Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Hi. I hope you don't mind the following. If you do mind, please feel free to delete. However, before you do, please understand this is my sincere desire to help. When I said elsewhere that "I of course read previous reviewers comments at FAC ..." I was referring to exchanges such as the following:

5 Hyderabad is known as the "City of Pearls" on account of its role in the pearl trade. ... On account of? --SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The problem ...? --Stfg (talk · contribs) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Colloquial, informal. --SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not borne out by the OED (if you have subscription, see OED and look for "on (also †upon) account of" in the sidebar. We could replace it with "because of" of course, but this is only personal style preference. --Stfg (talk · contribs) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  — Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive4

I agree with SandyGeorgia. I consider ... on account of ... as being a colloquial phrase. That is, it is used in conversation or informal speech but not in formal speech or standard written English. Whilst not directly prohibited by Wikipedia policy or guidelines, such language is not considered suitable for a featured article—see the featured article criteria 1. a. Consider:

OED account, n. "Phrases P1. Prepositional phrases. d. on account (b) colloq. and regional. As a compound conjunction. = ‘on account of the fact that’; because. Cf.

— "on account of". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

In addition, your comment if you have subscription, ... could be seen by a FAC reviewer as an irritation; I respectfully suggest you assume all such reviewers have access to sources, including dictionaries. As I said elsewhere, the FAC process is not easy and can be frustrating for editors. Stick with it and good luck. I hope the above is helpful to you --Senra (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. I do believe that these issues can only be settled by sources such as the one you reference. However, in this case you have referred to the description of that expression's use "as a compound conjunction". That is indeed "regional and colloquial". But in the article it was being used as a compound preposition, and that use is covered higher up the OED entry, in a sub-entry headed "(c) on (also †upon) account of". Ctrl-F on that text doesn't seem to work, and I don't know how to link directly to it, but searching on the text "Decannee, Dabul, Chaul", which comes from its first example, will get you to it, I think.

Please don't give me unsolicited advice, or otherwise comment, on my interactions with other editors. Sandy and I have discussed that interaction and the matter is closed. It is not for you to reopen it. --Stfg (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you tagged the article {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}}, yet you do not seem to have installed either script that usually inserts those tags. I therefore took the liberty of running the script over the article. FYI: editors often find one or other of my scripts useful for addressing style issues, and you may find out more about them here. Regards, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ohconfucius. Thanks very much for doing that. I didn't know about that script, but unfortunately I run IE8, and may decide not to take on the obsolete version. By the way, your run inserted a hyphen between non and grosso in Concertino non grosso for String Sextet with Piano obbligato quasi continuo. This is the title of a work, and non doesn't hypehnate in Italian. Is there any way the script might avoid doing that, for example by not editing italicised or quoted text to the same extent as normal article text? Best, Simon --Stfg (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a request for anything (I understand you are in semi-break). Just for some leisure reading, if you get a chance! Tripura and one more!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayan. Thanks for continuing to believe I can. I'm still watching Hyderabad (and have answered a couple of questions on British English there today), but other than that, I won't be spending any more time at FAC any time soon. Sorry. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I made significant changes in some sections of the article following the comments by Cryptic in the FAC. I hope I did not offend you by doing so. Please take a look when you have time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know. I'm not offended at all :)) I won't edit over it, as we're going to want a new copy edit anyway. Best, --Stfg (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that the FAC has been archived, do you suggest formal submission of the article for GoCE copyedit once more, and perhaps a request to Torchiest, or somebody else? --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making a formal submission a couple of weeks ago, here, and updated it last might to refect the failure. Torchiest knows (and watches this page, I believe), but I'm sure there's no harm pinging him. Sorry I couldn't do better with this one. Kind regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have done some work on it but not formally taken it from the requests page because I had the impression it was being viewed as incomplete in areas, and that it would still need additional copy editing later, once all the new content had been added. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwaipayan, is that so? If it is, what we can do is to place the request on hold (without taking it off the list) until you and Omer have fixed the content requirements, then free it again when it's ready for copy edits. It's always better to fix all content before doing copy edits. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the only hint of content enhancement was from Dr Blofeld, and he suggested inclusion of some information on landmarks. Ok, you please go ahead and put that request on hold. I am informing Omer about this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. When you're done with adding content, please either ping me to remove it, or by all means just go there and remove the {{On hold}} template yourself. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stfg, happy new year! I wondered if I could get your feedback on making Colin Farrell a good article. It would be my first. I am working to make all of the descriptions of movies he's been in more consistent, so things other than this. thanks.--Aichik (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aichik, happy new year to you. I'm sorry, but I'm on an extended break at present and am not undertaking significant work on Wikipedia. Good luck with the article. --Stfg (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Well, it does not need a explanation. (Would you please correct the indefinite article?) Dwaipayan (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. Thanks Dwaipayan, it's very kind of you. --Stfg (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the note on this. I can say with certainty that I didn't copy content from the Schott website (or anywhere else) when creating the page. I don't edit here much any more, and haven't time to look into it in detail, but it does look like the version on the Schott website includes quite a bit of material not in my initial versions. For example, Schott has: "When the Spanish Civil War broke out, he traveled to Spain to join the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in fighting against Francisco Franco." My initial version of that sentence doesn't include the Abraham Lincoln Brigade detail, but it is included in later Wikipedia edits. I know that isn't conclusive, but I think it suggests pretty strongly that Schott took the text from here rather than the other way round. Hope this is some help - good luck in sorting it out. --Camembert (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. This is very much the kind of thing I was noticing: your first version was somewhat different in words, and other material now on the Schott page was added by various different editors. I've noted in my report to the copyvio team that I suspect it's a backwards copy. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Stfg for copy editing six articles for a total of 30,722 words in the GOCE January copy edit drive. Thanks for participating! --BDD (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

