipedia page. The thing sticking up beside watch-unwatch. Hafspajen (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "watch unwatch", do you mean the little star that is blue when you are watching the article and white when you are not? Next to that, I see "More" and "TW" for Twinkle, and that leads to a drop-down menu of capital letters standing for things. What do you mean, Hafs? CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess you mean the infobox or External links section of an article.

(Edit conflict) I was just thinking about occasionally translating a foreign word into English, or occasionally from English into a foreign language. I guess it's just for use when the word is in a WP article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the infobox and External links section of the article you linked to, namely Google Translate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh..... Thank you! I used the link in the info box and tried it out. Is there any way to create a quick link to that website on my User page or Talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP is Wikipedia:Featured picture. Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...thank you. Why would a picture of a very old painting be up for consideration? CorinneSD (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several cathegories on Wikipedia:Featured picture. Some of them are short on good pictures. For example: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, could use more religious paintings, icons, and so on. The one we have are (sorry to say) are quite low quality. And then there is the Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink, almost nothing. Maybe you could try to find some good images for that one? Or find some images for this one: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology. They have to be sharp, at least 1500px, but that is minimum, the more the better. AND they have to be used in at least two-three articles and have encyclopedic valuee. Nothing will stop you to find a good picture on commons and add it to articles (it is little bit part of the process, updating for the better) - but then it has to be in the article for at least 7 days before it can be nominated. In that case one have to wait a week, those are the rules. Don't bother much for birds, we have plenty - for some reason - (unless of course you find somthing extraordinary). see here Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds Hafspajen (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A Puppy for you!
	A Puppy for you! Hafspajen (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)|}[reply] Thank you so much! I love puppies! CorinneSD (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Did you notice the sheep in the left-hand picture? I think it's a real sheep. It even has a number on its side. CorinneSD (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, I saw that mystical thing, but I didn't thought of it much, I only watched the little puppy, because looks so cute chewing that flower... But is this the end or the begining of the sheep? Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it more closely (after clicking on it to enlarge it), and I decided that it's not a real sheep. The head is there, and there are two ears, so that's the front, but the head and the rectangular legs look like they're made of wood. I think it might be a house number sign. But the puppy is adorable. CorinneSD (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love the levitating puppy Hafspajen. Who needs a floor? And yes, that looks like a house number. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need the floor... it looks like it doesn't really want to let go on me.... Hafspajen (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, can you learn Corinne how to use her Twinkle? Maye I will ask some questions too. I use Warn much, and Well. Hafspajen (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no sigs of Doug. Well, I try then to explain what I KNOW. You go to a new user you think made good edits. Click on his/her talkpage link (if the link is a red link). So, when you are there click on the little thing above wel (welcome). You mark one of the choices, and push send welcome. And you send an automated welcome to the new user, something like YOU got once upon a time... Don't bother to use this one on users who are making bad edits, that will be the other little thing, the warn. So, go ahead and find a user with a red talk page link and some nice edits and try your luck. AND - if you don't want to watch their page, you have to unwatch their page, because otherwise they are added automatically to your watchlist... silly enough. Hafspajen (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hafspajen! I assume that you mean when you go to the new user's talk page that you go into Edit Mode and then click Welcome, etc., right? I guess you have to click "Save", too.

