User talk:AnnaFrance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, AnnaFrance! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JamieS93 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Adoption

{{adoptoffer}} Save The HumansTalk :) 18:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Okay, to answer you questions and give you a little bit of a head start. (Excuse me if I ramble a bit, I have been going all day and am just about to get some sleep.) As far as working with the LoC goes, just jump right in. Find an article that you want to copyedit and start working on it. If you are having trouble with it or want a second opinion on it then ask another one of the active LoCE members or let me know and I will take a look at it. When you are done with it and satisfied that it is completely edited, then removed the copyedit template at the top of the page and move on to the next one.

Don't think that this is the only work open to you though. Be sure to look around and try out many different part of the project. There's no reason to limit yourself to mainspace either, there are a great many tasks available in projectspace, such as WP:AFD. I am definitely going to point something out early on, and that is to choose tasks based on where you want to go in the future with Wikipedia. Right or wrong, and I happen to think its wrong, there are a number of areas where participation is either damaging or necessary if you have your eyes set on becoming an administrator in the future. I know that it is a little early to give that a lot of consideration, but the unfortunate thing is that to get to that point you need to be at least a little bit politically-minded.

I have no interest in going any further than I am right now. I'm an administrator and quite simply I don't have time for anything more than what I'm currently doing. This gives me a rather liberating freedom to cut through the crap and say things like they are, you might want to step a little more lightly :). That is not something you want to worry too much about right now, just something you want to keep in mind.

For now, try out copyediting a little bit and maybe check out the "things to do" section of the community portal. I will talk to you some more tomorrow. Let me know if you need help with anything. Trusilver 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at the article on implicit memory, and I can't find anything really wrong with it. It has been marked for a lack of in-text citations, yet it uses the Harvard, author-date referencing system well and consistently. While not ideal, I thought the author's choice was to be respected unless used improperly or inconsistently. Several sections are marked for copy-edit, yet I find nothing wrong there either. The only complaint I can see with the article is its technical style, but it's difficult to remove technicalities from what is fundamentally a technical article.

OK, back to me talking. Normally the above paragraph would go on the article's talk page, right? Would I be overstepping myself in making these comments? Even worse--would I be overly bold to remove the various templates that I had issue with? (Is that how they're referred to? Templates?) Is it better to go ahead and follow my instincts and let someone revert me if appropriate, or would it be better to simply suggest this on the talk page? --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly make your opinion known on the article. If you feel that there is nothing that needs to be done to copyedit the article, then be bold and remove the tags on the article. The worst thing that can happen is that the person who placed the tag there will put it back again. The citation thing is a different story altogether. First of all, someone shouldn't be putting a copyedit tag on an article because it doesn't have sources, any that you find that have been tagged for this purpose you should remove immediately. But there is (what I consider) to be a half-assed de facto consensus when it comes to inline citations. While it is technically proper to use Harvard citations, the inline method is preferred and you will definitely not see an article passing GA or FA without inline citations. (something I learned when nominating Apache. Trusilver 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you recently joined the League of Copyeditors. Do you have an interest in peer reviewing some articles? If so, please visit Wikipedia:Peer review. I actually have some articles up for Peer review (some of which I have been working on quite a bit). Please provide feedback for Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1 if you are interested. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Red links

When I come across red links, assuming I have no plans to create such an article, should I leave them as is? --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Use your own judgment. If it seems as though an article is likely or even possible, go ahead and leave them. If it is something that is obviously never going to have an article like blind people from Kenya, then go ahead and remove the Wikilink. Trusilver 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My first revert

I found my way to Special:Contributions/newbies, which is very interesting, and stumbled on a brand-new edit that obviously needed to be removed. I reverted the article and left a warning on the user's talk page. Could you please take a look at the asshole article and see if I handled this appropriately? I would greatly appreciate any comments you might have. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also like that you left the warning on that user's talk page. That is the best way we have of tracking vandalism and knowing what step to take next. You used a templated message so I assume that you have already figured out how that works. Remember that after receiving a vandalism4, or final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV where an administrator will take whatever action is appropriate to deal with the chronic vandal. If vandalism patrolling turns out to be something that you enjoy, you might want to look into using some type of utility to make the work a little bit easier on you. I personally prefer Twinkle, which has gotten to be a little bit old school, but it is what I am used to and what I prefer. Most of the new vandalism patrollers seem to be using Huggle. Trusilver 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I really have no special interest yet. I love to learn new things, and Wikipedia is a banquet. While I was checking out the newbie contributions I also found someone who had made 2 very nice edits already, so I read the material at the Welcome Committee pages and gave the new person the same nice welcome I received. I've loaded Lupin's anti-vandal tool script to see what that does, and I'm looking forward to participating in some AfD discussions as well. There is such a lot to do here! --AnnaFrance (talk)

If you are looking for something that you might find interesting. (I find it downright boring, but it's what my daughter is doing right now and she seems to be having a good itme with it.) Disambiguation pages are in need of cleanup and there's probably enough work for a half dozen people to go nonstop for a month to clean it all up. Those pages are often very inconsistent and more often then not they don't conform to WP:MOS. Just something to think about. Trusilver 08:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

After tomorrow I will be on vacation for two weeks. If you have any questions while I'm gone, I've got a list of a few really good admins that are almost perpetually online.