		Leaderboard Award—Most 5k Articles—5th Place
		I award this Leaderboard Barnstar to Stfg for copy editing an article of 5000 or more words during the during the GOCE January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! --BDD (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merci, monsieur. --Stfg (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify a couple of points from my response to your RfA question ----

• "strike" vs. "censor" -- My suggestion was admins "would be responsible for striking any incivilities, comments that personalize disputes, and, as a last resort, temporarily block anyone who transgresses a strict code of conduct." I used the word "striking" in the Wikipedia sense, that of striking through the incivility or personalization, but leaving the struck-through comment on the page as an example of what is beyond fair comment. Personally, I don't perceive "striking through" an offending comment as the same thing as "censorship," which to my mind would imply the removal of the offending comment from view.

• "effectively suspending the BRD cycle" -- The full passage of WP:CONSENSUS to which I was referring is the following:

Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

At least some of the present problems at MOS have arisen from unvetted changes that have been slipped into its text, without prior discussion, and without a discernible consensus of any kind to support those changes. Inevitably, this leads to further heightened conflict when an undiscussed change is discovered, with proponents (often a minority of talk page participants) of the change arguing that a change now represents "consensus" because the change was initially unchallenged.

• "civility police" -- Personally, I hate the idea of a "civility police" for Wikipedia, and I am adamantly in favor of robust discussion and debate. I would also suggest that MOS is and should be a special place that requires a different level of maturity from its participants in order to maintain a civil, collegial and collaborative atmosphere to fulfill its primary purpose. I believe that gently reminding participants of those expectations on their user talk pages (fair warning) and striking through offending comments (examples of how not to participate) are middle ground remedies intended to foster that atmosphere. Heavy-handed policing (e.g., zero tolerance and trigger-finger blocking) is not likely to improve the situation and might even make it worse. What is required is maturity, discretion and common sense.

FYI, I will probably be the last person to ever hand out a block for incivility, because I believe that blocks should only be used a last resort and not a first response. I will gently remind an over-the-top editor of the community's expectations on his or her talk page when the editor's rhetoric or personalization crosses the line. In that instance, I do not see an admin's role as being any different from what any experienced and clueful editor should do under similar circumstances. Civility doesn't just happen; it often needs a gentle nudge.

I don't pretend that my suggestions for MOS are comprehensive, fully vetted, perfect, etc., and are intended to be starting points for discussion. Any such changes would obviously require the formal consensus of the larger community, after extended RfC discussion, because Wikipedia lacks any sort of governing body that could impose them.