Thank you, also, for the picture of silver and calcite. (How did you get the picture so small?) It's a very good sample. I notice, though, that the silver has tarnished. I'll bet it has been in someone's home or office for a while. If you compare it to the picture of silver crystals on my user page, you'll see the difference. But that's all right. It's still an incredible picture, and thank you again. You're being very nice to me, they way you always were before the Van- something debacle. I forgot to say earlier that I also really like the photo of the two puppies. I love the way the puppy on the right is not even touching the ground. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you use Twinkle you don't go into Edit mode. If it is a new user with no talk page, you will I guess technically be in Edit mode when you go to a talk page that doesn't exist, but you just click Welcome and then make a choice. Note that you can preview your choice before 'submitting' it. You don't have to save. Your Preferences determine whether the page is added to your Watch list (I think, over time some of these things change as the software changes). You can also use Twinkle for 3RR, SPI reports, etc. Remember not to issue warnings to very established users using Twinkle, those should be more personal. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, Hafspajen, Twinkle documentation is at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, that was MY fault, the VAN..D thing. I use to chose this one. It will look like this. Hafspajen (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CorinneSD! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you, both. This is a quite useful list, Hafs. Thank you for the information and the link to Twinkle/doc, Doug. CorinneSD (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CorinneSD please do not involve both me and Sca any more in same discussions. Please. It doesn't work. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen O.K. In which discussion did I try to involve both of you? Do you mean the message I left for Sca about four days ago asking if he had any ideas regarding Landscape? I guess I thought he might be offended if I asked you and Sminth but not him. But I guess he wouldn't care. I can see that you and he are quite different in personality and outlook. I'll be careful not to involve both of you in the same discussion. Did something else happen recently? CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CorinneSD Yesh it was Landscape. See my talk. Hafspajen (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hafspajen I just saw the exchange. Perhaps if you had explained why you moved the image, Sca wouldn't have had to ask why. I thought that, though he was perhaps slightly exasperated, he was polite to you. I don't understand why his question upset you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the picture of the three dalmatian puppies on my talk page. Thank you so much! That was very nice of you. I hope, after reading my latest comment just above, you don't regret leaving it for me. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CorinneSD I asked please do not involve both me and Sca any more in same discussions. He is short tempered and doesn't like me. I am rather sure about it by now. He is depressing me and I feel whatever I do is just irritating him, I am for some reason an irritating thing for him. Not that he doesn't edited my edits at FP, because he did, frequently. But I never got mad at him. But he gets mad at me, and all the conflicts starts all over again. This will never work. There are lot of things that are wrong, and this is one of them. I know you do want to fix things - and try to be nice, CorinneSD and I appreciate that. Hafspajen (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen Sigh... Yes, I think you're right. I don't understand why he is so readily irritated by you. On my talk page he asked me, in French, "How are you?", which is clearly a way to avoid responding to my long comment (which I've removed from the page), so I replied in French. I'm sure you, or anybody else, can either read or translate it. (If for some reason you can't, I'll translate it here.) It's not much different from what I've been saying to him all along. CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rothorpe: I have Christ Myth Theory on my watch list even though I'm not particularly interested in the topic. I must have read the article, linked from another article, and made a few copy edits at one point. What do you think of the latest edit? CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @Rothorpe: I'm pinging you again. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's gone now. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I forgot that I just saw that edit get undone. CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Bird.27s_eggs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorinneSD: Actually, I only restored the Bolivia page after seeing your post on Rothorpe's talk page, which I was checking to see if there were any further questions regarding house finches. :) I spotted your comment and went to see what had happened. Maybe I should add it to my watch list, if so few people are keeping an eye on it. MeegsC (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: I added the Leshan Sichuan Old Bridge picture to my User page, but after reading the information about licensing I was unsure what, if any, attribution I needed to add under the picture. Can you tell? CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne: Actually, you must have been reading an old comment! I did indeed take a cooling off period after the whole "downcasing debacle", but have returned, as Wikipedia's pull is too strong, and the need for good quality articles on so many things is still high. I'm a professional biologist, and I guess I'm not used to being "fobbed off" in quite so slap-happy a way as happened with the capitalization issue. Anyway, I'm happy to continue to answer any questions you might have. We certainly appreciate someone casting an eye over the various bird articles! Best wishes, MeegsC (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: I'm so glad to hear you're not leaving. I look forward to learning more from you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, I've just posted a peer review request for the radiocarbon dating article -- I've done some more work on it since you last looked at it. If you have any comments I'd be glad if you'd post them there. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have just finished reading about the first third of the article. I have to say that it is very well written. I didn't find a single error of any kind, and the sentences are for the most part quite clear and all flow smoothly. I will finish reading the article later, but in the meantime, I wanted to ask you about something.

