Google. Com

I just wanted to quickly say thank you for your copy-editing of Don Valley Parkway, and other articles.

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your dedication to the fine-tuning of Wikipedia prose. --Natural RX 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you deserve it. Should consider constructing a basic user page so you can show it off :P. --Natural R_X 15:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get the source article that formed the basis of that news report on Andrew Leigh's ANU website:

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/titles.htm

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data (with http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Data and Stata code (zipped) http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuybackPanel.zip

Note that it appears Andrew Leigh, just elected for the ALP, may be using the journalist to attack the independents who hold the balance of the hung parliament right now. 200 alleged suicides per year saved cannot be saved by trading semi-autos for legal bolt actions. This journalist is plainly acting in a partisan fashion, becasue he has not asked any hard questions.

ChrisPer (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Chris. I based my edit on the report that was published in "The Age" (and also the SMH). Are there any issues with the edit as it stands? Michael Glass (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote represents the news article fairly. I will wait and see if anyone can get a reply published, or write a better one :-)

ChrisPer (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 07:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Metrication in Australia article is getting a bit messy in regards to the exceptions to the use of metric. In particular the use of feet and inches for people's height. It only really needs one or two references to the occasional use of imperial in this area. I don't believe we need to reference where metric is used (not quite sure why the AFL etc was used to describe this). I propose to simplify it and put back the idea of an occasional use. Since you've done some editing in this area what are your thoughts? PS I may not be able to reply for a short while as I'm away for a week. Ozdaren (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I feel that the problem in this section is with undocumented information.Michael Glass (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've added some references to the occasional use of imperial. Ozdaren (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for some good copy-editors to take a look at some articles I wrote and I felt a little suspect about submitting them to the LOCE because what you get there in terms of editors is kind of a mixed bag imho. Plus it takes forever. I noticed you're pretty good. So would you mind taking a look at a small little article I wrote? Here a DYK style hook to get you interested: Did you know...

• ...that convicted American felon Matthew Cox was so bold in committing over $15 million of mortgage fraud that he allegedly even took out a mortgage under the name of The Simpsons character "C. Montgomery Burns"?

Thanks in advance if you decide to help out. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like what I have done. Michael Glass (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. I see some info I have to add maybe you ca look over my new additions when I make them if you don't mind. Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Let me know when you have made the changes.Michael Glass (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. All ready. AaronY (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to thank you for your interest in copy-editing the Petitcodiac River article, but I would like to inform you that your changes modified the meaning of a lot of the sentences. Most of the time it was somewhat minor, but nonetheless, I felt obligated to do something. In addition, most of what you changed seemed to simply dumb down the prose (which is not exactly a bad thing in some cases, as prose can get complicated and hard to follow, but nevertheless, I don't think that was the case here). I reverted most of your edits (I'd guess perhaps 50%, and I can justify them all if you feel that it was an unnecessary or insulting move), but left the rest intact, as you did correct a few legitimate issues. Please keep in mind that this is because the article is currently at FAC (its second, thus making it a very sensitive collaborative work) and it already went through a copy-edit by the WP:GOCE around five days ago, so external eyes have already taken a proper look at it. I felt the need to contact you about this, because it seems to have been a work of at least an hour. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the copy editing was so good, how come I found a "sunk" for "sank"?Michael Glass (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, sheesh. Easy to miss. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Though the Petitcodiac River's watershed is geographically distinct..." -> If you insist so much on changing this, at least make it "Although", as "Though" is informal and not recommended.

Where's your evidence for this extraordinary claim about usage? Michael Glass (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet: 'Avoid informal words, such as "carry out", "pub", "though", "tremendous" and "bigger"'

The word goes unremarked in my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary and both are accepted in Fowler's Modern English Usage. I would rather go by them than an anonymous Wikipedian, however well-meaning. Michael Glass (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing "English" to "British"; it was something I had noticed while writing but completely forgot about.

