User talk:Corinne/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Precious

teaching English to speakers of other languages
Thank you for quality collaborative contributions to articles such as Cucurbita, teaching English to speakers of other languages, achieving to make "sentences clear and concise, flow smoothly, and make sense", for exquisite edit summaries, for a bounty of inspiration on your user page full of colourful and peaceful images, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you, Gerda, so much! That means a lot to me. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The gem fits some of the stone images you show nicely, and the photographer's name cucurbita --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That's a nice user name, especially for this time of year, isn't it? The stone is from Yogo, Montana, and I had never heard of a place in the U.S. -- or anywhere -- called Yogo. CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about attribution

@Crisco 1492: I added a new image of a painting that I found on Commons to the top of my talk page. I provided the name of the artist, but I don't know if I need to add any more information such as the name of the license. I tried to figure it out by reading the articles linked in the information below the image file on Commons, but I couldn't. There's too much complicated information. Do I need to specify the license? Also, I should probably ask you that same question for all the images on my user page, most of which I took from Commons, and a few of which I just copied from Hafspajen's talk page. You'll see that for most of them I provided the name of the artist or photographer, the website if that was specified, and the link to the Commons user if there was one. It's whether or not I need to display the license (and which license) that I'm not sure about. CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• The attribution on the image page is enough for a CC-BY-SA license (like this one). PD images (like those by the Old Masters) are even freer. So long as the work is legitimately under a free license, listing the name of the artist here is already more than the bare minimum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. If I understand you correctly, if I see on the image file page in Commons that the image is a free image (or in the public domain), then I don't need to name the actual license on my talk or user page, and that in these cases providing the artist or photographer's name is more than is even needed. Is that right? CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yep. If you were to use this outside of Wikimedia projects that would not be correct, but on Wikipedia it's absolutely fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewing

@Fayenatic london: Do you remember that you gave me rollbacker and pending changes reviewer rights about a month ago? I've used the rollbacker two or three times, but I haven't yet used the pending changes reviewer right. I just looked at the article that describes the process, and read most of it, but I found it quite complicated. Then I saw the short list of pending changes. I hesitated even to click on "review" because I'm really not sure how to do this. I'm wondering whether (a) you think I should even try to do this kind of reviewing, and whether it would be of help to WP, and, (b), if so, whether you could walk me through one or two of these; I could have two internet windows open so I could discuss the steps with you in one window and carry out the steps in the other window. CorinneSD (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As you say, the list at Special:PendingChanges is short, so I assume some other people keep an eye on it regularly. This Reviewer right is not one that I ever go out of my way to use, but it's very occasionally handy if a page on my watchlist is protected in this way. So, I would say don't bother about it. If you ever do come across a pending change through your normal editing, just decide whether to accept or revert it and click the corresponding button – simple as that. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominating pictures

on my way .. Hafspajen (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Google_Art_Project_works_in_Smithsonian_American_Art_Museum

. Category:Google_Art_Project_works_in_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art

@Hafspajen: Are you back from your trip yet? I miss seeing your edits. I hope you had a nice time on your trip. I have a little time now, and wanted to nominate some pictures, but I can't find the place in my archives (probably Archive 9 or 10) where you gave me the link to all those photos from which I can choose an image to nominate, or the few photos of Cross, etc., that you originally gave me. I know I'm risking annoying you for asking for these again, but I've done so much since then that I don't know where they are. Also, did you still want me to work on that Fernand Ruczyck (can't remember the spelling exactly) article that Sca got from, was it, the German WP? Or did he finish that? Well, whatever you want me to do, let me know. CorinneSD (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Try WP:FPC. HalfGig talk 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, HalfGig. I know about that page generally, but I was looking for a location that showed a whole lot of images -- maybe they're on commons but not yet nominated for FP status. I guess I should look on commons. CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Was in Scotland, Loch ness, Inverness, Edinborough and stuff, back now but I might need some sleep ... firstHafspajen (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

How exciting! Did you see the Loch Ness monster? Did you visit any museums? CorinneSD (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I mean no. I mean, never saw any monster but saw the Scottish National Gallery. I just visited Edinborough and saw the Niagara Falls, from the American Side and read the text beside the painting - it is on display at the Scottish National Gallery. Hafspajen (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fabulous. I put "Haystacks" on my user page. CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be to tired but what haystacks, can't find them... Got up six o'clock in Edinborough today... Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Found them, like your Chance encounter, by José Bautista! Hafspajen (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I got "Haystacks" from the WP article on the Scottish National Gallery. Maybe you need to get some sleep. But it's good to have you back on WP! CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

THIS I COPIED FROM THE FP Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates PAGE, YOU NEED TO USE THE BOX TO CREATE A NEW NOM:

Step 2:

Create a subpage

For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ +FILE NAME THIS AND THAT JPG.