Second, there are just a few places where I think an additional word or phrase might be needed in order to make a sentence clear for an average reader. I guess you'd like me to list them on the peer review site rather than here. CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Corrine; thanks for taking a look at the article. I appreciate the compliment about my writing. For the commas, if you're sure they're unnecessary, and not just a matter of style, then go ahead and delete them. Can you give me a couple of examples of the ones you think are stylistic choices, so I can get a better idea of the kind of stylistic choice you're referring to? I don't feel that my style is particularly better than anyone else's, so I'm probably OK with changing at least some of them, but I'd like to see examples. For the other changes, it's up to you -- anyone can edit, so if you see a mistake, please just fix it. If you think something is worth discussing, please post it in the peer review. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Here are a few examples of what I mean:

1) In this sentence, "The method was invented by Willard Libby in the late 1940s, and soon became a standard tool for archaeologists", you have one subject, "The method", and two verb phrases joined by "and". The comma after "the late 1940s" is not necessary and in fact slows down the flow of the sentence. But in spite of its not being necessary, some people prefer a comma there.

In this case I think I'd like to leave it -- to me the pause the comma creates mirrors the time delay between the original invention and the later adoption as a standard tool. I agree it's a stylistic choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) By way of contrast, in this sentence, "The resulting radioactive carbon dioxide is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis, and animals acquire 14C by eating the plants, or by eating other animals", you have two complete independent clauses joined by "and". In this sentence, the comma after "photosynthesis" is necessary, and you've got one there, so it's correct. However, the comma after "by eating the plants" is not necessary. By putting one there, it makes the phrase "by eating other animals", seem like an afterthought, and/or that that action is a little less important than "by eating the plants". If either of those is the case, then the comma is fine.

Agreed; I've removed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) In this sentence, "Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal, such as piece of old wood, or a fragment of bone, provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died", the comma after "a piece of old wood" is not necessary.

Agreed again; removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4) In this sentence, "In addition to this curve, other corrections must be made, to account for different proportions of 14C in different types of organism (fractionation), and different 14C levels in different parts of the biosphere (reservoir effects)", neither the comma after "must be made" nor the comma after "(fractionation)" are necessary. Those two are entirely a stylistic choice.

Yes; both cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only one that I think I would call a correction.

Good catch; that's a poorly written sentence. I've cleaned it up -- see what you think. The comma after "above" was left in by mistake -- I would never deliberately put a comma there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now.