Not my edit. Michael Glass (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, it was the IP's. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest I have no problem with, thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually mind copy-editing, but I would highly appreciate if it would stop, as one of the criterion for FAC is 1. "(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." I REALLY don't want to go through another month-long process over something as trivial as stability. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll stop, but I'll let you know if I see anything more that may need polishing. Michael Glass (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

PS Your most recent edit, which reverted to square metres, is inconsistent with the source, which said "about 3 hectares". Worse, the source says nothing about a danger to housing from flooding, only to structures like gazebos that were built on low ground. See [1] Michael Glass (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I appreciate the help. Also, I am referring to this quote regarding housing: "People who live along what is now the headpond have also received a warning, he said". I agree about the sqkm thing; I've changed it back (I thought I had entered "disp=flip" for the convert template, which is what I normally do when the source gives an imperial value... this wasn't the case, apparently). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. In the case of the warning that was sent to householders, this is what it said:

People who live along what is now the headpond have also received a warning, he said.

"The communique that came out from the province to our mayor indicated that anyone living along the headpond now that has barbeques, gazebos, baby barns that's on low ground right now, get them out of the way cause potential is there you're gonna lose those," said Clibe.

Note that the warning was about the danger to structures built on low ground, like barbecues and gazebos. There is no suggestion here that houses were in danger of flooding from extremely high tides, only structures built on low ground. I therefore suggest that you consider amending the text to this:

Flood warnings were issued by the provincial Department of Supply and Services for the town of Riverview, warning that high river tides could lead to the flooding of over 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of sport fields or built on low ground;

This puts the emphasis back on the sports fields, as in the source, but does not ignore the potential danger to other structures built on flood-prone land. Michael Glass (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't saying that the residential areas are simply flood-prone (because I think it would be safe to assume that, if items on low ground properties are at risk of flood damage, then the property itself must be equally at risk) be sufficient? "[...] warning that high river tides could place residential properties and over 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of sport fields at risk of flood damage."

Also, for the comment on my talk page, I like it better that way as well. I've set up a sandbox page over at User:Ericleb01/sandbox if you want to fiddle around with other stuff. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We could probably centre our discussion over at the dedicated talk page for the sandbox. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do that. Cheers.Michael Glass (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since there's been confusion about which version of 'mile' is in the aviation article, would you be able to specify 'statute mile' where appropriate in 1910 London to Manchester air race? Note that the convert template uses '|smi|' rather than '|mi|' for this purpose. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point. Please see my comment on the article's talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to say that I've (belatedly) responded to a question you posed about the measurements of the Forth Bridge here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Presume that wasn't what you were trying to do here, but you added a link to Younes Kaboul's Premier League profile and part-overwrote the existing link to Cudicini's Chelsea profile. I've fixed it. Incidentally, I understand your reasoning for using the units given in the cited source, which in the case of the Premier League are in metric, and have no problem with that for non-UK players. But you are presumably aware that their measurements are already conversions from imperial? It's particularly clear from the weights. If weighing an adult in countries that use metric measurement, it's rare to use greater precision than .5 of a kilo, yet John Terry's weight is given as 90.34 kg, which is the conversion to an overly precise 2 decimal places of his plain imperial weight of 14 st 3 lb. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up this mistake. I agree with you about the weights of the players though electronic metric scales give measurements to the tenth of a kilo. This is so precise that your weight goes up or down every time you eat a meal or go to the toilet! This is one reason why I have steered clear of weights and stuck to heights.