User:Jmlk17 User:Keeper76 User:Dihydrogen Monoxide

Any of them would be receptive to helping you with any questions that might come up.Trusilver 15:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to give me the names of some admins I can bother. I appreciate it. I hope you have a really nice time on your vacation! --AnnaFrance (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimini bay

Hi! I saw your !vote agreeing with my stance on Bimini Bay. However, I now realise my position was flawed, and have changed my !vote accordingly. As it could look like you are agreeing with my new vote, I thought I had best let you know and give you the opportunity to modify your stance. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue message box

Hi! I could have dscribed it, but it is easier just to do it for you! (grin) If you are interested in the source code, just click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page, and look at the very top line. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CSS file on CAT:CSD

Hi. I'm not sure what you intended at User:AnnaFrance/huggle.css (it doesn't look much like a CSS file) but it is currently showing up at CAT:CSD. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just worked through this issue with MZMcBride, who has edited the file. huggle.css is the configuration file for the huggle anti-vandal tool. The options in the file are used to specify which templates are to be included but Anna added them with the brackets round them, thus transcluding the templates and making the page show up in CSD stuff.

Anna: You don't need to use the CSD templates in the list as there is already a built in CSS function in huggle. If you want to add any other templates, make sure you don't use the brackets round them as this transcludes them and breaks stuff. See Gurchzilla's css for an example of how to do it properly.

Cheers, Astral (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for clearing that up, Astral. The Huggle docs just said to put the name of the CSD template, so I just assumed they meant with the brackets. Ah, now I know. (Sorry to answer you here, but I assumed from your talk page that you don't want anyone editing it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

American Graffiti copy edit

AnnaFrance, Please go ahead and make edits. I think there are numerous areas where the article can be strengthened (sentence and paragraph structure, grammar (e.g. parallelism (major issues), present participle usage, passive voice, split infinitives, incorrect or misplaced punctuation, etc.). I've made some, but have been unable to work more on it during the week. There's some room for improvement in the writing (I think the GA listing may have been premature), plus the addition of music and themes sections would be good.

I'd say the Peer Review process is complete, and editors should use it as a to-do list. I'll jump on it some more this weekend. I look forward to working with you.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

AnnaFrance, your edits to AG look good. Thanks for jumping into it. I'll try to find time this weekend to work on it as well.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Knights Inn

Thank you. ...njbob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njbob (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit Request

Hi there. Seems like you've been learning a lot (and much faster than I did, too). When you have the time, could you please copy-edit both Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100?... And please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about Wiki stuff. Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think by spit shine, Laser brain means "polish". He thinks a copyedit would be good, so go ahead and make some edits if you feel the need. If I think they are not beneficial, I can always revert your edits. ;-) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are great, so far. Please keep it up! I always make so many tiny grammatical mistakes... — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic/PowerBook 100

Hi Anna. Not to worry. I'm all done with my tiny tweaks to the article, and I won't be cross-editing. Thanks for letting me know and for saving my edits. Good luck with the re-writes. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thanks again. When you have the time, please copyedit PowerBook 100 also (similar article to the Classic one in style). Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting on PowerBook 100 so soon. I have a lot of other article rewrites in the works, so I'll keep you posted on what I am doing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on what the first sentence of the lead should say, should it be ...is a PowerBook or ...was? I always use was because this stuff was manufactured/sold in the past (even though it still exists). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy kept, so far. Your edits were fine. Please keep up the great work. Thanks again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, though System 7 is over 10 years old. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moore book title

There's a note to AWB users right next to the word "Compleat" that explains that this is the correct spelling of the word in the title of the book. Please try to be more careful with the drive-by copyediting. -JasonAQuest (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you ignored the note because you were banging through edits on autopilot, or you ignored the note because you thought you knew better than the cited source, you still ignored the note. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who didn't even bother to read the text she was editing is lecturing others to "read more carefully"? I did read your comments carefully, which is how I noticed that you didn't even acknowledge what your real mistake was: You didn't bother to read the note that was trying to prevent you from introducing an error into the article. That note is there for a reason; if you can't be bothered to read it, you are disrespecting the work others have done to keep the article correct. Yes, I'm investing a little time into explaining this, because some things are worth spending time on. And if it helps you slow down from your race through the alphabet with your new toy, and read before you edit, maybe others won't have to spend as much time correcting your "corrections". - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Grater -> greater in Bicycle article

Your edit summary for this [edit] is "(Typo fixing, typos fixed: grater → greater using AWB)", which would not be correct. However, the only change shown by comparing versions is spoked -> spoked, which is fine, but not as advertised. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the tool. In an only slightly related issue, I'd love for someone that bills themselves as a copy editor to take a hard look at Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics. We've managed to get it to GA status, but it appears to be too far out of the way to get real criticism. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow

You have certainly been busy while I've been away. Just got done looking at all that you have done in the last three weeks. Keep up the good work. Trusilver 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope you and your family had a great vacation. I've been (mostly) staying out of trouble here at WP, still figuring things out. I've done "ride-alongs" with New Page Patrol, where I watch pages being tagged to learn how experienced patrollers do it, and reading the RfA questions-answers-comments page, which is fascinating. Anyway, here are two questions I have:

• I was recently asked to copy-edit the Macintosh Classic article, which I did (along with a handful of other editors). It appears to have been marked as an FA last night. Does that mean I get to count it as an "FA I have worked on"?