Press button. Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(You forgot The Evening Air, at and by Henri-Edmond Cross on your userpage- you have three FP pics, actually) Hafspajen (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Hafspajen. I know how to create a nomination and fill in the required information. What I wanted was the link you gave me to a page or site (I think it might be on commons) with a whole lot of images of paintings from which I can choose one to nominate. Do you remember? Thank you for the reminder of the third FP "The Evening Air" that was promoted. I just added it to my user page. CorinneSD (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the image of the Still Life with the (dead) birds, above. It's a beautiful still life, but it makes me sad to see all those dead birds, probably killed just to create the still life. I don't know if an artist would do that today. When I read the article on Silk, I was happy to read that there have been efforts to stop the routine killing of the silkworms in the production of silk; they encourage letting the silkworm out before beginning to treat the cocoon, I think with boiling water, to enable the silk to be unraveled. CorinneSD (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AHA: works_in__Art_Museum here it is, but remember it has to be IN AN ARTICLE OR MORE. Hafspajen (talk) 16:24, 18 November 201Smithsonian_American4 (UTC) Yes, those dead birds are rather depressing. But I was really tired. - well, don't hope to much for the modern artist, they might be even worse. Hafspajen (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh...so beautiful! Those flowers are much nicer than the birds. Thank you so much! CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on each one to look at it. I see the title of the third one is "Still Life with Flowers, Shells, a Shark's Head, and Petrifications". I saw the flowers, a large shell, and the skeleton of a shark's head, but what are "petrifications"? "Petr" means "rock", right, but I don't see any rocks. The word is similar to "petrified". I see something at the far left that looks kind of like a wasp's nest, but maybe that's a kind of rock or petrified wood. What do you think? That shark's head is kind of wild, isn't it, and unusual for a still life. CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhu, File:Albert Bierstadt - Trapped.jpg. Maybe a seashell? Did you looked at each and every of the Category:Google_Art_Project_works_in_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art? Hafspajen (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh...the poor bison. That photo of the bison in a zoo was sad to see, also. Hafs, what happened to the image of the Eta Carinae nebula that was on my user page for a long time? I just looked at it and the image is gone. (It's about 3/4 of the way down, next to two other images of nebulae.) When someone removes the picture, why don't they send some kind of explanation? CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your questions just above. No. Was I supposed to? I just looked at the images in the link next to your "AHA", just above. Did you see that I nominated a painting? Did I do it right? I didn't really know what to say about the image quality. Do you like that painting? CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Woff, where did you put that. Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK; fine. Wery good. {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees}} is fine. NOW YOU put that into the others. YOU go to the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and add it on the top like this: {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees}} in curly brackets. And now because the clock is ticking on the nomination, at the Current nominations[edit]. Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO GET HERE AND PUT IT ON TOP:

==Current nominations== <!-- :Make sure you followed all the instructions on :[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure]] :Place new nominations at the TOP of the group --> :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Red Weaver Ant, Oecophylla longinoda.jpg}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barn owl falconry}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Confederate States of America, first issue (1861)}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gravel pit}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A word from the Rear Admiral}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Self-portrait with a friend (Raphael)}} :{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nilgais fighting}}

COM ON!! I have ten minutes left. Otherwise I do it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OUT daydreaming? it is half past twelve... Hafspajen (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I added it.... Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK. You know, if one started a nomination, it is importtant to add that as soon as possible, because the moment you started it, the clock is ticking. There are ten days for every nomination, and waiting to much means loosing some time... But this looks fine. Hafspajen (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Hafspajen Oh...I didn't know there was anything more I had to do. I thought filling in the information in the template and saving it was enough. I guess I have to read the instructions more carefully. Thank you for doing whatever it is that you did. I'm a bit confused because I had seen (yesterday) your and Crisco's support, so I don't know whether you did whatever you did before or after I saw that. Oh, well. I'll try to get it right next time. CorinneSD (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, basically after filling in the template, you have to put that among the other nominations, on the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates page. You know, it doesn't appear there automatically only because you create a nomination. It has to be added. Hafspajen (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FPCs needing feedback
	Ottmar Mergenthaler

Do you just highlight the whole thing and copy and paste? Or cut and paste? CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO GET to the page Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates where yo find : ==Current nominations==, click edit AND PUT IT ON TOP of the other in curly brackets like this: {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees}}. Hafspajen (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates you will notice that there are already about seven pictures nominated after yours. Hafspajen (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are 14 nominated after yours, by now. Hafspajen (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Just tell me, after you type in the information on the template (title, reason for nominating, creator or artist, type of artwork, etc.), I assume you have to save it so that it doesn't disappear -- or not?

YES YOU SAVE IT: YOU GOT A TEMPLATE.

Then what do you do? Do you copy all of that and paste it onto the other page that you just mentioned above? I must have done it once or twice. I just don't remember.

YOU TAKE THE TITLE OF THE PAGE AND ADD. If you don't wan:t to, or can't, answer this question, then I'll figure it out the next time I nominate something. I will, of course, keep in mind everything you have told me here. Many thanks for all your help and your patience with me. CorinneSD (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for all those images of floral still lifes. They're gorgeous!