I think it would be good to have uniformity of weights and measures in the profiles but this is impossible. Several clubs give no height or weight details, a few clubs give these details only in Imperial; others give both measures, and the Premier League and several other clubs just give the details just in metric. In the circumstances, the best we can do is to follow the sources, and as you know, I have made Premier League my source. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another matter arising: Just noticed that if I click the link to a random player's Premier League profile page, as used to verify his height, I reach his page, but with his height blank, in fact without any personal content at all apart from his name. If I then go via the Players tab and A-Z list, his page is displayed with apparently the same URL, and with all its content complete, as if it's only created when accessed via the correct hierarchy. Does this also happen for you? and if so, perhaps we should be looking for an alternative source that actually contains the data on the URL as linked to? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. What you described hasn't happened to me. I have, however, noticed that some of the Premier League profiles are incomplete, and when that has happened I have not used that particular web page as a link. I have used the Premier League as my source because it would seem to be more authoritative than Soccernet or Soccerbase, and more complete than using the profiles of individual clubs. Very occasionally I have noticed that the height that was given varied quite a lot for an individual player. When that happened in one case (sorry, I can't remember which one now) I removed all information about the player's height because it varied too much between sources such as Premier League, FIFA and the individual team.

If you notice that what you have described happens with a specific reference, please let me know and I will do my best to remedy the situation, or if that proves impossible, I will look for a different reference. Michael Glass (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a better look at it, and the problem appears to stem from how I access the page. If I click the superscript reference number of any of the Premier League player heights, e.g. Carlo Cudicini ref #2, thus taking me to the References section of the article, and then click the url in the References section, it works fine. However, if I hover over that superscript reference number with Navigation popups enabled, a popup window appears containing the details of that reference, and if I then click the url in the popup, it takes me to the incomplete Premier League player page. No idea why that would be, presumably a conflict between Navigation popups and something in the PL page and/or something in my system, but it's clearly not your problem. Sorry to have bothered you, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your comment on the Peter Crouch talk page - I consider that this should be discussed at a wider forum. Can you add your comments to the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Soccerbase?. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll follow this up. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at my talk page. --Morten (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Gareth Thomas has been undone (see this). Looks like you've left plenty more mess for other editors to clean up too. You think you're being cute or what?--Jeff79 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on your talk page. If I have made a mistake I am happy to fix it, but I respond better to politeness, thank you. Michael Glass (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed here as interested in Sydney meetups, so I thought I'd let you know about one on this Saturday at 5pm at the Alexandria Hotel. Details here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November_2011. It would be great to see you. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Its quiet over there... too quiet. ;-)

The article has changed the defense/defence spelling a couple of times. I prefer your defence, but as far as I can figure out its not certain if either is wrong. ChrisPer (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defence is the spelling in the Macquarie Dictionary whereas defense is the US spelling. Neither is wrong but I think we should prefer the Australian spelling in an Australian article. Michael Glass (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work may be done in SI, usually, but scientific results are often presented in imperial. That's the whole point. NASA, for example, or NOAA, or many other US institutions. Automatic conversion to metric because the topic is scientific would introduce a very unscientific distortion. Until recently, NASA engineers even worked in imperial, until that cost them a Mars mission and NASA finally decided to modernize. But a moon will still be estimated to be 10 miles in diameter. We should provide some guidance for when that happens. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, if the original work was done in SI then that is what we should be reporting. A newspaper report is not as good a source as a scientific report. Michael Glass (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the original work was done in SI then we don't have a problem. But we need to address how to handle cases where the original work was done in imperial. And in some cases we don't know which units the original work was done in; all we have is a report in imperial. NASA, for example, may give results in miles. NOAA gives the dimensions of the great lakes in miles. An astronomer may look at a shot of a moon and say it's about 10 miles in diameter. In such cases we can't responsibly report it in km: 10km, 16km, and 20km are all either distorted or wrong.