I don't want to be seen as "badgering" anyone, and I hope that you will accept these clarifications in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. I would, of course, be very interested to hear your reactions and any suggestions that you might have for improving the present corrosive discussion atmosphere of the MOS talk pages. Neither of us, of course, has the power to do anything about it beyond sharing our ideas with others, but perhaps from such discussion better ideas may arise and eventually lead to partial solutions. The discussion is one well worth having, I believe.

Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer1. Thanks for taking the time, and please don't worry that I might feel badgered. I don't, and you're very welcome here.

• "strike" vs. "censor": Ah, I see. Well, that resolves my worry about obscuring what was said, but I think it's a bad idea to redact other editors' talk page remarks except where essential (like outing & legal threats). "Censor" is an emotive word, I realise, but even strikeouts interfere with the redacted editor's communication and can confuse third parties, who now have to distinguish between the writer recanting and others interfering.

• "effectively suspending the BRD cycle": I read that. I think it says that BRD still applies, just with a higher level of scrutiny. See below, however.

• "civility police": glad we agree. But I think your words "Third, that there be a designated pool ... strict code of conduct" are far too close to it for comfort, and I don't like the idea of a pool of admins elected annually with staggered terms either. I was tempted to jest about a "banana Arbcom" on the RFA page, but thought better of doing so there. If for WT:MOS, why not have an elected supervisory committee for any other place that turns toxic, and then where would we be? More toxicity, I suspect.

OK, what to do with WT:MOS. We agree that it's not a nice place. Where we may not agree is about how much it matters. It's only a talk page, and I think it's a bit of a rabbit patch, actually. If half a dozen presciptivists gain fulfilment by snarking at each other over the width of dashes at WT:MOS and maybe WT:AT ... then I'm dashed if I care. The whole question is a dead letter anyway. What I do think is that WP:MOS cannot be allowed to be changed on a whim in any way that renders previously compliant articles non-compliant. That's not an issue of civility, but of disrupting the encyclopedia. Are we at risk of that? If so, then the solution would be page protection, wouldn't it? For now, I think the Arbcom decision should be allowed to work if it can, though even that may have been a step too far, seeing how we've lost two very worthwhile editors in the aftermath.

Kind regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Simon, apart from MOS and related civility questions that I am happy to discuss at great length, I want you to feel comfortable with my worldview and attitudes as an administrator candidate, both during and after this RfA. I don't like the concept of the Civility Police, and that's sure as hell not what I am volunteering to join. I see myself, first and foremost, as a writer and contributor of content, but I believe that I can offer some additional service to the project as an administrator. This is not a position that I crave or need, and it would not be a tragedy if the community did not agree that I am an appropriate person for the job. Rather, I am volunteering because I do think have something to offer in the role, and because I see my primary focus helping other users navigate WP's policies and guidelines so they can also write and contribute good content to the encyclopedia. I do not see myself, or administrators generally, as part of some sort of de facto governing body. The role is embued with some of elements of authority, but those elements are more like a cop on the beat rather than anything like someone with policy-making or governing authority. Besides, I would be happy as a clam if I am never required to block anyone or exercise any other kind of remedy against someone. It's not who I am, I don't derive any satisfaction from it, and it's not where the emphasis of my time as an admin would be spent. Frankly, your !vote in this RfA means far less to me than knowing that you beleive I am a competent and reasonable person who would do his best to help other editors, to do so in spirit of humility, and not some trigger-happy civility enforcer. I would like to have a great working relationship with everyone I encounter, and expect to be heartily trout-slapped when I make a mistake. I can take it, and I expect it.

I'll write more here later regarding MOS, after I've had an opportunity to answer several of the other unanswered RfA questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer1. My comments were directed at your proposal about MOS, not at you as a person. It didn't escape me that in your answer to Q6 you said that it would need consensus and acknowledged that it was a "pipe dream". If it helps, I accept without reservation that you are "a competent and reasonable person who would do his best to help other editors, to do so in spirit of humility, and not some trigger-happy civility enforcer" and that you are at RFA because you want to help the project.