Regarding the other issues, since they are minor, perhaps I'll just post them here. Then, if you think a change needs to be made, either you or I can make any needed edits. CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your eye for these errors is very good. If you don't mind, please just go ahead and edit without posting here; I trust your judgement. If I have any questions about your edits, I'll ask on the article talk page. Thank you so much for helping with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I just wondered if there was any rush on this. I'd like to work on it over the next two or three days, but if there is a deadline, I'll work on it more tonight. CorinneSD (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No deadline. I think the peer review will probably run at least two weeks, and perhaps longer. I have a relative who is a professional archaeologist who has promised to look over the article, but I don't expect that to happen till the last week of July. After that I would like to nominate the article for featured status, if no unresolved problems remain. If you could make your edits over the next couple or three weeks, I think that would be in plenty of time. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I've just finished translating the article on Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, pasted here on the English WP from the Portuguese WP. (I'm working with User:Rothorpe on this. See User talk:Rothorpe#Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho.) I've left the original Portuguese text there until we are satisfied with the translation. At the bottom of the article, I translated the basic headings such as "Works", "Bibliography", "See also", and "External links", but it said I had to create at least one portal. Since I had never done that, I searched and found instructions at WP:Portal/Instructions, but it all looks too complicated for me, and I was wondering whether you could create the two portals (Biography and Literature) that are there at the bottom of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find the portals were created years ago already. - Portal:Contents/Portals Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: Thank you for your reply. Oh. I see. Then why would I see a message in big red letters after I had clicked "Preview" and while still in Edit Mode that I needed to create at least one portal -- and this was after I had duplicated the template that was in the material copied from the Portuguese WP article, translating the words "biographies" and "literature" from Portuguese into English? CorinneSD (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if there is still something missing that ought to be on the page. The red letters were coming from categories rather than portals. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: I've enabled Google translation, so it's there, but I want to translate a Portuguese word in an article into English. How can I do that? CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? This ping - I never got that. Just came by to see what's up. Ask Yngvadottir, she doesn't like religions but loves languages and translations... (She is an early sleeper, so it might take a couple of hours). Hafspajen (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the question was, but if it was about neo-realism, I've implemented a fix for that - what I always do when working with another Wikipedia, see where their link goes and whether there is an interwiki. It turns out pt:Neorrealismo is linked to Neorealism (art) - which doesn't mention literature, so the issue should probably be raised on the talk page. That article is about art and film, while Nouveau réalisme is only about art. It's possible that a separate article on neo-realistic literature is needed. (Can you find out which campus of the University of Wisconsin? I would guess Madison, but one shouldn't guess. He should be added to the categories for faculty there and at the University of São Paolo.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: Thank you both. Yngvadottir, that wasn't the question I raised in this section about Google translation, but you addressed another question I had about the same article (about neo-realistic literature). I don't know how I would go about finding out at which campus of the U. of Wisconsin Castro Soromenho taught. That was a while ago that he was there. I'm not sure how to add categories, either. I translated all but the first two or three sentences of the article from Portuguese into English. There were two words (now just one) that I wasn't sure about. I wanted to translate it from Portuguese into English. I don't know how to do that. I even looked at the article in the Portuguese WP and tried to use Google translate there, but with no success. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have since substantiated that it was Madison - found a review of a book on him via JSTOR, added it as a reference, I'm sure there is much more that can be used for and presumably a lot more out there - and added the category. What was the other word? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give that word to you here, but I'd like to know how to get the translation myself. It is setões. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That translation thing you gave me suggests it is 'sertões', hinterlands. That must be right, surely. Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wonderful. That means it was a typo in the Portuguese WP article. (I had never seen setões, and this explains why. Of course, I had heard the word sertões. I'll make the correction in the article. Thank you. By the way, how did you make the translation? Was it from the English WP article or from the Portuguese WP article? CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on português above the left-hand box, typed in setoes, and it said Você quis dizer sertões. Very nice translator. Rothorpe (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rothorpe: Rothorpe, you didn't answer my question.

Sorry! But I'm not really clear what you meant.

a) Were you looking at the article in the English WP or in the Portuguese WP?

Both.

b) Were you looking at the article or in revision history?

I don't remember the exact sequence of events, but I regularly look at revision histories.

c) Did you click on "Translate" at the top right, or not?

There's no such in my Wikipedia - assuming you are still talking about WP.

d) What do you mean by "portugues above the left-hand box"? What left-hand box? Where? CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the Google translation site you told me about. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here: https://translate.google.com/#en/pt/cat