Also, sometimes the newspaper article may give the results in SI, but if you go back to the original you'll find it's in imperial, and the newspaper did a poor job converting. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there is a virtue in following the sources, but most if not all scientific work these days has been done in SI. Perhaps a better example could be drawn from another field of study, like land measurements in acres. Michael Glass (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost all", but it's still very common to come across scientific results in imperial. Land measurement in acres isn't likely to be so approximate, though that would be fine if you have an example. — kwami (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If scientific results were being given in imperial measures that would have to be in America. The rest of us use metric measures most of the time, except for the British, who are quite inconsistent in their usage. If you want a reference to land areas in acres, try this: ^[1] or this historical reference from Australia ^[2]. Actually, though, I think that any reference would be better placed somewhere else in the policy, which I'll propose a little later when I have time. Michael Glass (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in the US: NASA, NOAA, etc. Since most planetary exploration is done by NASA, that means quite lot of our astronomy articles are based on American data. Serious papers are all in SI, AFAIK, but informal results are often announced in imperial, and we incorporate those results in lots of articles. There are probably dozens of articles where 10 miles has been converted to 16 km, as if it were accurate to 5% instead of an order of magnitude. The opposite also occurs, of course: the Chicxulub bolide is often reported to have been an est. 6 miles in diam, when the actual estimate is 10 km. But since we give preference to SI, that's not as big a problem for us. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to users listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/Invite)

I just noticed your recent interest in copy editing one or two Scottish islands. I am on the brink of offering Skye at FAC and if you are so inspired an independent look at it would be very helpful. All the best for Christmas, Ben MacDui 12:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ben. I'll take a look. Have a wonderful Christmas and a happy new year! Michael Glass (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FAC
• Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria

Your contributions would be much appreciated! Tony (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to invite you to the next Sydney meetup this Thursday evening. Details here. Hope to see you then! (You received this invitation because you are listed here.) --99of9 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wee Curry Monster. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Michael, to be blunt you know that I have redacted my real life identity on wikipedia due to off-wiki harassment. You have repeatedly referred to my so-called blemished record as a pretext for revealing it. I am getting very upset that you are continually doing this and you may take this as notice that I will not tolerate you doing it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WCM, I have, to the best of my knowledge, never referred to you as anything other than Wee Curry Monster or WCM since you adopted that name and I have no intention of doing so. The link I provided did not reveal anything other than your current user name. I checked the link from this link and it did not reveal anything other than your current user name. I hope that this answers your concern.

I am also puzzled that you should accuse me of making a comment that you found impolite. What comment was this? Michael Glass (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I understand your intentions, but it's too forced (Manning this, Manning that). We may be returning to "he" soon anyway for most of it, so it's pointless for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the message. Writing prose while avoiding personal pronouns is quite a challenge! My position is that it's OK to say you want to be another gender "from this day forward" but it's problematical to make it retrospective. Michael Glass (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Manning doesn't want to make it retroactive, so the article is probably going to have to be rewritten at some point. It also needs to be updated anyway; I was holding off until after sentencing, then intended to update it and submit it for FA status. Fat chance of that happening now. :) By the way, I overwrote some of your edits without meaning to. I think we had an edit conflict, but it didn't tell me; bits of my version and bits of yours ended up being spliced. I'll go back and re-check it tomorrow; just leaving this in case you wondered why I had changed certain things (some I intended to change, some not). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation. I've gone back and changed a few things, mainly restoring two convert templates (the display is unchanged) and restoring one for 5 acres. Glad to see that you have left them in your latest edit (wasn't aware of the reason for changing October to fall). Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd things have been happening on that page. When I saved one of my last edits, there were things on the page that hadn't been visible during preview (things you had changed), yet I can see now that they were added a few edits before mine, so I should have seen them. A couple of us reported odd edit conflicts on the talk page too, yesterday at the village pump. Anyway, sorry again for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes at the very beginning. Please look at what I have done. I'm going to stop editing now, so hopefully that will help to settle things down. Many thanks for the messages. Michael Glass (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt) Martinvl (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

The revert was an accident, to be honest not sure how I managed to do it. Blackberries are useless for web browsing. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. No worries! I thought it must have been an accident. Have a great day! Michael Glass (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael,