P.S. 2: You didn't answer my question, way above, about whether you want me to work on that Fernand Ruscyk article (I don't remember the spelling). Do you remember that Sca had translated it from the German WP? I don't know where that is now. CorinneSD (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I want you very much to work on that Fernand Ruscyk article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

God had invented e-mail. Hafspajen (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Where is that draft? On Sca's talk page? In a sandbox? I don't know why you wrote "God had invented e-mail." CorinneSD (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Hafspajen sadbox II Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not translated from German, which would be easy enough — rather, based on the computer translation from Polish. Sca (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sca. It took me about five minutes just to find this in this huge section. You mean you didn't do a careful word-for-word translation from the German WP article? So it was a computer translation, was it? At least the Polish one was comprehensible. The one from Lithuanian was incomprehensible, and I wasted a lot of time trying to put it into English. I guess I ought to get back to that and try to put it into some semblance of an article. Of course, I'll use what you wrote, too. Or you can do it. It seems like work... CorinneSD (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the Lithuanian "translation" was gobbledygook — but what can one expect from a language that has words like įvažiavimas? Sca (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know he's a "he"? And what does that have to do with Fernand Ruczyk? And why don't you enable e-mail? CorinneSD (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, he is a man because he has long beard. I didn't enable e-mail because I promised that I will not use e-mail on Wiki from our computers. Hafspajen (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, and OH... I just got what you meant. CorinneSD (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering

@Bladesmulti: I'm just wondering whether I misunderstood the exchange between you and Roxy on your talk page. I just don't like seeing someone being rude to editors whom I have found to be pleasant, well-meaning, and hard-working, like you. I'm sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have left that comment on your talk page. Please feel free to delete it. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment was actually helpful and I know how Roxy the Dog was feeling, he is allowed to tell what he wants to, in a civil way. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Collard greens

@Bladesmulti: Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Collard greens? An editor changed "Indian Administered" to "Indian Occupied" in a section heading. I suspect this edit might be politically motivated, but I thought you would know what is correct. CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If they are referring to the Kashmir that is controlled by India, then it should be called Jammu and Kashmir. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		A hearty THANK YOU for a SUPERB job on copy editing Cucurbita while some of us are trying to get it to featured status! HalfGig talk 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HalfGig Thank you so much! I enjoyed working with you on it. Let me know if you have any other articles you'd like me to work on. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Milky Way

@Vsmith: I wonder if you could answer a question that has puzzled me for a while. I had read or seen somewhere that Earth and our solar system is in one arm of a galaxy, and that that arm is called the Milky Way. Is that right? Then I wonder why, when I look up at the night sky (where we live we can see the stars clearly at night), I can see the Milky Way kind of crossing the sky. If we're in the Milky Way, how can we see it as if it is off in the distance? CorinneSD (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Our home galaxy is the Milky Way, not just our "arm" of it. The band of stars we see and refer to as the Milky Way is the rest of the galaxy - the distant stars of our arm plus the stars of the other arms. Disclaimer: that's off the top o me head ... Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

See File:Milky Way Arms ssc2008-10.svg. Vsmith (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Vsmith Thank you so much for the explanation and the links. I guess I'll have to read the article on the Milky Way. The image of the Milky Way is fascinating. I was looking for Earth in that image but didn't see it. The band of stars across the sky, which you say is the distant stars of our arm plus the stars of the other arms, looks like a long, straight band. Is the reason for that that we are looking at the rest of the Milky Way across the narrow edge -- like looking at a large, flat lollipop facing the edge and looking across (rather than looking at the broad, flat side)? If we were looking at the flat side, wouldn't we see the spiral arms, as in that image? CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The location of the Solar System is circled in that image, but at the scale of the image Earth is invisible. And yes we see the narrow band as our only possible view as we are "lost" in that band with no way to view the whole "flat lollipop". The image was created from astronomical measurements (coordinates) of the locations and distances to the thousands of stars in our band and the other distant bands. Getting one's mind around the scale of that image takes a bit of mental adjustment :) I recall some "mind boggling" times when I tackled an astronomy class in college back in 1968. Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vsmith: Thank you, V. I had the same type of experience when I first saw the chart on the relative sizes of plants and stars that I found in an article and copied to my user page. Did you see it? It's near the bottom of my user page. I was astonished when I realized that the largest body in one section is shown as the smallest body in the next section, and so on. It makes Earth look very small, and it's hard to imagine the huge size of the largest ones.

By the way, do you know what happened to the image of Eta Carinae that I had on my user page? I had it in a group of three or four nebulae. A few days ago, the image just disappeared but the heading is still there. I had gotten it from the article Eta Carinae. I just looked and the image I had is no longer in that article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See this as it seems Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg was deleted from commons back in mid October due to copyright problems. I guess you will need to find a replacement image for you collection. And thanks for the eye-feast ... I hadn't looked at your collection of great images previously. Vsmith (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vsmith: Thank you, and I'm glad you like the images. I'm always looking for new ones to add. After I add them, I sometimes see similarities such as the silver crystals and the blue glass vase next to it. Some I find just astonishing, like the carbon dioxide sand dunes from Mars. CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Priscillian

I only just noticed your note re Priscillian. I have redone the lede. Although he had many followers who agreed with his ideas, I'm not sure that he actually founded any group. Recent historians have viewed him in the contexts of feminism, and a conflict between wealthy rural believers and the poorer urban communities. However, the apparent consensus appears to be less a question of dogma than of the authority of bishops vs. a parallel practice developing outside of said authority. I have tried to keep it simple. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mannanan51: The lead is much better. I wanted to suggest one change in wording and ask you what you thought about something else:

1) In the last sentence of that first paragraph, what would you say to changing "which had seemed lost" to "which had been thought lost"? I think it is a clearer and more accurate verb.