But I can say the same of many, many editors that I consider would not make good admins at present, including myself. My !vote is not a personal comment about you, but an opinion that your response to Q6, including the proposed election of a body to supervise certain goings-on and a right to strike talk page comments, was ill-judged. Not sinister, just ill-judged. Wikipedians who accumulate tens of thousands of substantive edits may be suspected to be, shall we say, confortable with their own company, possibly quite obsessive, and in any case most unwilling to allow their neck to be breathed down. Anything with even the slightest whiff of paternalism would have good editors resigning in droves, I believe.

I hope this helps. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does, Simon. I must say that yours must be the nicest, most considerate, and most complimentary "oppose" !vote ever. You must have been really good at breaking up with girls. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mwaaahahahaha! Oh yay! Thanks, that made my day. --Stfg (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely would love to complete the request when I get the time but I am rapidly becoming more busy with school. If you think it would be better to let someone else complete it, they can absolutely do that. I'm not sure when my workload's going to slow down. Aeris Tiberius (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I figure I would take our discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1‎‎ offline. I think whether to make any edits while an AfD is ongoing is a matter of preference. I can see where you might think more caution should have been applied in the merge by Dirtlawyer1, but then there is also WP:BB, which we always encourage. Unless an action escalated into an edit war, I usually assume an editor had the best intentions. and if nobody reverted it, it must have been "right" at the time. Also, the bold merge happened when there was 2 !votes for R, 2 for D, and 1 for D or R; it seems more like no consensus than a "minority" position. Still, even if it were minority, it seems analogous to people adding content to an article in the hopes of keeping it. A lot of times, people find sources in AfDs, but people still !vote delete until they see the changes in an actual article, see how good it looks, and then change their !vote. I suppose you could argue that at least in a Delete outcome, the added content gets deleted, but in this case, nobody would remember to unmerge. If that was your distinction, you might have a point, but there is no consensus for such a rare case.—Bagumba (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble. I was counting the nominator to get 3 for D. This is a bit different from finding sources and expanding an article to use them (which I would never object to), because that creates new content, while in this case there was no new content. I wasn't putting forward the last distinction you mention. I disagree with "if nobody reverted it, it must have been 'right' at the time", because many people avoid arguing, and those are precisely the people who would tend to get discouraged by actions that (seem to) disregard their contribution. I do believe the intentions were fine, but so are the intentions behind many a misguided block, for example. Well-intentioned but misguided admin actions can hurt, so the question isn't the intentions, but the quality of judgement. Perhaps this event at AFD is a small thing -- you've certainly made me wonder. But even if I struck that one, the MOS stuff would still have me with a clear oppose, the more so having seen the ANI that Neotarf linked to. BTW, if you reply again, please don't feel ignored if I'm slow to respond. I'm out tomorrow starting early. Best, --Stfg (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem if you choose to oppose, I just wanted to clear up the AfD matter. I understand your point that "people avoid arguing" and "get discouraged", but that is conflicted by the fact there are also a lot of editors that are busy and never get around to saying "aye". WP:SILENCE is a tricky thing, especially when we don't have the luxury of reading body language here. At the end of the day, being bold wins out and is a guideline. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you look at my comment at Dirtlawyer1's RfA here? I'm wondering why you asked Q6 given that policy proposals are not really relevant to RfAs? It appears to be a follow-up to Q3, but that question was about handling conflict, not proposing policy. Or was your question just aimed at getting a "I would propose a policy change" response? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Q6 was a follow-up not to Q3 (the standard generic question about conflicts and stress), but to the specifics of Dirtlawyer1's answer to Q3. He expressed his view that something needed to happen, and I asked him how he envisaged it happening. Whether he envisages it happening in the context of current conflicts or only future ones is for him to say, not me. I wasn't aiming for a policy proposal or any other specific kind of response, just to hear whatever he might wish to say on the subject. I did not know whether he would want to make a policy proposal, to issue warnings for discretionary sanctions under the Arbcom decision, to protect some pages, or what else. My question leaves room for any kind of response. Does this clarify it? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also responded at the RfA. The question looked targeted, guess I misunderstood it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying at the RFA too. By raising the question you gave me the chance to clarify that in case anyone else had the same concern, so all is well. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. Keen eye on the requirements, I did indeed spell it out with an example and you very rightly pointed out a ref I should have had. MUCH appreciated...I am rather anxious about the FL nominationCoal town guy (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm no expert on lists, but yours looks as good as any I've seen. Good luck with the FLC. --Stfg (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Simon, Hyderabad is nearing the top of the request queue; it's currently on hold. I'm prepared to take the request if you wish, though i wouldn't describe myself as very experienced with FAC-level editing, but I'll leave it alone if you want me to. Has the additional text been added? I hope you're having a nice break from the WP fray anyway. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No the text of the article is not ready. I think it would be better to take it off the list. Omer has not added any substantial text yet. I think it would, unfortunately, take significant time before it is ready for another copyedit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Baffle gab1978, thanks for the offer, much appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries; thanks both for clarifying things. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, tons of apology for delaying in adding text, In past couple of days I had included text to the section Hyderabad, Landmarks, Please have a look and kindly activate the Wikipedia:GOCE/REQ and advice for further requirements. Mean while I had updated to Dwaiayanc, and I will update to Baffle gab1978 also. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say do not re activate the GoCE request now. Let us see it first. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Dwaipayan, we can go with your your judgement as to when it is next ready for a copy edit. In fairness, I think it has to be a new request now. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So, shall I add a c/e or GOCE request again, or shall we wait for some time. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait for some time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I Told you you won't find anything, Because he is an Old person, This is one , The Second , You can't Search By these names because his names isn't spelled like that, English Yahya Arodaki, Arabic يحيى عرودكي , The third, I Discovered that i have some Important Pictures And Files , I may Put it ,Google News will not put him , because he didn't get there when he was alive , He appeared in Syria TV , And like those channels , He was born in 1926 , and he died in 2009 , he's works were in the 50s to the 80s at least, rather than his published booksGhiathArodaki (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ghiath, the only way you can show that he is notable is by providing secondary sources. As he died only in 2009 and all those things happened quite recently, if he is notable, there will be secondary sources. The only way you prove him notable is by identifying them. My search has been quite thorough, and I have found nothing, but if you can show them, then all would be well.