• There are many, many tags. Too many. How do you keep them straight, know which one is appropriate for each circumstance and how to apply it? Article tags and Talk page tags. Is it just an experience and memory thing?

--AnnaFrance (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as FA's go, there are really no rules for that. There are no set rules for putting up a userbox saying that you helped get an article to FA status. Personally, I feel like I haven't contributed to the article if I haven't made actual content additions. I spent two months copyediting the hell out of Bangladesh Language Movement to get it through FA, but I don't note my contribtions anywhere. I prefer to give the praise to the two gentlemen who wrote the article and asked me to help copyedit it for them. That's just my personal view.

As far as templates go, don't worry too much about it. Nobody can keep all of the templates straight. I figure that off-hand I could think of maybe 20% of them without having to look up the Wikicode for them. I try to keep in mind the ones that I use most often, the rest I look up as needed at WP:TEMPLATE. Trusilver 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for your hard work

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award you, AnnaFrance, this barnstar for all your hard work copyediting articles, in particular Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100 for me. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am rewriting some articles (listed on my user page), so when I am done, I'll let you know if I need any assistance. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Donaldson (activist)

Thank you for cleaning up Stephen Donaldson (activist), an article on which I've done a lot of work. Could you tell me why you removed the paragraph markup in multi-paragraph blockquotes?

Thanks. Espertus (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversions and notes. Espertus (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To Trusilver: Cleanup

I'm hoping you monitor my talk page, otherwise I'm talking to myself. :)

When you see an article with a Cleanup tag ("This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards."), what do you start looking for? --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not Trusilver, your user/talk page is on my watchlist. I used to do a lot of cleanup work on articles. I looked for words which need wikifying, MoS issues, grammar/prose issues, layout and other style things. Usually with the messier articles, it is easy to spot what needs fixing (especially once you become familiar with the standards of FA class articles). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Wackymacs, about the standards for FA articles. I haven't explored the review process at all yet, and I should. I can see where it would have application even if FA status isn't an issue yet. Thanks for taking the time to give me some tips. Much appreciated. --AnnaFrance (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do monitor your talk page, but a little too late this time :). Trusilver 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Trusilver. AnnaFrance you should check out WP:FAC sometime - it soon becomes clear which articles do not meet the criteria and which do. This kind of off-hand knowledge becomes useful later on if you do cleanup work on articles. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lone Star Elementary School

I'd like some advice about what to do about Lone Star Elementary School. Briefly:

• It's not about the school. It's one paragraph of a piece of movie trivia that tangentially involved a person at the school (the librarian).
• It cites a zoetrope.com website, from which it was taken, mostly verbatim.
• The article for the movie in question already contains the information.

I hesitated about a speedy deletion because it's not entirely a word-for-word copy, but definitely most of it is. I'm not sure how strict WP is about that kind of thing. --AnnaFrance (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would nominate that for CSD. The article makes very little assertion of notability and what little it does could be merged into the article for the movie that it is referring to. Past practice states that high schools are inherently notable (something many disagree with, myself included) but elementary schools don't have that same blanket protection. The most I would do for this article would be to redirect it to the movie, and were it to come across my desk (so to speak) if I was monitoring CSD, I would almost definitely delete it. That failing, you could add a PROD tag to it and see if anyone else objects to its deletion. Either way, it is very poorly written and would need a complete rewrite to make it salvageable. But just to note, I tend to be a lot more exclusionist than the norm, so I'm also going to ask someone who is extremely inclusionist to chime in on this so you can get both angles on this issue.Trusilver 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is only about a month old, one could argue Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The article clearly needs improvement and if there's a copywright issue, the article could be deleted without prejudice of being restored sans copy vio. The connection with a notable movie does make this particular elementary school a bit more notable than a run of the mill regilar elementary school. Before deleting or nominating as well, I would encouage a search. Doing that, we find that beyond the movie connection, the school is also a recognized elementary school as it was selected a 2006 California Distinguished School. One problem with the Google search is that schools with the same name appear in other states, too, so one has to be careful not to confuse them. In any event, I was able to do this with the article in less than a half hours worth of work. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All but the first sentence of the "Influence on Outsiders film" section is taken from the referenced website. So, is that a copyright violation, or a section-sized blockquote that hasn't been properly formatted? (I'm not trying to be a smartass here—I'm asking a serious question.)