Hi, again. When I asked my four questions, above, I was wondering what you were looking at -- what you had on your screen -- when you accessed Google translate. I had enabled Google translate through Preferences, Gadgets...., so it appears in a very small window after I choose it in the drop-down menu under "More" (next to Watchlist, at top of talk page). I had forgotten all about the website. I had not had much luck using the one I had enabled. I'll have to keep that website handy. But where? Do you have to keep looking for the website whenever you want to use it? CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your computer sounds very different from mine! On my Windows one, there are 'favorites' icons at the top of the browser window. At the moment I'm using Google Chrome. I also have Microsoft Internet Explorer but use that less nowadays, but that also has a place for favourites along the top. Here in Chrome, there is a star at the top right that I can click on to add favorites. So, for example, to get Google translate I click on one of the small icons along the top. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only switched from Internet Explorer to Google Chrome about six months ago, and I had not yet figured out the bookmarks on Google Chrome. I think I was able to add it as a favorite. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Yes, I have been slowly switching over too, though I retain MIE for some things, like YouTube. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: I was looking at the latest edit to Santiago Atitlán when I noticed that the previous edit had removed a statement about the indigenous religion of the people in the Guatemalan highlands with an edit summary saying that it was racist, out of context, etc. It looks like it was unsourced, so that alone may justify removing it, but I don't see how it is racist. It may be out of context simply because it is in the wrong place in the article. However, I believe that the basic information in the statement is correct. Would you simply leave it out because it's unsourced, or put it back in with a "citation needed" tag? Do you agree with that IP editor? CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BURDEN. I wouldn't replace it without a good source. Have you seen Maximón? Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CSD, just wondering whether you overlooked my recent post on Talk:Saadi Shirazi#Quotations from his works or if you're busy. Any way, good day. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ugog -- I saw and read it when you posted it. Then I got busy and forgot about it. So thank you for reminding me about it. I will get to it soon. CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been away for the last month. Let me know if you still have questions on anything you asked on my talk page. (Though it might be a while before I see it...) — kwami (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Thanks. I replied on your talk page. Again, I'm glad you're back. CorinneSD (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sminthopsis84: I just looked at the latest edits to Mammary gland development. While some seem to be correct, such as putting all but the first word of headings into lower-case, I don't understand the last edit at all. Why is there a <! before a section heading and a --> at the end of the section? And I can't find that section in the article at all. Also, the text seems to be just the legend to a figure, but the figure isn't anywhere to be found. I am totally puzzled. I'll take a look at edits on other articles now. CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an HTML comment, described here. It seems that the editor decided that the section that had previously been tagged as confusing should be removed from view. I don't know whether that is a better strategy or not; it might avoid confusing readers, but it might also mean that nobody will improve the material in the section. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't knew those tags were called that, but I've used them in editing WP. By the way, what does "HTML" stand for? CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one of the very best places for learning what things like HTML stand for. It's written in large part for programmers, by programmers. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just went back to look at it. I see now what you mean -- the IP editor just wanted the whole section hidden from view. However, I still don't see the "figure" that it was supposed to explain. Do you know where it is, or was? If we could see the figure, we could better decide whether it was confusing or not. CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the figure was never successfully added, with this edit or any later ones, and I don't see a figure anywhere with a similar name. Hmm, should the caption be removed entirely? I don't know. The signon that put in that text hasn't edited since then, May 2011, but it would be possible to leave a message on their talk page to ask if they want help with uploading the image. Who knows, perhaps they have a preference setting that means they will get email if someone writes on their talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I don't think it's worth your time to leave a message for that editor. How about leaving a comment on the WikiProject for medicine, or anatomy? I think that article would be helped by the addition of graphics. CorinneSD (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave it as is. The article is well flagged as needing attention from someone who understands the material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sminthopsis84: Thanks for the suggestion of this challenge. I saw your edits to Fennel and read your edit summary. Of course I agree with your edits. I understand the first two parts of your edit summary explaining something and "indicate", but I don't understand this part:

""justified by the fact that" and "justified because" have very different meanings, the second means medically a good idea, the first means only said to be good".

I agree that the two phrases are different in meaning (I wouldn't say "very different"), but I don't understand your explanations of the phrases.

But I don't have to understand your explanations. The edits themselves are good, and "justified by the fact that" of course reads much better than "justified because".

I would have explained the difference this way, more related to the actual structure of the phrases:

1) "justified by the fact that" means "justified by a particular fact, and that fact is:...", and

2) "justified because" means that "X is justified", and it is justified for a certain reason, and that reason is:..."

The two phrases are not that different. Which phrase to use depends on what follows it.