@Kim, thanks for your reminder (now deleted). I do my AfDs step-by-step without tools, so it takes a moment or two :) --Stfg (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there , I have found many Important photos , Important than sources , You'll Not Find any sources in english , And Again he is old , so no sources , but I Have images that shows his importance.GhiathArodaki (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

2009 is not old; if he was notable in the late 20th century, there will be sources. Photos do not establish notability. Please continue the discussion on the article's talk page, not here. I will look at the links you have placed there soon. --Stfg (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for participating in the Guild of Copy Editors' February 2013 blitz! Please accept this barnstar for your work totaling in excess of 2000 words. We appreciate your efforts! —Torchiest talkedits 13:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Stfg (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing this list. Your assistance is truly appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. Good luck with the FLC :) --Stfg (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested, I just created the article for This England, another recording by the Oregon Symphony. (Well, I should clarify, I have been working on the article offline for a while, but just recently pressed the "save" button.) I submitted a request at the GOCE if you'd like to take a look at another classical music article. Again, thank you so much. I will hopefully be taking the discography to FLC and the Music for a Time of War article to FAC soon. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I may do it during our next drive. We'll see, but my main interests are in composers, major works, and theory, rather than albums and performances. Also, I'm on a long semi-break. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ohhh, right! Wow, I have not had enough coffee this morning. Thank you so much. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an update for you, in case you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Oregon Symphony discography/archive1. Thanks again for your assistance! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for letting me know. I've watchlisted it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there I'll upload the photos today probably, But in the AFD , Abanima voted maybe for : 1)because i have some problems in wikipedia arabic

Or 2)to make me nervous

GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghiath, I know you have problems at ar.wiki, but this is en.wiki. Abanima's !vote was an authentic !vote, and providing the interwiki link was correct and useful, so don't try to criticize him/her on my talk page. You said you were going to upload the photos a week ago, but you haven't. Instead you've been using en.wiki to argue in Arabic about things related to the Arabic Wikipedia because you can't do so there. It's time to resolve the Yahya issue. --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to upload them now.GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded them !GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No,problem , I Just wanted to upload the flag for the template.:)GhiathArodaki (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's good. In future, if you just want to test a picture like that, you can do it in your sandbox. That shouldn't create any problems. --Stfg (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