As a side note, this is an alarming difference of admin opinions. I'm not sure what to say about the inclusionist position. What couldn't be fixed with enough work? How much poor-quality material on WP is too much? It makes an editor's decisions much easier, though. If you don't have the time to fix it, just ignore it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider it to be a copyright violation as it stands, however I think that it probably could be reworded easily to not be a copyvio. I'm more concerned with the content in general and whether or not it is suitable for an article. I would say no, Le Grand would say yes. I asked him to come here specifically to show you how very different opinions are concerning what belongs on Wikipedia, even within the parameters of notability policy. I feel that WP:N isn't strict enough and there should be a great deal more rigidity on notability. Le Grand would probably tell you that anything that isn't a hoax or a copyvio should be notable. This isn't to say that I consider his opinion any less valid than my own, we all have different opinions on what is notable. (In fact, I'm harassing him to let me nominate him for adminship) The rest of your questions are difficult to answer; I'm of the opinion that if an article is so badly written that it's unsalvagable, then it just needs to be CSD'd until a time that someone comes back and writes it over and then we can determine if it is truly notable. Trusilver 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just hoaxes and copy vios, as I am also concerned with how tos, original research, and other unconstructive stuff (please note, though, that my "arguments" in the last two cases I now consider weak per WP:PERNOM; I still would argue to delete, but should have offered a more original rationale). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to deal with my questions. You've given me a lot to think about. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Have a pleasant day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Service Award

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Oh yes, and by the way. Congratulations on your first month anniversary with us. It has been fantastic working with you so far and I'm looking forward to much the same in the future. Good work on everything that you have done up to this point. Trusilver 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Thank you so much. Both for the award and for your help (so far—don't leave town). I'm still having a great time learning, and I've gotten my husband into WP also. He's interested in numismatics, and is already helping out there. Thanks for making this past month a lot less scary than it might have been. --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolding scientific terms

In an article I'm working on, Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, a number of the more important or unusual terms have been bolded. I haven't found a specific WP policy on whether this is encouraged or discouraged. Is there such a policy? --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No so that I'm aware of, though general practice is that nothing should be bolded within the body of the article itself. When there isn't a specific policy forbidding something, I tend to fall back on standardization and format the article as is typical. Trusilver 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Copyedit

Hi, Anna. I have been the primary contributor to the article Last of the Summer Wine and am attempting to get it up to FA. I saw your name on the list of copyedit volunteers and was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look through the article to see if you can spot anything for us to edit. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi.

Please could you check I Should Coco for copyeditting. This is article is also currently awaiting a peer review here. I would really appriciate your input.

Thank you, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the I Should Coco article. I will definitely consider contacting you again in the future about copy edit requests. --TwentiethApril1986 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

B & M D images

Sorry if I rubbed your husband the wrong way. Not my best message.

IE7 "unusual"? The Wikipedia article claims it has 45% of the market in 2007.

Anyway, Wikipedia itself suggests not using tables to format images.

I'll see what I can do. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Hi Anna. Can you please take a look at the Sri Lankan Tamil people article. None of the editors of the article are native English speakers and we would love to have someone of your skills to do a copy edit of the article. This article is currently being peer reviewed and a comment has suggested that the article is in need of copy edit. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your offer. I must admit that I am an idiot! Originally I had checked your contribution list and saw that you were active in wikipedia. After making a request on your page, however, I re-checked the contribution list and thought that you had not edited for a month because I forgot that were still in june (I must have been eager for July) . It was because of this mistake I decided to ask another copy-editor after my initial request. I would like to apologize for this little mishap. Watchdogb (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Wackymacs has not replied to my request and might be busy in real life (seeing his contribution) to spend time to copy edit the article. Are you still willing to do the copy edit? Watchdogb (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just to let you know I've been moving back to the United States from Britain this weekend so I haven't had much of a chance to read over your comments. I will over the next day or so, though, and leave comments. Thanks for your continued help! Redfarmer (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Toy Story

Hi. If you have the time, would you please copyedit Toy Story? It's not for a peer review, but I'm trying to help improve the article. Thank you.

SunDragon34 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Four technical questions

Three issues that have come up lately:

• Do you put a non-breaking space between AD, BC, CE, BCE, and the rest of the date (either a specific number or something like "10th century")? I didn't see anything about doing that in the MoS, but I just had a date split between lines and didn't much like the look. What do you do?
• Say you have a paragraph that ends: Highly contentious statement. Everyday statement of fact. [footnote to reference that covers both].
  • Would you repeat the footnote at the end of the contentious statement, just to make it very clear that it is sourced?
• I am going to try tackling Toy Story, which has a truckload of maintenance tags. This is going to require more than just a copyedit; there is some major restructuring needed. Is there some kind of tag I should put to indicate that the article is currently in great flux, under major construction, and nobody should worry or try to "fix" the intermediate stages of the job?
• I do a lot of work in WikiProject Disambiguation, and I know that in-text wikilinks shouldn't point to dab pages. But what about wikilinks that point to redirects? Is it a good idea to pipe them to the actual article instead?