The earlier edit by the IP changing "There are several cultivars of fennel" to "Several cultivars occur of fennel" shows me that this editor is not a well-read or well-educated person. Otherwise, he/she would have written, at least: "Several cultivars of fennel occur". "Several cultivars occur of fennel" is simply not good writing. I'll continue to look at this IP's edits, and feel free to point out any others to me. CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CorinneSD, it is quite a challenge to discuss someone else's use of language in such detail. About the cultivars, I would also say that whereas I would find "several species occur" okay, cultivars are things that are carefully nurtured by people, that would cease to exist if people didn't pass them on to future generations. Because of that, I much prefer "There are several cultivars" to "Several cultivars occur". "Occur" has a "by chance" connotation, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with you. I guess I didn't make clear that I agreed that "There are several cultivars of fennel" is much better than "Several cultivars of fennel occur", and for the reasons you provided. I was just pointing out that the word order chosen by that IP editor indicates his/her lack of ability to write well. He/she might even be a non-native speaker of English. CorinneSD (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps they don't have enough reading experience to have a sense of how meaning and what we call "sounding right" work in this difficult language. I hope they aren't just following a set of rules that someone has made up for training copyeditors. I do know that there are elaborate exams available to obtain a certificate in copyediting, and fear that it might involve studying lots of rules that just don't work on real text … as a science writer, imagining what a book of such rules might be like gives me nightmares. (I should probably try to find out how one studies to be a copyeditor, for the sake of my own mental health. Perhaps it's not really such a dangerous profession as I am imagining.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information, I will definitely look into both of those. Slowly, but surely figuring things out. Koncurrentkat (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	And this is the real stuff! Hafspajen (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!! What did I do to deserve this? Did you see that the gold bar (and it's so beautiful) has two stars on it? I wonder why they put two stars on it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are nosy in a good way, make people think and activate everybody to do better things here on Wiki... (And I don't know why it has two stars - but I imagine you will find out that soon... ) Hafspajen (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I'm sorry you think I'm nosy, even in a "good way". That means I put my nose into things that are not of my concern. Am I being too nosy when I ask you about things on your Talk page? I just try to help improve articles, and I like to learn about new things. But thank you for the bonus star. I love both the star and the shell. CorinneSD (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOnono, I mean you are curious, try to find out things, notice things nobody else does - much in the way Farraday did. Or this guy, Benjamin Franklin . And isn't this beautiful? File:Quartz-160113.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. Thank you for the two pictures. Yes, the quartz is beautiful! Did you see I added the picture of the shell and the jewelry-star to my user page? CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did... and I never noticed the macramé thing.... Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.61.92.158

CorinneSD (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/66.61.92.158

CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: I just made an edit to Anise. I know the formatting of the reference is wrong. I have already asked Hafspajen to help me fix it. But I realized that the closing square brackets around WP:Blockquote in my edit summary are not quite right. Is there any way you could fix them without undoing my edit and re-doing it? If you need to do that, go ahead. CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne, I think I have done what you wanted. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. I'm sure what you did was a definite improvement to the article, but it wasn't what I was referring to. I'm talking about my edit summary right before the edit made by the bot to the reference. I wrote "Pull quotes are not appropriate. See WP:Blockquote. But the final pair of square brackets in that link doesn't look right. I don't know what I did. I was wondering if you could fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I may barge in. You put []] instead of ]]. I don't think edit summaries can be altered, but I shall be delighted if I'm wrong. Rothorpe (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is solved, it looks like it. Hafspajen (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to get your email, many thanks. Have to go out now, até logo. Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: What do you think of the new (I think it's new) user name "Cyber-Policeman"? I think it is inappropriate because it suggests that this editor has some kind of policing authority on WP, so it could be perceived as intimidating. CorinneSD (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Could you look at my comment I left at User talk:Finnrind#Runes about a word I found in the article on Runes? Maybe you know what the word means, and which language it is from, and perhaps add a synonym to the article. CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Isotalo: Perhaps you could answer my question. CorinneSD (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) File:Stavsten Scania 1.jpg. Hafspajen (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Thanks for the photo, Hafs. It's a nice photo, but (a) I don't see the connection to my question, above, or to runes, and (b) in the caption below the photo, I read:

"Stavsten, Skåne. Monument över Karl XII:s landstigning 1715."

What is "landstigning"? I never saw that word. CorinneSD (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have allergy on all felines. I mean a medical allergy. Can't sleep in a house with cats. So I keep that wonderful dog, but i start sneezing when I see that cat. Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Oh. That's too bad. But I don't think you would ever have to worry about a lynx in your house. Don't you like to look at cats (and lions, tigers, lynxes, etc.) in pictures?