They Are showing my opinion on the syrian revolution, I was trying to find a code for creating the template, If you know where could i find ?, thanks.GhiathArodaki (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have copied this reply to your talk page and commented there, in order to retain context. Please don't add comments about one thing to secions about different things -- please use section headers in the normal way. --Stfg (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stfg, I noted you recently opposed Shirt58's RfA in part due to his non-answering of questions. Shirt58 has now explained that this was in part due to a car accident and has since answered some questions. I was wondering if you might come back to the RfA page and take another look. Worm^TT(talk) 11:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi WTT. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I had noticed the explanation and the Q&As, but was taking a while to think about it. I don't really believe that a (seemingly minor) car accident distracts one from high priority stuff for three whole days (and the latest answers took nearly four), especially as he involved himself in other non-trivial matters elsewhere in WP. I was considering moving to neutral to give the benefit of the doubt, but am still doubtful about the answer to Q6. He trots out what's in WP:BLP, but doesn't mention WP:BIODEL at all. Except in bullet 4, he seems to asssume that considerations of right to privacy and legal issues arise in the particular case, though the question doesn't say this. Nowhere is it mentioned that a desire not to be written about can be as much COI as a desire to be written about. So I think he has answered a question rather different from the one that was asked. That said, I'm still undecided, and if you want to give me some more insight on Q6, it would be great. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stfg, thanks for getting back to me. I generally try to make sure that people I nominate get a fair hearing, but do my best not to influence beyond my nomination. I'm sure I could provide a very eloquent argument they his answer to Q6 is very good, but then I expect I could do the same to explain why it is poor. But it's not about me, I'm already an admin, the important thing is that you make your decision on Shirt58, whatever that might be. If you are genuinely undecided, perhaps a followup question might be a good idea? Or if you prefer, I'm happy to give Shirt58 a nudge over here to chat to you on the topic. Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. No, please don't trouble to ask him to come and discuss here -- he has far more important things to do in the coming days. Having slept on it, I was resolved to continue opposing on the basis of the "optional" answers unless you were able to point me to anything I had fundamentally misunderstood. It will make no difference to the result, and I'm not unhappy that he will pass, as he's a nice guy. Thanks for spending the time here. --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for taking the time to re-affirm your oppose. Hopefully Shirt58 will take on board your comments, whether or not he passes. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stfg; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi i want to delete my account from wikipedia or block it forever.GhiathArodaki (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry you've had such a frustrating time here. You cannot normally delete an account, but there is something called "right to vanish", which may help you achieve what you want. I am not an administrator and I don't know how it works. Dianna, who you you've already had discussions with, is an administrator and would be able to help you better than I can. Best wishes, and good luck. --Stfg (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