2) In about the second sentence, you have an example of the practices of his followers that were opposed by the bishops (meeting in villas outside the city), and you have that in parentheses. Besides the fact that commas are not necessary around material enclosed in parentheses, I think parentheses should be avoided in a paragraph coming so early in an article. I would either remove the parentheses and keep the pair of commas, or delete that information. I wonder if that example is needed there (I'll let you decide that). Wouldn't the sentence, minus the example, pique a reader's curiosity? It's just a thought. CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think "which had been thought lost" sounds better. As to the example of prohibited practices, I weighed whether or not to include one there and decided that if I did not, someone would only come along and post "". Mannanan51 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A question

@Fayenatic london: This is another question. Also starting yesterday, I noticed that when I type "User:" in the search bar in preparation for typing a user name, this appears each time in the space right under the search bar: "User:Friendly AIDS". What's that? I never saw that before. Can you get rid of it for me? CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I don't know how to do that. In some web pages, suggestions pop up using autofill or autocomplete in your browser, see this PC Mag page. In that case, you may be able to selectively forget a suggestion, depending on your browser, see this old page. However, I think the wikimedia software generates the entries that appear in the wiki search box, and I have no idea how to control or change them. – Fayenatic London 23:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your issue similar to this? Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Search_bar_not_responsive_sometimes

If so, please comment there. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Earth

@Vsmith:, @Rothorpe: Would you mind looking at the latest large set of edits made all at once to Earth? I don't understand the elimination of every single instance of "the" when referring to the Earth. (There has been discussion, including just yesterday, on the talk page of the article, regarding how to refer to our planet; I didn't look at today, but I don't think consensus for doing that would have been reached so quickly.) I thought "the Earth", and "the center of the Earth", are more commonly used than just "Earth", and "Earth's interior". Also, this editor changed "while" to "whereas" twice. Rothorpe and I had a disagreement with this editor about eight months ago about the use of "while", and this editor would not budge. I think "whereas" is legalistic and ponderous compared to "while". I see one meaning of "while" to be a synonym of "whereas". This editor insisted that "while" was only to be used for two actions occurring simultaneously. I don't want to get into an edit war with this editor. CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bold edit was made with no discussion or edit summary. However, the brief two edit talk page bit would seems supportive. I would suggest posting a comment there if you disagree with the edit. Whether it is Earth or The Earth doesn't really matter to me and I have no problem seeing both used in the same article -- it seems the context would matter more. Vsmith (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think there are certain situations where Earth, by itself, with no "the", is appropriate. But I also think that there are others where "the Earth" or even "the earth" is appropriate. Thanks for your reply and advice. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Vsmith I left a comment on the talk page of the article. I also decided that at least in the first of those two instances of changing "while" to "whereas", neither is needed. I'm going to change it. I haven't looked again at the second instance. I decided to put a sentence just before that into parentheses because I thought it interrupted the train of thought -- the sentence flow (and I didn't see any better place to put the sentence.) I wonder if you could look at it. Should the close parenthesis be outside the note number? I wasn't sure where the note number belonged. CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That sentence (If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km.)[n 11] seems to be the result of some wikipedian's OR calculations and doesn't really seem needed, and/or is lacking clarity: spread evenly? Perhaps should be reworded. Maybe -- (If all the Earth's lithospheric (or crustal) surface was at the same elevation, the depth of the resulting world ocean would be more than 2.7 km.)[n 11] I'm not sure about the proper location of the note and mayhaps I'm totally misinterpreting the sentence. I think the sentence should be chopped unless a WP:RS has published the calculation result and its significance. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Vsmith I looked at the source at footnote 103 -- The Volume of Earth's Ocean -- which looked more pertinent than the source at footnote 104, and I skimmed the article looking for something like that statement. I did two "Find" searches, one with the entire sentence and one with just "2.7" (for the kilometers mentioned at the end of the statement), and found nothing. If you feel like taking a closer look, maybe you'll find something. Perhaps I should also look at the source at footnote 104, even though the title doesn't seem as related. Do you want to go ahead and delete that sentence? Your credentials would back up the edit more than mine. CorinneSD (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the source at footnote 104. I looked at the first article, "World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century". In the table of contents I clicked on "Water storage on the earth and hydrological cycle". I did a search for the word "Volume" and looked at every instance. I didn't find anything. I don't know what else to look for except maybe for "altitude" (I never heard the word "altitude" used for describing the depth of the oceans. I guess it's an alternative to "depth".) CorinneSD (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Vsmith (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit?

[1] Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first version is ungrammatical. Just "selling and buying necessities" might make sense, but when followed by the noun phrase "transport of goods", a verb is needed -- that's why the editor changed "necessities" to a verb -- "necessitates", meaning "requires". Here's how it is now:

• Mule moving goods around in the car-free Medina in Fes, Morocco, selling and buying necessitates transport of goods.

It's still not grammatically correct because this is really two clauses joined by a comma (yielding a run-on sentence):

• [This is a photo of a] mule moving goods around in the car-free Medina in Fes, Morocco.