You didn't answer my question just about about a word in the caption of the photo you posted above. CorinneSD (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: I see you removed the lynx picture from your talk page. That means you don't even like to look at any member of the cat family. Does that mean you get an allergic reaction from justing seeing one?

Sort of, yes. Hafspajen (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a new user at Augustine of Hippo. I thought about putting the welcome message that you posted on my talk page, above, but I couldn't figure out exactly what to put on his talk page, even after looking at Template:WelcomeMenu. I didn't want to mess it up. Can you put on there so that I can see what you actually have to put in order to see the Welcome Menu? Or write it here? CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put it here and you can move it. Hafspajen (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC) General welcome templates[reply]

welcome}}: standard welcome *

welcome-short}}: a shorter welcome message

welcome-personal}}: more personal welcome, including a plate of cookies

welcome-graphical}}: colorful welcome message with table of about 20 links welcome-menu}}: welcome message with large table of about 60 links

welcome-screen}}: welcome message with clear, annotated table of 10 links

welcome-belated}}: welcome for users with more substantial contributions

AS IT FOLLOWS:

TO GET THIS MESSAGE ADD TO PAGE '{{welcome}}': OR USE THE tWINKLE WEL AND CHOSE standard welcome.

Hello, CorinneSD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hafspajen (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this ADD THIS: '{{welcome-short}}': a shorter welcome message

Hi, CorinneSD. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hafspajen (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add this: '{{welcome-personal}}': more personal welcome, including a plate of cookies

Welcome to Wikipedia, CorinneSD! Thank you for your contributions. I am Hafspajen and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Hafspajen (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.'Add this: {{welcome-menu}}  : welcome message with large table of about 60 links

Hello, CorinneSD! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Hafspajen (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Add this one. {{welcome-screen}} welcome message with clear, annotated table of 10 links

.'Add this one. {{welcome-graphical}}:

Wow! Thank you for all the templates and information, Hafs. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CorinneSD,

You wrote a comment to me: "I also noticed that you just ignored the note from User:Alessandro57 at Azerbaijan, provided in an edit summary, urging you to join the on-going discussion on the article's talk page". Please note that Alessandro57's comment was not ignored (see Azerbaijan talk page). The comment was related to Azerbaijan map, not language. The very strange thing is that all other countries with uncontrolled regions are shown in dark green/light green colors (see Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Pakistan). Azerbaijan had the same type of map until this July 14. Why was it changed to one color? What is the reason for this exception? Wiki administrators should have reverted the map change on July 14 back to dark green/light green colors as it used to be for some time, and the problem would have been avoided altogether.

Regards,

Cyber-Policeman (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyber-Policeman: The edit summary accompanied User:Alessandro57's edit undoing your addition of a sentence to the article made after a discussion had already begun on the talk page. Alessandro was not saying that your sentence was wrong. He was just saying that, because a discussion was already underway about that very place in the article, it would be better to join the discussion first before adding anything to the article. Any material in a WP article upon which there is disagreement needs to be worked out through discussion and reaching a consensus, where everyone, or almost everyone, agrees upon something. The map is a separate issue, and it's fine that you started a new section on the talk page about it. I know nothing about these issues, so I won't even comment about it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my note to you was made after you replaced the very sentence that Alessandro57 had removed. That's the beginning of a pattern of edit-warring, and I was just informing you that if you continued, you might be blocked. That's all. CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are feeling insecure, I am sending this violent beast to console you.

Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The kitten is so cute! I love cats (and kittens), but I don't have one because I don't think my dog would like to have a cat in the house. CorinneSD (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picturesHafspajen (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hafspajen! I took a glance at them. There are quite a few pictures. I'll take a closer look at them later. Did I do all right at Featured Picture Candidates? CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CorinneSD, please make sure to follow the instructions in the email I sent nearly 2 weeks ago to ensure that you can get WP:RSUK access, Sadads (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Thank you for the reminder. I had forgotten about it. CorinneSD (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through your notes, but I may not finish tonight, depending on how long a phone call I'm about to join lasts. I just wanted to stop by and say how much I appreciate the work you're putting into your review of radiocarbon dating. You're thorough and precise, and it's a real pleasure to engage with someone who understands exactly what it takes to make a sentence clear. I would like the article to be as accessible as possible, and your edits and comments are very helpful. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your words of thanks. They're much appreciated. I'm glad to be of help, and I've been enjoying working on the article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do much in response to your comments tonight, but should have more time tomorrow. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - this sort of reviewing and tinkering to improve prose is very helpful - thanks/much appreciated. One thing that makes the review page easier to navigate is to strike through material that you feel has been addressed to your satisfaction like this Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, I think I've now caught up with all your comments at the peer review, except for moving the calibration discussion to a subarticle. I'm going to go ahead and do that next; we can always revert if we don't like the results, but it's a long and technical section and I think it presents a barrier to a reader's initial understanding of the topic.

In some cases I've made no changes in response to your comments, because I had a question or concern. Can you go through and see if there are any responses you would like to make to those notes?

Also, I think it would help if you would strike out (with <s> and </s> tags) everything you feel is fully addressed. The usual convention is that only the person posting the issue can strike it out, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it. Also, it's usual to only strike out the initial statement of the issue -- that gives a visual indication of which issues are resolved, without obscuring the discussions that resolved them. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the separation of the calibration section into a new article, so I think everything is ready for you to take another look whenever you have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Hafspajen, I defended Fylbecatulous and, by extension, also you, on WP FP Candidates (and I thank you for your words of appreciation on your talk page), so I was surprised when I saw your latest comment on the E. Munch "Scream" discussion page. I think you posted your comment before allowing C.o.M.C. to absorb what I had said and respond. I am also puzzled why you didn't comment on the nomination of that image. I would have been interested to read your opinion. I know that you may have had previous difficult experiences with this editor, but you didn't even allow for the possibility that this exchange could have a positive impact on him/her. I know art and painting is your field of expertise, but I don't think you would want to claim ownership of the WP FP process any more than you would want any other editor to do so. I should think you would want participation from all kinds of people. After all, you asked me to vote even though you knew I was not an expert in either paintings or photography. Thus, if you approach C.o.M.C. with kindness and respect, and generously share your knowledge, you might be pleasantly surprised. You might even create another "editing buddy" relationship. After all, he/she would not be participating on that project if he/she were not interested in art and photography, so you do have something in common already. I really believe that people can learn from discussions on WP, not just factual information, but how to communicate and get along with other editors.

I think if you are confident, and express your opinions with confidence, presenting your arguments in a clear, reasoned manner, you will be more likely to persuade other editors, including C.o.M.C. (but always be open to being persuaded). If you try what I have suggested and still obtain no positive result, you can either ignore the discussions in which he/she participates, or make a formal complaint somewhere. But I think it is worth a try. Nobody is perfect. But everyone has some positive qualities, and it's always good to look for those. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: @Hafspajen: I think your silence means that you are upset with me. I thought about it during the day today and realized that I had said something that I regretted saying, and I sincerely apologize. I have removed that part from my comment. In truth, in spite of my rational-sounding advice, I also become emotional when someone is unreasonably and persistently rude. I really didn't know the history of your difficult experiences with C.o.M.C. and I was just trying to help make peace and encourage communication. I didn't realize the depth of your feelings. I think you are an extraordinary person, Hafs, and I feel honored and lucky to know you and be able to learn from you. Your extensive knowledge of art and architecture is apparent, but, more than that, your taste in art and architecture is exquisite. Every image you select reveals your keen eye for beauty and your love of life, people, animals, and nature. It is a treat just to visit your talk page, and you have decorated mine as well. I think someone with a sensitive soul -- able to find the best, most beautiful, and most intriguing man-made and natural images in the world and speak about them so well in a language that is not your native language -- may also find disrespectful and rude behavior hard to bear. So, please forgive me, Hafs. I made a mistake. I hope to hear from you. CorinneSD (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]