for greater syria , I'm not making a battle ground with it , It's just what i want for syria as a welcome page and another opinion rather than making it a userboxGhiathArodaki (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghiath, I recommend you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a forum for any of us to push our views, whether about current events in Syria and Israel, notions of "greater Syria", "greater Israel" or "greater" whichever country we love, or any other kinds of personal loyalty. Taking a map that includes the territories of Syria, Israel and Jordan and placing a Syrian flag over it is an action that can do nothing but create conflict here, and that is precisely what WP:BATTLEGROUND deprecates. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in political soapboxing. Soapboxing is disruptive and it's disrespectful to other editors who are trying to work together on building the enclyclopedia as a resource for information, not opinions. --Stfg (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		This deep thinker award is given to you because of your creative and original oppose !vote at my RfA. You wrote "Binksternet will be less shackled in his attempts at countering POV if he remains not an admin." That turned out to be my favorite opposition statement; much more a positive than a negative assessment. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very nice of you. Yes, it was intended positively. I have some sympathy for MF's comment in favour of "feisty" editors. It must have been a pretty awful week for you, and you've taken it very well. I hope it won't spoil your enjoyment if Wikipedia. --Stfg (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is Montykillies. I am busy re-editing all of the articles I previously edited. I have completed all of them from the start of my list except Plaiaundi and Rudnica Lubusz Voivodeship. My questions are two: I noticed you edited the Plaiaundi article after me. Did you edit the entire article? If so I will not do a clean up edit. My second question: I noticed that on my list of articles on the clean up contest you have put a check by the two articles that you checked. I was going to ask you if you would check the rest of my articles when I was completely done, but I noticed that you are busy on some personal projects now and probably would not have time to do that now. Since I am new to all this, will it still be necessary for my edits to be checked by a senior editor for the contest? I have no problem with it, as I am not in this to win anything. If they need to be checked, could you ask someone you know to do it at their leisure? I should finish up re-editing the Rudnica .... within the next two days and its the last one on the list. I know Torchiest did Kollapur but I will cruise by that one as well this weekend to see if I left any chunks of stuff in it. Thanks again for your time and patience : ' ) Montykillies (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montykillies. I only edited Plaiaundi up to and including the Flora section, but didn't do the Fauna and Nature calendar sections. I don't think it's necessary any longer for all your edits to be checked by another editor -- last time I looked you were doing a great job. In the drives, we do random spot checks, but other than that, I don't feel there's a need to check all of yours or ask anyone else to do so. Are you particularly concerned about any of them? --Stfg (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stfg. Thanks for answering so promptly. I am not concerned about my edits now that I have the format requirments down. I just wanted to know if it was necessary. I still have a question now and then about a particular item, but most of the time I know the right thing to do. I re-did Rudnica etc and I will do a re-edit on Kollapur as Torchiest only took out the Peacock stuff not the little rocks I put in. One last question, I signed up for the drive at the beginning of March. I noticed that you received an update on the drives progress, but I did not receive that update. Did I not sign up the correct way or am I not on the list to get updates? From the wording, it sounded like a general publicity item, so I would think I should have received it... Best Regards Montykillies (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montykillies. To get the newsletter, you need to have your name on the GOCE Mailing List. I think our instructions aren't clear enough about this, but I've added you to it now, and you will receive future newsletters. Best, --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Its been long time discussed to you about the article Hyderabad, India. As per your previous advice, I had posted a request of c/e of the article at GOCE, currently we are done with the improvement and correction adviced during FA review, We shall be anciously wiating for the articles term of C/E at GOCE. Hope you will timely cooperate and guide us with valuable advices. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Omer. It's best if someone else does the next copy edit. That way, we benefit from another set of ideas. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but we will need your assistance and guidance hope you will help us. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, gorgeous! Thank you! No, I haven't heard that one. I trust your next sig will tell it all? I'm agog with all ears (and you don't see many of those around these days). Happy Easter. Simon --Stfg (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Murshidabad beheading, you may also be interesting in contributing to other such AfD's opened by the same user here,here, here, and here. Some of these nominations seem okay to me, since the articles don't do a very good job of establishing notability or whatever. However, some of the noms are bogus, and obvious manifestations religious partisanship on the part of the nominator. I would love for you to contribute to these deletion discussions and address any legitimate issues raised therein.Handyunits (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the situation, but please take care over WP:CANVAS. --Stfg (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stfg, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		For copy editing more than 4000 words during the Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive, please accept this award along with our thanks. See you in May! —Torchiest talkedits 01:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Guild of Copy Editors' Award
		Thanks for your submission to the February 2013 Copy Edit of the Month contest, and congratulations! For your excellent work on Sinfonia da Requiem, you've won the Golden Typewriter! Well done! —Torchiest talkedits 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Torchiest, for both the above. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I didn't realize that using the template would produce my signature, and it must've slipped my gaze because seeing your fixup on my watchlist was the first I knew of it. :{ Thanks for changing that, in any case! It almost doesn't feel right in this message, but here it goes: So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, it was a small thing to fix. The template generates ~~~, is how it happened. I'm still hoping you'll tell that joke in your next sig (or wondering what led you to choose those three things) --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review some of my GOCE contributions. If it's not too much trouble, could you give me some brief feedback on what improvements from my part need most attention? I appreciate it! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I'll do it on your page some time in the next couple of days, after looking at a few more. --Stfg (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the edits I made on the Dostoyevsky article today. I had started reading and editing the article before I saw the GOCE in use template, which had been put up shortly before I'd begun working on the article. EnglishTea4me (talk)14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi EnglishTea4me. Thanks for your kind message. No harm was done, as I hadn't yet reached the sections you edited. It looks as if you helped the article forward. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

i'll wikify it and neutralize it further later today! thanks for the help, and please keep it coming with the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alozieibe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! --Stfg (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stfg,