This is the State Library's WP:GLAM project page: Wikipedia:GLAM/State_Library_of_New_South_Wales and this is the sign-up page with information: meta:World_War_I_edit-a-thons/Australia#2._November_2013. The meetup will go from 10am to 4pm and from 10am to 12pm we'll have a backstage guided tour with the Library Curators. Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney is a list of all the meetups we're having and have had. If you're interested in getting notifications for each meetup put your name down on: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/Invite. Looking forward to seeing you there!\

Regards, James ^{(T • C)} • 2:18pm • 03:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is not accurate. Kahastok talk 07:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your original edit was here, at 9:45 am UTC on 18 October. The original close was here at 8:13 pm UTC on 17 October. The discussion was opened with my objection to the closing statement, and closed again at 8:33 pm UTC on 17 October. It has not since reopened.

Please self-revert your edit to a closed discussion. Kahastok talk 07:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want to resume discussion of measurement templates now that the DeFacto socks are blocked.

Garamond Lethet
c 17:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wasn't aware that DeFacto was active on this site!. Tell me more! Michael Glass (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility gap and EzEdit are both socks of DeFacto and are both blocked as per this SPI. Martinvl and myself are distinct individuals, as per this SPI. Teh drammas appear to be over for the moment.

I apologize for disappearing at the template discussion. I was letting DeFacto run a while longer so the SPI folks would have more to work with, and that makes it more difficult to interact civilly. Letting you know my suspicions in private would have just made one more person feel awkward, and I wasn't yet ready to make the accusation in public. We were fortunate this time in that DeFacto went to teh dramma board, which made the SPI much more higher profile and pushed it through in a matter of hours. We've had to wait a week for resolution before; that's no fun.

Real life duties will be cutting down on my wikipedia time for the next few days, but taking a look at the template colors is near the top of my list when I get back.

Best,

Garamond Lethet
c 14:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Falkland Islands to Good Article status.

Hi Michael. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. Congratulations.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I had no idea that I was one of the top ten contributors! Michael Glass (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new color scheme is a little better, but not much. If it's ok with you, go ahead and push it out. If you'd rather drop the color scheme altogether, let me know and I'll post a version with the colors removed.

Garamond Lethet
c 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Meetup in Sydney on Monday (tomorrow) evening from 5:30pm at the Paragon Hotel Circular Quay. We even have an international guest. See the meetup page for more details and to sign up. Sorry for the late notice - I hope you can make it. --05:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting post, but I think you need to give it a break or take a break, whichever suits, you evil man. ;-) You have maybe three very determined and dyed in the wool conservative blue rinses there lined up against you who won't use metric unless they are over a barrel. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to take a six month break from any editing on MOSNUM or MOSNUM:Talk on three conditions:

• Kahastok takes the same break for the same period of time.
• Wee Curry Monster takes the same break for the same period of time.
• You stop referring to me as evil.

What about it? Michael Glass (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Even a tongue-in-cheek "evil", like the one above?

  I genuinely meant it when I said your post on horses was interesting. With it, you asked very pertinent practical questions about the way ahead when parts of Britain are succumbing to the wave of metrication from the mainland and yet these are unaddressed or contrary to our current advice. I suspect they live in mortal fear of metrication and are comfortable with the trench lines as they are currently drawn. It's obvious by how they are hanging on to a dead link to a ten-plus year old guidance from the Times. They assert nothing has materially changed is based on denial and disproved by your post on horses, but these dudes are not rational and will keep on throwing bad faith and ad hominem at your contributions to the discussions. They will fight you on the beaches and will never surrender (after Churchill), and will probably turn in their graves if anyone dares to mention a metric Britain after they have gone. You might just be surprised that if you don't bring the subject up, they might not mention it either. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was hoping that if I didn't bring the subject up, someone else might make a similar move and this might have a greater chance of success. Michael Glass (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's another possible outcome. At the moment, as soon as you open your trap, it attracts all the flies and you become the bogeyman. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Michael, I respect your position. But you have to safeguard your status on en.WP. Time to have a rest, I think, and do good work elsewhere in the project. It doesn't mean you've won or lost ... that's for the medium- to long-term. Tony (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a cleanup pass. If you want to unsnarl Wales, feel free, but I think I got everything else (except a few "Roads" articles, which I think are better left alone for the time being). Thanks for the ping and happy to help. Garamond Lethet
c 09:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit of yours changed several instances of "approximately" to "about". One of those instances appears to be in a quote (in ref name="McEvoy, Brian P. 200). I don't have access to the reference, so I can't check, but - given the other simultaneous changes - I suspect you did a search and replace. Unless you know that the ref uses "about", I suggest that you should not have changed the direct quote.