As always, thanks for your help. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Claw

It may be an overactive bot, but either way it's important to let you know that the "khan" being referred to in Yellow Claw is the lowercase word for a medieval Asian sovereign. It is not a reference to a character named Khan. Several editors have had to keep reverting this over the past few days. Lowercase "khan" is correct. Thanks, -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you've been very gracious, actually, and I thank you for that. As you did, I also looked more closely, and saw we had a "perfect storm" of confusion. Though Merriam-Webster and other standard dictionaries give "khan" as a lowercase word, Wikipedia gave only an uppercase version. To help end confusion, I noted at Khan (title) that Merriam-Webster spells "khan" lowercase, and added that as alternate spelling, with a footnote link to the "khan" page at Merriam-Webster Online. All's well that ends well. Sorry for my part in the misunderstanding — or what is, in retrospect, a jolly mix-up! With thanks, -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I Should Coco

Copyedit all you want. If I drop in to fix something, it's probably something you overlooked. Also, make sure none of the references link to reproductions of articles on fansites; these are unauthorized reproductions that violate copyright. So if you are citing a Melody Maker article reprinted on a fansite, just reference the original article and don't include a link to the fansite. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was because certain items were more logically placed next to others. See Loveless for one example of what a high-quality album article should look like. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a primary editor at the page; I only came in because of WP:ALM's Collaboration of the Week project, and I've just been doing some follow-up editing. Do what you will. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course a copyedit is still wanted. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Massacre

Hi, you just piped a lot of links for the word massacre to the article Wiktionary. I assume that's not what you meant to do. Perhaps you intended the result massacre; that's done as [[wiktionary:massacre|massacre]], or [[wikt:massacre|massacre]] for short. Please would you go back and correct them all? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks. Have you tried WP:POPUPS? I enjoy using it for disambiguating; not as quick, but it makes you check your work! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead of Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)

Hello. I've been watching you do some darn good copyedit work on Last of the Summer Wine, which I had worked on a little myself during its FAC. In the past few weeks, I have been working on my own soon-to-be FAC, but, as always, I struggle with making the lead not read too choppy (it's got too many important and unrelated facts to mention and not much space). If you are not otherwise engaged in the next week, would you give the lead of Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) a pass? Or maybe you will find that I am too harsh and that it is not bad as an introduction to an FA, who knows? As I believe the rest of the article to be on par with the FA criteria, I don't want to unnecessarily spoil any FA chances by giving a poor first impression with the lead. I would value a second opinion by you. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As for the 1100-word plot (in case you weren't aware of it), this refers to the article about the 2005 film (2-hour movie), not the TV serial (five hours, currently 800 words). I just bought the film on DVD, so I will be able to perform a trim if the ownership issues on the other side of the fence are not too strong. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

I see you were listed as a participant in the League of Copy-Editors so it seems likely you can ... The thing is the Military history wikiproject urgently needs prose pros to help with our best articles. Milhist covers a broad range of interesting and varied subjects from film to biography, battles to weaponry, and Roman emperors to twentieth-century dictators. In Milhist, A-Class has become the last port of call before FAC and we are looking for people to help identify prose and MoS issues at A-Class A-Class Reviews and help fix them prior to featured article candidacy. We also have a copy-editing section in our Logistics Dept and that can always use experienced copy-editors. For most of our articles, you don't need to be a specialist in the subject matter, just good with words.

If you think you can help, please do! Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a fascinating WikiProject, and very well run. I'd be delighted to help. I should be able to start on a new project this weekend, and I'll add my name to your copyeditor list right now. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind thought; I am glad to call you my friend and step-mentor. (I hope you don't mind about the "mentor" part—I've learned so much from talking to you and reading your contributions around WP.) May you and yours have a lovely July 4th too. --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award this barn star for the extra ordinary attention to detail that you displayed in selflessly copy editing the Sri Lankan Tamil people article Taprobanus (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved barnstar. I would also like to express my gratitude for your amazing copy edit on the above article. Thank you very much! Watchdogb (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to copyedit Conan

Hi, do you have a week or so to spare to help copyedit Conan? I have gotten it to GA, and I believe it is the prose and flow of the sentences that require the most attention before I submit it for FAC. I believe your experience and skills can do much to help improve the article in those areas. Please let me know of your answer. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Next week will be fine. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Another well-deserved copyeditor's barnstar for improving the grammatical flow of the video game article Conan and other articles. Your work is of great benefit to Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Conan's FAC

Hi, AnnaFrance, sorry to bother you again, but could you take a look at Conan's FAC? User:David Fuchs raised a few criticisms on the grammar, and I am uncertain if they are truly an issue and how to resolve them if they are (namely, his first two points in Crit 1). Many thanks in advance. Jappalang (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to help! Jappalang (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, although I am still a bit disappointed that very few participated in its FAC. I would have thought that the name Conan would attract some from those who were attracted to the literature. Hopefully, Laser brain and David Fuchs would continue giving their concerns at Talk:Conan (2007 video game)#Pre-FAC threshing out session, allowing their issues to be resolved and bringing the article up to better standards. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, AnnaFrance. David has raised two concerns about language. Could you take a look at his concerns (in the link mentioned above) and weigh in on whether they are indeed actionable? Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(out dent) AnnaFrance, I have brought Conan to FAC again. I tried dealing with Nousernamesleft's concerns but would appreciate your help in checking over my edits and on the use of commas (which was pointed out as sparsely used). Sincerely, Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conan is now an FA!