I would like to say thanks for your copyedits and for your helpful commentaries. Sorry for editing the article while you have copyedited it; I hope there were no edit conflicts. Let's see if I ressolve the remaining issues, then I may nominate it at GAN: Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No, there were no edit conflicts. The first two days I was editing forwards -- it was only today I expected to jump around, for example if some links needed to be moved back to the first mention. I'll keep an eye on the talk page discussion in case you want me to do any more. I think the article is promising for GAN, and I agree that's the best next step. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stfg,

I'm a Wikipedia newbie. I have copyediting experience and want to take part in the blitz.

I'm having trouble getting the word counting tool onto my toolbox. I've followed the instructions for putting the script on my js page but the page size tool doesn't appear.

There is also this:

The accompanying .css page for this skin can be added at User:Jabberwocky Slayer/vector.css.

Do I need to also create a vector.css page and put a .css script on this page? If so, where can I find this script?

Thanks for your help,

Jabberwocky Slayer (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jabberwocky Slayer. I had a look at your vector.js page, and it looks to me as if you've added the correct code there. Did you remember to clear your browser cache afterwards? If you're certain you did this, I can't see what's wrong, and I recommend starting a new enquiry at the bottom of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (one of its shortcuts is WP:VPT). The people there are very technically savvy and very friendly and helpful. They will want to know what browser and version you use.

You don't need to create a .css file. That can come later if and when you find reason to. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Stfg. I've now worked out that I was making a newbie error and am using the tool. And thanks for the tip on the .css file. Best regards, Jabberwocky Slayer (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's sorted. Enjoy the blitz! --Stfg (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Gerda, thank you, I'm astonished! And very honoured. I've just got the Helmuth Rilling complete JSB cantatas and am gradually working through them in BWV order, so I expect we'll bump into one another from time to time --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for several fixes yesterday! - BWV 112 will be on DYK tomorrow, perhaps have a look, - Holzhausenschlösschen the same. - Thank you for the encouragement, the term "enjoyment" is not used too often ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, a new word -- I've never seen allée before. I've tweaked both articles, but they didn't need much. --Stfg (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, enjoyed! "Allons enfants" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stfg, after today's ring-around on the talk pages that I caused (sorry!), I wondered whether there's a formal process or guideline by which articles marked working are checked and a polite note placed on the accepting copy-editor's talk page? Should I even be doing this? Accepted requests get forgotten or abandoned, or real life takes precedence. There's a thin line between being 'pushy' and simply asking about progress. Recently I've checked the article's history, whether the accepting editor is editing other articles, and I use a fortnight's non-activity on the article as a starting point. What do you think we should do about seemingly inactive copy-edit request acceptances? I'm thinking of making a suggestion on the Request talk page to see what the coordinators think, but I don't want to seem pushy or discouraging. I always hated school teachers watching over my shoulder and I suppose some editors could feel that's what's happening; we're all volunteers after all. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Baffle gab1978. There's no formal process, but I've known for some time that you've been doing this and often solving problems by doing so. Please don't stop, it's a really valuable contribution! I'd be surprised if anyone felt that their necks were being breathed down just because of a gentle reminder after a fortmight, but if anyone does, tough cheese, 'cos the WP needs this (especially for requests, where someone is waiting to take something forward). A suggestion on the Request talk page wouldn't be "pushy" at all -- please do!

I hope my intervention today didn't put you out. What you did was great. I just saw that he looks promising and thought that a little advice about the rhythm of our work could be helpful. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Stfg, it's very helpful as always. :-) I've suggested a formal process on the request talk page; hopefully the coordinators will chime in and we'll get some discussion going there. I'll continue to check and remind as needed, but I won't always be around so I think something needs to be put in place. Your intervention was correct and appropriate; it just made me rethink my suggestion. Yes I think he's promising and would make a good and considerate copy-editor. We need more of those! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)