Actually I don't think that changing "approximately" to "about" in general is a good idea. "Approximately" is perfectly valid word, and slightly more precise than "about". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up that change to a direct quote. I reverted it. On the question of approximately being more precise than about you can't be precise about an approximation. It's a contradiction in terms. Therefore I prefer the simpler and shorter word. Michael Glass (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a not a question of precision of the numbers, it's the precision of the word. Approximately has only one sense, whereas about has more than one ("approximately", but also "in the physical vicinity of"). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of numbers about is not ambiguous. 'Approximately 450 people' is just a long-winded way of saying 'about 450 people.' Five syllables and 13 letters when two syllables and 5 letters will do. Of course there are contexts where one might prefer the longer word, but most of the time the shorter word is preferable. Michael Glass (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Campsie, New South Wales may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 100|acre|ha}} in the 1812 and he later purchased the area to the east, which was a land grant of {{convert|200|acre|ha} to Thomas Capon in 1817.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Amal Alamuddin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 28 September 2014|work=[[The Weekly Standard]]|date=19 May 2014}}</ref> Alamuddin's mother is from [[[Tripoli, Lebanon]], where a significant community of [[Lebanese Sunni Muslims]] live.<ref name=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom.
Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for asking. I think I tried to say (though probably not specifically enough) that where there are discrepancies between the PL site and other sources of comparable reliability, it's at least as likely for the PL site to be the one that's wrong, rather than that the PL site was "frequently inaccurate".

I can't give you lists of inaccuracies, because the only times I notice the PL site is when correcting vandalism to a page with height referenced to it, or when a stable height of a player on my watchlist is changed citing it. But an example that illustrates the known failings of the site quite well is Jordon Mutch. When he was first registered as a PL player, he was only 15, and may well have been 5ft9/1.75m or less. That's the value on the earliest archive version of his club profile that lists a height, dating from Jan2008 when he was just 16. During 2008, he grew an extreme amount, such that his feet fractured and he was in a wheelchair for months; a newspaper report at that time gave his height as 6ft2, and that's what went into the article in Jan2009. In 2011, it was changed to 1.84 citing the Premier League, and that stayed in for a few months until his club were relegated from the PL.

What happens on that website at the end of each season is that the profiles of all the players from the three relegated teams lose the overview page that contains their height and weight (the same thing happens when a player is transferred to a non-PL team). So I put the previous height and newspaper ref back into the Jordon Mutch infobox, and it's still there. But when he transferred to a PL team and the PL website reinstated his overview page, they brought back the version with the measurements he had as a 16-year-old... According to recent sources (club, ESPN, Soccerway) he seems to have settled at somewhere between 6ft and 1.84 so I'll correct the article.

Jesse Lingard must have been 1.68 once, but he isn't any more. 1.75 as was on the article seems about right, but I can't find a source to compare in "reliability" to the Premier League, so haven't changed it back.

Thing is, where do the PL get their heights from? Clubs have to measure and weigh their players as part of the obligatory annual medical, so their figures should be accurate, but there's no PL form that includes height or weight as items to be submitted. If the PL do get their figures from the clubs, then there shouldn't be any discrepancy... Season's greetings, Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Struway2, and many thanks for your Christmas greetings. Have a Happy New Year!