• Selling and buying necessitates [= requires] [the] transport of goods.

There are several ways to fix the run-on sentence, but, since "transport of goods" means "moving goods around", I don't think the last clause is needed at all. I think just this is sufficient:

• Mule moving goods around in the car-ree Medina in Fes, Morocco

By the way, why is "Fez" spelled with an "s" here? I had always seen it spelled with a "z". Also, why is the word "Medina" used when it's supposed to be illustrating the subject of the article, a souq? I didn't read the article, but if a souq is called a medina in Morocco, perhaps it should read:

• Mule moving goods around in the car-free souq', or medina, in Fes, Morocco.

I don't know why "Medina" is capitalized, either.

Finally, I'm surprised by the first two photos in the article. First of all, they're very similar to each other. Second, just a photo of a display of spices or vegetables (whatever they are -- I don't remember) does not illustrate a souq, which is a market. I think one of the first two photos in the section Souq#Permanent -- or one of the others in that gallery -- would better illustrate a souq. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC) OK. Hafspajen (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ferdynand Ruszczyc

Hafspajen I started trying to put the translation from the Lithuanian article about Ruszczyc that I found in your Sandbox into standard English. It's in my sandbox at User:CorinneSD/sandbox. Is this what you wanted me to do? It's not easy. There are some passages that I simply do not understand. I left notes and spaces where you (or someone else) could fill something in. I'll continue working on this later. CorinneSD (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I was afraid about it. It would need someone who speak the language tho a certain degree. Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No I cannot read Lithuanian! However, "Ruščica" is presumably the possessive form of his name, so "Ruszczyc's early landscapes". Yngvadottir (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Hafspajen I've seen the name spelled with a "k" at the end and with a "c" at the end. Which do you think is correct? CorinneSD (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably c. Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If both occur in reliable sources (some of these foreign names are often transliterated in different ways in different books), then both spellings should be given at the start of the lede, and one should redirect. However, after searching in vain on Lithuanian (it's at lt:Ferdinandas Ruščicas, I found from Commons that he's reckoned to be Polish, although born in what is now Belarus, and that we have an article already at Ferdynand Ruszczyc (same as the Polish; and that's also the title used on German and Finnish Wikipedias). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. So I guess we'll stay with the "c", then. CorinneSD (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen Yngvadottir I just finished trying to put the Polish translation into standard English. It's in my Sandbox. I'm not sure how to make a link to that. Is it User:CorinneSD/sandbox? I found the Polish translation much better than the Lithuanian one. (I should have looked at the Polish one first; then I wouldn't have spent the time on the Lithuanian one.) There were only a few sentences that I found unclear, and I left notes regarding them. I'll look at the Russian translation later. CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerrit Dou

Hafspajen :I was reading the captions for the images in Gerrit Dou and noticed inconsistencies regarding the use of capital letters. I read MOS:CAPTIONS AND WP:CAPFRAG and found no mention of the use of capital letters except that captions should start with a capital letter. I think that means that other words in the caption should not be capitalized unless it is a proper noun, ie., a name of a person or place. The exception to this would be if the caption is, or contains, the actual title of the painting, and the title contains capitalized words. A good example is at MOS:VA#Example image and caption. In order to remove unnecessary capital letters from the captions in the article, I would need to know whether the caption is, or contains, the title of the painting. I think you would be in a better position to know that at a glance; I could do it but would have to look at the file for each one, and even then I couldn't be sure the file name is the actual title or not. Do you want to review the captions in Gerrit Dou?

The captions should

• be a sentence fragment, or fragment plus a complete sentence;

• start with a capital letter

• not end with a period unless it ends with a complete sentence. This is from MOS:CAPTIONS#Formatting of captions:

• Captions normally start with a capital letter.

• Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period.

• not have any capitalized words unless it is a proper noun (name of a person or place), unless it is, or contains, the title of a painting -- see this example from MOS:VA#Example image and caption:

Francisco Goya, Charles IV of Spain and His Family. 1800–1801. 280 × 336 cm. Oil on canvas. Museo del Prado, Madrid.

Also see MOS:VA#Image captions:

The minimum information that needs to be included is:

• Artist name – linked for at least his/her first caption, except where the article is a biographical one about the artist. The name should not be in bold text.

• Title of work in italics, – wikilinked if there is an article on the work. This may not apply to older works where there is no original title, and the subject is obvious, such as in a still-life. Include title of the work in English whenever possible, including the title in its original language is unnecessary unless there is no English translation available.

Extra information which can be included:

• Date of work—usually date completed if it took more than one year,
• Medium and support, especially if not oil on canvas,
• Size—particularly helpful for unusually large or small works. There is not usually room to do this in both inches and centimetres, as the MoS prefers. Always put height before width. If they are known, and are not on the image file, please add there, whether or not the caption or article text is giving them.
• Collection or whereabouts (optional, as should be on image data), linked in most cases.

Note: some editors prefer "Title, Artist" to the other way round. This should be consistent within an article. A short explanatory caption is often desirable, showing why the picture has been included, if necessary at the expense of some of the more technical information. Bear in mind image size preferences when writing long captions – a long caption may look good at 300px, but not at 180px. If any of the above is known, but is not included in the image file details, then it should be added there.