Conan has been promoted as a Featured Article!! This would not have been possible without your help. Your selflessness in improving the language of the article was instrumental in helping it fulfill a key criteria of Featured Articles. Although you were not the nominator, I think you deserve the following userbox. Thank you very much!!! Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This user helped promote Conan (2007 video game) to featured article status.

Auxiliaries (Roman military)

Auxiliaries (Roman military) is currently passing an A-class review. It has enough support because of excellent content, but MOS issues are a problem. Could you take a look? Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Wandalstouring#Auxiliaries (Roman military) copyedit and User talk:EraNavigator#MoS are a discussion about your impending copyedit. It's the first time that EraNavigator really gets one of his articles copyedited and he is a bit nervous. Perhaps you can do something about it. He claims to have been at Oxford and believes that his style can't be that bad. The current problem is MoS, but it seems that many readers don't like his style of small sentences which tend to repeat their structure. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit

Hello, hope you're doing well. Can you help me clear the 2007 backlog starting with January? I am slowly tackling February 2007 to get it to 0. Just as a caution, it seems a lot of the articles are good candidates for deletion, so some are suitable for AFD instead of being copyedited. Any help would be appreciated. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great to hear. Looking forward to your help! :-) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much ...

for offering your copy-editing help at Milhist. It's very much appreciated :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Auxilia

That's fine by me. My comments to Wandalstouring on copyeditors are of course general and not a reflection on you personally. It's just that in the past some "improvements" have actually reduced the clarity of the text. Also, I don't know who Wandalstouring is referring to above, when he says many readers don't like my prose style (unless, of course, he means himself). If you look at the comments on the two reviews on this article (yes, there's been a peer review as well!) not a single one makes any complaint about the prose style. All the points made concern minor quibbles about how footnotes or dates should be presented. Overall, I think Wandalstouring (who in general has been very helpful to me) has been a real old woman about processing this article. I think it's because he's still sore that I dumped his favourite graph of Roman army numbers in favour of my own much clearer (and more accurate) table! (Just joking). I look forward to hearing your views. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive MoS survey. The only points I would raise are:

1. I use the word "ruled" rather than "reigned" advisedly because Roman emperors were not monarchs in the medieval sense. Technically, they were simply Republican officials that were granted dictatorial powers indefinitely by the Senate. Nor were they hereditary (although sons/relatives did occasionally succeed). In practice they were often just military strongmen who had crushed rivals to seize supreme power (and very few died in their beds).
2. Do we really have to add "p." to all the page numbers in the refs? This seems unnecessary (what else could the number be?) and absurdly repetitive. It is standard practice in academic publications to put just a number alone for the page ref.
3. I think we should ignore all norms which are preferred rather than mandatory. Some preferred norms are just silly, such as spelling out "percent" rather than using "%", which everyone understands.
4. I hear your point about the length of the contents. But it is necessarily long, as auxilia is a big subject, and the article aims to be comprehensive. Many of the sections are already summaries e.g. the Batavi revolt, much of which was transferred to the dedicated article. I have struggled hard to keep the article to not more than 100k. I do not believe we can do any more trimming without losing essential points.

Apart from the above, you are welcome to carry out the changes you suggest if you have the time and energy. Unfortunately, I do not, as I'm heavily engaged in tidying up Late Roman army (which I started as a spin-off from auxilia) and which Wandalstouring plans to submit for an A-review shortly (besides, I frankly do not want to devote any more time to auxilia). Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. You are very generous with your time, which I appreciate. If you discover any more technical points, do go ahead and deal with them without sending another message. But if there are points about the text itself (prose style or content), I would prefer to be consulted. PS: Who wants an FA review anyway? Not me. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you get along? I know, EraNavigator is an idiosyncratic fellow. The occupation he has for earning his money is a joke, making him a full-time wikipedian (if he is not watching telenovellas) with an impresssive output. At least he seems to accept that you can comment on his style and he may improve it in return. If you don't mind I'd like you to take a look at some of his other works after they passed A-class review. I also cordially invite you to comment on style in the military history A-class reviews.

PS: It took some time to convince him of A-class reviews, but now he is quite fond of them (and I don't have to push him any more). FA is the ultimate goal, but for now it is A-class and that has enough surprises.

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request for Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

Sorry for piling on extra work, but I was wondering if you'd consider including Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney on your future worklist. On its first FA nomination, the need for good copy-editing was the primary problem. There's no rush; I also asked User:EyeSerene, who recommended looking around WP:FAT or WP:PRV for help. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks! --Jh12 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles Needing Copy Edit

Hope you're doing well. Great to see you've joined! I really hope this project is successful in clearing at least the 2007 backlog in the near future. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Project creation

Thanks for the support! The project page is now up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. It's now a bit bland 'cos there are no pretty pictures yet heh... Feel free to sign up there, and discuss details and direction and what not at its talk page.