A Google search from Australia for Jesse Lindgard + height gave 1.68m, 1.75m and 1.84m. TablesLeague.com gave 1.84m. I don't know if that would rate as a reliable source, but perhaps it is what you are looking for to correct his height.

In the case of Jordon Mutch, Jordon Mutch + height gave me measures in centimetres, metres and feet and inches. They were 1.75m (or 175cm) from Premier League, WhoScored.com, SkySPORTS and Squawka. Soccerbase gave 6ft (1.83m), Wikipedia (quoting QPR gave 6 ft 0 in (1.84 m), Transfermarkt gave 1,84 m and FIFA 14 Career Mode Player Stats gave 188cm 6'2", a figure that is close enough to the 6ft 2in in the article you quoted.

It seems that the search for accuracy can be a bit like following a mirage! All I can say is that if Premier League or any other source I quote is inaccurate, please correct it. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because the content of the player profiles is user-generated and there's no evidence of fact-checking or editorial control. Please see this AN/I report, where the admin's response contains links to relevant discussions. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at your edit, you'll see that you in fact didn't add a link to the Premier League website. You just changed his height. Thank you for noticing that the link was dead - what happens with the FLPTV websites is that player profiles that become dead after the player leaves redirect to the first live profile on the site, which in Birmingham's case is that of Darren Randolph. I replaced it at all three places it was used in the Butland article. As I've said to you before, I prefer to use a source that's more likely to be accurate and up-to-date for things like height, which means a player's current club would always be preferable to the Premier League; Mr Butland was 6ft 4 when he was 15... Incidentally, a computer game site like Futhead, although likely accurate, wouldn't be a reliable source for data on players in the real world. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anthony Réveillère page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Diego Poyet page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you must know WP:UNITS does apply to English players and other Brits. So lets be sensible about this and accept that and apply it in full to everywhere that it does apply and nor where it doesn't. Otherwise we will just have stalemate for each player and waste all our good time getting nowhere until one of us gets a life. How about it? I'll help do the work as I need the practice. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for UK articles do not apply for Irish articles or Jamaican articles. If you read MOSNUM you will see this, so please be sensible about your objections to my edits. Michael Glass (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I take it you will withdraw all opposition to articles on British players being converted as per the same rule, as per WP:MOSNUM? Kahastok talk 23:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British usage is split, as can be seen from the research that Speccy himself did. If he sets himself the task of systematically converting all UK players' heights to feet and inches first, and gets consensus from other editors, so be it. I will continue to express my opinions about Speccy's proposals, if I see fit, but if others support him, so be it. I won't try to stop them or block consensus. Similarly, I expect the same courtesy in return. If Speccy feels he has to comment on my proposals - which will be limited to non UK players - so be it, but any more than that wastes both our time. Michael Glass (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh8 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, following your suggestion, opened a discussion at WT:MOSNUM that you might be interested in contributing to. It relates to the clause about primary units for personal weight and height of British people. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy of letting me know. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kahastok talk 06:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael, am I correct to assume that your objective as a Wikipedia editor is to expunge imperial measures from UK related articles, starting by replacing references that give imperial as primary with references that give metric only or, at least, give metric as primary? And then putting metric only values in the article source and using convert flip to show imperial. If not, can you explain why apparently troubles you so much, as here, here and here recently for example, that sources giving imperial as primary are being used? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example is where I replaced a dead link. The second and third examples simply follow MOSNUM which says: "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the ... template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary." If you have a problem with MOSNUM, by all means raise it on the MOSNUM talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you evade, or simply forget, to answer my question? And no, MOSNUM does not say that you must remove any use of imperial units from article code and only use metric from dual unit sources, or that you must rely on "flip" to display imperial units, even when you can cite them directly and without "flip".

Let me ask again:

• Am I correct to assume that your objective as a Wikipedia editor is to expunge imperial measures from UK related articles, starting by replacing references that give imperial as primary with references that give metric only or, at least, give metric as primary?

It certainly looks that way to me - especcially after your reply here, and comments on my talk page. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]