(I decided to add the rest of that section here.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, I looked at Gerrit Dou. I see you put titles of paintings in italics in captions. I noticed one, right in the middle, where you left Gerrit Dou's name before "Self portrait", and "Self Portrait" is not in italics as the others are. Is "Self portrait" the actual title for those paintings? If you don't include his name before the other self portraits, then it doesn't need to be here, either. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

.CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You probably know all this, but I thought I'd put it all in one place for future reference. CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will you be kind and fix this for now? I have a bit of problem now with time press, by the way that picture would make a great FP! Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll work on the captions later today. CorinneSD (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Will help if I make it. Hafspajen (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Checked, but I don't get it. Those are tiles of paintings, everybody is doing them like that . On top of that I have an artistic temperament - that means I rarely do two things in a same way and it hurts me almost to do so, so I really can't help it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'll keep reading about this. I don't mind fixing the formatting if you'll let me know what articles I should be looking at. I just saw something that I wanted to ask you about. It's at MOS:VA#Image resources. It says:

• Commons – very large, rather chaotic, and with very many washed-out old scans (from out-of-copyright books). Everything on Commons can be used without further worries.

It's the phrase "without further worries" that I'm wondering about. I've noticed that the uploader or creator of some of the images on Commons ask that they be given attribution. Saying "can be used without further worries" suggests that giving attribution is not an issue. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

gosh, I always worry. Lately I nominated a pic that has no source apparently. Maybe you should ask {{Crisco 1924}} - I mean Crisco 1492 Hafspajen (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen I hope you don't mind that I made a minor change in formatting text in the gallery and added a few dates to captions both in the gallery and in the images at the right side of the article. I got the dates from the image files. After I had saved those dates, I realized that the picture of the girl chopping onions, the picture of the young woman at her toilet, and the picture of the woman playing the clavichord are out of chronological order. Don't you think it would be nice if these were in chronological order? I wonder if chronological order would be good also for the images in the gallery. I think that helps see the development of an artists' style. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, I am delighted. Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen Hafs, I changed the order of the pictures so that they are in chronological order within the two groups (the three at the right and the group in the gallery), but now the images in the gallery are all different sizes. Can you fix that so that the pictures are all about the same size? CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

sigh. there is an ongoing war between the one who love to arrange galleries chronologically and do't care how it looks - versus the ones who think it's better to keep them pretty and write a chronology list instead. Hafspajen (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you start on going and rearranging the gallery I made - well can't stop you, I guess but than I better remove that article from my watchlist and forget about it, because I can't stand galleries like that. I thought you were only fixing the captions. I fail to appreciate chronological order. Sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen While you were writing this last comment, I was writing a longer one to you, below. Please see my other comments, at the bottom of this section. I pinged you and wrote "HAFFSSS". CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen 1) I just saw a long "Note to editors" (colored light orange in edit mode) about this issue with regard to the arrangement of the pictures in the gallery at the end of the article. I think in a gallery the images should be in chronological order because it helps to see the development in the artist's style. Regarding the images in the first gallery earlier in the article, I see that the last two are kind of small. Isn't there a way to make just those two larger so that they end up the same size as the others? It doesn't bother me that some images have arches and others do not.

2) Another thing I noticed is that there is an image near the beginning of the article -- A Young Woman at her toilet -- that appears again in the gallery at the bottom of the article. I don't think the image needs to be in the article twice, do you? I think it looks nice the way it is at the beginning of the article (on the right), so don't you think the one in the gallery can be removed?

3) I struggled to put the last paragraph in Gerrit Dou#Interpretation into understandable English. I think I got it right, but I still think that it would be nice to add a sentence at the beginning of that paragraph that explains what an emblem is. It starts talking about emblems with no introduction or explanation. That is over the head for the average reader without an introduction or explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't have to be there twice. I hate galleries in chronological order. I worked on that gallery a lot just two weeks ago. I don't think it wold be nice to have it in chronological order at all, because it looked like lump of spaghetti. I decided not to put that in chronological order - because it looked just crazy with round shapes and squares mixed all over the place. If you want to do it otherwise it is your choice but I an not going to like it at all. I am removing it now from my watchlist. Hafspajen (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen HAFFSSS! Don't remove it from your watchlist. I thought you didn't mind my putting the images (at the right side of the article near the beginning and in the small gallery just after that) in chronological order. You wrote, "I am delighted" after I explained what I had done and wanted to do. Maybe you hadn't read my comment carefully. Here it is:

• I hope you don't mind that I made a minor change in formatting text in the gallery and added a few dates to captions both in the gallery and in the images at the right side of the article. I got the dates from the image files. After I had saved those dates, I realized that the picture of the girl chopping onions, the picture of the young woman at her toilet, and the picture of the woman playing the clavichord are out of chronological order. Don't you think it would be nice if these were in chronological order? I wonder if chronological order would be good also for the images in the gallery. I think that helps see the development of an artists' style. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not at all, I am delighted. Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't like chronological order, you should have told me then. Even when you told me about the on-going debate, you didn't tell me what your preference was. I see now that you prefer that the images be arranged in an aesthetically pleasing way, regardless of date. (I should have guessed that, but I didn't.) I don't feel strongly about this. If you want me to undo my edit in which I changed the order of some of the images, I'd be glad to do that. No problem. In the future, please be honest with me about what you prefer, and if you feel like explaining why, I can learn something from you. I really do defer to you in these articles about art and artists. I'm only trying to help. But you weren't clear about what you preferred. Now I know. I like working with you on these articles. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen Sigh...maybe I write too many words. I've got to keep my comments shorter, simpler and clearer. I went back to the Gerrit Dou article to put the images back in the order in which they were before, but I don't know how to do that without losing all the copy-editing I did after that. Please either tell me how I can do that or go ahead and re-arrange the images to your liking, and I will leave the images alone after that. But I'm a little disappointed that you would not read my comments carefully after the time I spent on this article (and the time I have spent on many articles having to do with artists), and that you would dismiss both the article and me so abruptly with this comment:

If you start on going and rearranging the gallery I made - well can't stop you, I guess but than I better remove that article from my watchlist and forget about it, because I can't stand galleries like that. I thought you were only fixing the captions. I fail to appreciate chronological order. Sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I should have thought that by now you would know me better. I would never argue with you about art or artists nor insist on my way regarding images. I greatly respect your knowledge and opinions. I am very much open to learning from you. With that comment, which I copied just above, you are treating me as an editor with whom you often disagree and whom you do not care for very much. CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I was honest and in a hurry - never read the rest but the first sentence, about the captions .... and I succeed to screw up a text that is gone now. Hafspajen (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I read that HAFFSSS: I am sorry that I posted this in the wrong place. Holly molly I do care - stop now - time out. I just thought that I made myself clear already - in the bolded text - and you were still going on talking about it. Hafspajen (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, looks like I post everything in the wrong place nowadays. Hafspajen (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You better go to the history and check in which order the posts were coming - the order of posting - Hafspajen (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Never read this part: after I had saved those dates, I realized that the picture of the girl chopping onions, the picture of the young woman at her toilet, and the picture of the woman playing the clavichord are out of chronological order. Don't you think it would be nice if these were in chronological order? I wonder if chronological order would be good also for the images in the gallery. I think that helps see the development of an artists' style. What do you think? - sorry - I was so totally busy with the Signpost's so had no time for reading it - we delayed with four editions. Hafspajen (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Parsi

Bladesmulti I was just looking at the latest edit to Parsi (I'm not sure it's O.K. since I see no reference), and I realized that the two tags at the beginning of the article have been there since December 2012. I know a lot of edits have been made to the article in the last two years, but I don't know if the citation problems have been cleared up. Perhaps you could look at the citations and see if the tags are still needed. CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Still needed. Many of the citations have been were added to References section, and the {{reflist}} section is titled as Citations, that's unusual. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Panyembrama

Kerowyn I appreciate your edit at Panyembrama and agree with your edit summary. I don't know if you have been reading the discussions at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panyembrama (which site is mainly for voting for featured pictures, but it got into a discussion of "sacral" versus "sacred"), and at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panyembrama, but, if not, you might find them interesting reading. I have decided not to pursue this any further -- it's not that important -- but you can, if you want to. CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's tempting to pursue it, but that way lies madness. I think 'sacred' is less odd, but it sounds like the two primary editors have a strong opinion. I just made the edit in passing. Thanks! Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just saving a link

A puppy for you, Hafspajen (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just saving a link for easier access:

User:Hafspajen sadbox II, for working on translations for Ferdynand Ruszczyc article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just saving information and a link for future use:

Can choose images to nominate for Featured pictures from the google art project. The image must be minimum 1500px x 1500px.

this is a google file, and is not used just put it here to prove it that it can be used on a talk-

Hafspajen Hafs, does an image have to be on Commons for me to be able to put it on my user or talk page? Can I take an image directly from google art project and put it right on my user or talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All, yes, all images are in commons, both the google files and all the others. No problem - only problem is if they are FAIR USE images, but than Stefan will come and snatch them. Hafspajen (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the puppy! It's cute. How am I doing at FP? Just giving my opinions. Am I writing too much? CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you have very original and intelligent remarks. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

add

Add article on your nominations, here it is, Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees ‎ Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that there is now an article on it, but I'm not sure what you want me to do, if anything. I looked at the nomination itself and saw that the article had already been added in the list of articles in which the image appears. CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do, it is passing anyway, just fun. Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you see my latest comment at User talk:CorinneSD#Ferdynand Ruszczyc, and my earlier one in the section just above this one? CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yees, ahem , well, but I am not the English expert... I don't get that part so well Hafspajen (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Charles Bird King - Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Hafspajen (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruszczyc

Hi Corinne,

Re your question about translating the Ferdynand Ruszczyc text: I don't think you need to concern yourself about copyright when translating freely from another language. (Sometimes translations are copyrighted by the translator, not the original author.) The only language I can translate from is German, and when I do I usually find that I don't want to render German constructions literally because their sentence structure tends to be unsuitable for English. I suspect this also would be true with Polish and Lithuanian. I know only a few words / phrases of each, but I understand each is devoid of articles and they probably have different word orders as well.