I'll be sending out invitations to the members of WP:Grammar, and later WP:LOCE and maybe WP:PR. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

EraNavigator, who wrote auxiliaries, has been critized for his prose in the A-class review. I have been able to convince him to give copy-editing a try and would like you to do the copy-editing. However, he is not totally convinced and suggest to limit it the evolution section. I suggest, you also edit the intro. Afterwards we will discuss matters and see if the whole article gets a copy-edit. Another editor suggested a copy-edit during the A-class review and got started on his own. He combined his copy-editing with inserting OR and distorting sourced facts(mostly infantry, is not completely infantry and the like), leading to EraNavigator totally reverting his edits. I want to avoid such issues, so take your time. Thanks a lot Wandalstouring (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for copyediting

Hi. I currently have the article Insane Clown Posse up as a featured article candidate, and it needs some copyediting work. Could you help out? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

• Any work you can do would be fine. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Late Roman army

Hi, I'm sorry you got put off by my tiff with Wandalstouring. It's just that I'm exasperated by the way he's been harping on about the prose issue for so long. He did the same for auxilia, asking for second and third opinions on the prose from virtually every copyeditor he knows. I don't claim that the prose cannot be improved. But the way Wandalstouring has carried on, you would think it was written by an illiterate street kid who left school at age 12. I can understand the need for editing for someone is not a native English speaker or whose writing skills are rudimentary. But I am simply not in that bracket: I hold two degrees from the best British universities. My prose is at least as good as that in any of the other A articles I've seen in the Roman military history section. I don't really get what Wandalstouring is playing at here (in other respects he has been very helpful to me). I've started wondering whether he's just envious that he can't write nearly as good English as I can: his own work really does need heavy editing (see Second Punic War, already extensively corrected by me). Anyway, whatever the reason, he has really p*****d me off!

Anyway, I shouldn't drag you into my disputes. I know that you are a helpful and sensitive person, and so I would be happy if you would spare the time to copyedit the first section of the article as agreed. I am sure you can suggest some useful improvements. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Lists of basic topics

Hi. Here's an update of what we've been up to in this WikiProject...

We've created a page for every country of the world! They're not complete, and most of them aren't even in the main namespace yet, but...

A team of editors has been working on them, and they've come a long way.

We're about to run a competition, called "Around the World", in which participants will compete in the completion of specific data items across all of these country lists. For example, one task would be adding the population figure on each page.

The awards images are almost done, and the pages themselves need a couple sections completed before they can be moved to the article namespace and the competition can begin.

We could sure use your help...

Track down the administrative divisions types for each country

The first task is on the "Administrative divisions of" sections.

In each of these sections, there's an initial hierarchical list of the division types in that country, followed by subheadings for each of the types. Unfortunately, the types listed are those from the template I used to create these pages, and they aren't accurate for many countries.

The defaults that I used were:

• Provinces of x
  • Districts of x
    • Municipalities of x

For each country, change the links to the names of the administrative divisions for that country, adding more links if there are more than 3 division types. Those that are subdivisions of another type are indented under the parent type. In most cases, you would leave municipalities in place, because that's a generic name for "city". We'll blue-link those later. (Blue-linking is creating a redirect so that a link turns blue - that way, the link remains standardized on all the pages in the set).

Also change the subheadings in the same section to match the initial list, including the "main article" links presented just below each subheading.

To find out what the administrative divisions are for a country so you can add them, try looking on the government of x or politics of x pages for that country, and on the country's main article as well.

Add the administrative divisions to their respective subsections

For each country, find the list of administrative division for each type, and add them under that type's subheading.

For example, copy and paste the provinces listed at Provinces of Angola under the "Provinces of Angola" subheading on that country's list page.

See the countries listed at Lists of basic topics for examples of how this has been done for those. If there's a map showing the administrative divisions, grab it too.

Generally do not add towns and cities to the municipalities section, as there are usually way too many of them (and will unnecessarily bloat the page). Instead, provide links to the various pages (Cities of x, [[[Towns of x]], Villages of x, etc.

Complete the "Government of x" section

This section also has temporary data, and needs to be corrected/completed.

The name of the position of the head of state and head of government of each country needs to be corrected, and the specific office holders added.

The branches of government subheadings need to be corrected/filled in.

Etc.

The above tasks are fun, because it's interesting to see how other countries operate. I've completed about 25 of the country pages so far, and I've been intrigued and even amazed at some of the approaches different countries follow. The U.S. is definitely behind in many respects.

Please help out as much as you can, and help us get Around the World started!

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB edit summaries

Try out Fixing [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|links to disambiguation pages]] instead of Disambig page style repair: ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|you can help!]]) when making edits like this. (BTW, I fixed up Hekla's use of Anonymous.) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries

Well spotted in Roman auxiliaries. The title Procurator was used both for the governor of a minor or subordinate province (e.g. Judaea, whose procurator was subordinate to the gov. of Syria) and for the treasurer of each province (who reported direct to the emperor, not to the governor). I've changed the link to procurator (Roman fiscal). PS: As you may have noticed on my talk page, I'm trying to rally support for Late Roman army from editors that actually know about Roman military history and who unfortunately missed the review because they were busy. The idea is that when the article is renominated for A-class, they can weigh in and comment on substance, not trivia. That way we can avoid the absurd review that has just been held, where a single individual who knows nothing about the subject (and who didn't bother to read beyond the first few paras) effectively hijacked the process. I am still interested in seeing how you can improve the first section. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article copyedit request

Hello, I wanted to request a copy-edit from you for an article that we are trying to finish off to be a "Featured Article" nominee. The article is Lion King. No other copy-editor is working on it and this is the first and only request that I know of to assist us.

Thanks in advance. DrNegative (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Good corrections to the intro of Late Roman army. I'm pleased to see you reverted "defense" to "defence". That's the way I wrote it until one of your fellow-Yanks changed it (although, to be fair, I believe either spelling is correct).

One question: why is "comparable in size to" preferable to "of comparable size to"? I'm perfectly happy with your alternative, but that's why I ask the question. To me, both expressions are idiomatically sound, have exactly the same meaning and are as concise (4 words). So neither is objectively preferable to the other. Which goes to the heart of my concerns about the copyediting process: that all too often, it seems an exercise in which the copyeditor is imposing his own personal (i.e. subjective) preferences over those of the original author, without any objective reason why those preferences are superior.

PS: I hope I haven't intimidated you into being over-cautious with your changes. The exercise would not be worthwhile unless you do what you want to do. So, let rip with the first section! The only thing I insist on is that factual detail and accuracy must not be sacrificed to produce more fluent prose. This is, after all, an encyclopedia article, not an airport thriller. Readers (mainly students doing assignments and Roman army enthusiasts) will be primarily interested in facts, not having a "good read". Yours EraNavigator (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We use both constructions. But go ahead and edit without worrying about whether it's an Americanism or not. For spelling, however, I think you should stick to Standard English usage, to maintain consistency i.e. "labour" not "labor" etc, "axe" not "ax". PS: In the past, I studied the differences in American and English vocabulary. As you doubtless are aware, there are numerous words that are different, or that you use differently, from us. What struck me is how you guys tend to use words that are archaic in modern English usage e.g. "turnpike" to mean "highway". I laughed on my first visit to the USA, when I saw signs to the New Jersey Turnpike. That's because in England, the term "turnpike" was last used in the 18th century to mean a highway specially constructed for horse-drawn carriages. Same for "furlough" (we say "leave"), "gurney" ("trolley"), "eminent domain" ("compulsory purchase") etc. All these are 17th-18th century terms which were we dropped but you preserved (presumably because you split away in the 18th c.). Also, you guys use terms we use but with a slightly different meaning. For example you use "store" to mean what we call a "shop"; we use "store" to mean the room at the back of the shop which is used as a deposit for goods that are not on the open shelves. You say "fawcett" for a "tap". We also use "fawcett", but to mean a large valve like those on oil pipelines. Still, it's surprising how close American and English are despite 200 years of separate development. Most Americans can communicate easily with most Englishmen. I guess that's due to modern communications. If your split had taken place in the Middle Ages, your speech might be as different from English English as, say, Dutch is today. Anyway, excuse this lengthy digression. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Law of Palestine

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for the little edit there. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamils FA review

Thanks again, looks like another look at the LEAD may be of some help. :))Taprobanus (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for your kind words, support and your hard work making the article into FA candidate quality (and hopefully FA article). Watchdogb (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is great how you can take seemingly dry sentences make them flow so naturally, really. I like the way you have made it flow especially the last para. Taprobanus (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lion King

Hi there, looking at your edits you are doing things recommended in my peer review of the article, can you please strike out things done so it's clear what work is needed or already done in future? Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Hi. I notice you haven't made any mored edits to Late Roman army recently. Are you still planning to copyedit the 1st sevction? Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do continue. I'm assuming you are going to edit the entire Evolution section (which is actually the 2nd, not 1st section). Yours EraNavigator (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to a comment by another editor, I've expanded the Sources section. Please feel free to take another look at it. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "corpus of imperial decrees". I think in order to save time, it's best if you go ahead and make changes as you see fit without consulting me first, and if there is anything I want to discuss, I'll contact you. OK? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank You, AnnaFrance, this barnstar is for your ongoing work and copy-edit with The Lion King article. With your excellent prose, we are getting closer to eventually making it a FA one day. DrNegative (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Toy Story progress

Hi. We've made some progress on Toy Story (not a ton, but we're making headway). The article is a mess thanks to my contributions; I tend to take things apart before I put them back together, I guess. When I merge trivia or other items to other sections, I just throw them in the bottom of the section to be integrated as I write the final prose.

A couple of sections need to be converted to prose, and I don't know how I can convert the Awards section. The only thing I've done on it so far is copy the whole section to a list and linked to it. Would you please see if you can put it in prose? I don't know how to do that section. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I help?

Is there anything I can do to help with The Lion King? SunDragon34 (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1