I can try to clear up some of your questions at User:CorinneSD/sandbox, but in many cases I probably would just be guessing, since I don't know the original languages. An educated guess based on general historical knowledge is sometimes okay, and anyhow these articles often contain extraneous details that wouldn't be meaningful to English readers. As I'm sure you know, the goal is readable English, not an exact translation from another language.

Have fun with "Roo' shtits"! Sca (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PS:

Shouldn't it be "Antares launch failure video" rather than "Antares launch video failure"?

Hahaha. "Throw the horse over the fence some hay." Sca (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PPS:

As a wordsmith, you might be int'd in a few changes I made recently here, based on my newspaper experiences. Sca (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, maybe the video failed, too. ;)

Perhaps it was the launch of the video that failed. Sca (talk)

Regarding the article on copy editing, your changes were fine and added some interesting details. I was puzzling over the latest edit. At first I thought it unnecessarily made the sentence wordier and more complicated, but then I saw the reason for it -- typesetting only applies to print; I think (since in broadcasting there is text fed to teleprompters) proofreading applies to all media. But I still think that the sentence could be simplified a bit, don't you? I was surprised to see an incorrect comparative adjective form in an article on copy editing; I changed "more true" to "truer". (I've noticed that people are forgetting the -er comparative form of some "short" adjectives.) I'll read the whole article through at some point. (This is the kind of article in which one hesitates to make copy edits; there are a whole lot of copy editors watching!)

Did you take a look at the work I did putting first the Lithuanian, and then the Polish, translations of articles on Ferdynand Ruszczyc into good English? I'd like to use this (particularly the translation from Polish) and combine it with what you wrote on Hafs' "sadbox" to come up with an article. CorinneSD (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I just saw your comment above. Will read it now. CorinneSD (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thought you might get a chuckle out of "rim rats." I could have added that in some locales copy-editing was known as "rimmin'." Ha.

Ever seen Deadline – U.S.A.?

Like the pix on your user page. Are you an Ami, Brit, ANZie or something else? Sca (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I did get a chuckle out of "rim rats". I've never been a copy-editor. I've just taught and corrected writing for twenty-five years. I'm glad you like the pictures. I'm an American. What's an "Ami" or an "ANZie"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ami = American (German slang). ANZie = my invention for someone from Australia or New Zealand, based on ANZAC. Sca (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I had already known and studied several Romance languages, and Russian, when I took a semester of German in college. I picked up the accent with no problem but found the grammar quite difficult, specifically, all the endings on the nouns and adjectives, and I gave up. I would like to study it some day, maybe just on my own. CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, German grammar is unheimlich kompliziert. Unfortunately, yours truly never learned it completely, but I can read German quite well.

My hat is off to you regarding Russian. I tried to learn a bit of it while married to a Russian-speaker (from Lithuania). The main thing I remember her teaching me was, "Есt, Госпоҗа Наҷалник!" (did I get that right?) — supposedly meaning, "Yes indeed, Madame Authority!" I can generally make out the Cyrillic Alphabet, with difficulty.

You want a complicated language? Lithuanian has seven cases.... Sca (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? I had always thought it had eleven cases and that it kept more of the cases of the original Indo-European languages than any other IE descendant. I'll have to take a look at the Lithuanian article. Yes, I found Russian difficult, and that was at a time when there were no Russians in this country with whom one could practice speaking. Now I can barely read the Cyrillic. CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Nouns and other parts of nominal morphology are declined in seven cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, and vocative," according to our article. Sca (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I just carefully read the first few sections of the Lithuanian language article and skimmed the rest. You're right, of course, that there are seven cases in the nouns, but I found two things that would explain the higher number that I remembered:

1) In the section Lithuanian language#Grammar, the third paragraph reads:

• There are twelve noun, five adjective, and one (masculine and feminine) participle declensions.

2) and in the sub-section "Nouns" in the section Lithuanian language#Old Lithuanian, it tells us:

• Compared to the modern language, there were three additional cases, formed under the influence of the Finnic languages.

so, seven plus three equals ten.

Lithuanian is an interesting language. I read that the language has assisted historical linguists in reconstructing Proto-Indo-European because some of the language has similarities to the Slavic languages while other things are similar to Sanskrit and Latin. CorinneSD (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I see. Complicated.

I can tell you one thing about Lithuanian: There are an awful lot of whispery iss and sh sounds in it! Also, Latvian seems to be a somewhat simpler form of the same root language.

A while back I had an exchange with some ('East') Indians about the supposed relationship between Lithuanian and Sanskrit (see 'Baltic languages' and 'Miłosz re Lithuanian, Sanskrit'). They basically said they're not really related. Of course, I know nothing about Sanskrit. Sca (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: I remember seeing a pointing sign at a gas station in Vilnius that said "ỊVAŽIAVIMAS" (six syllables), and being amazed when informed by my Lithuanian companion that it meant simply "entrance." Sca (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, those (East) Indians were misinformed. Lithuanian is just on a different branch of the Indo-European language family. There are many similarities, as the article on Lithuanian makes clear. That's interesting -- a six-syllable word for "entrance". I know nothing about Lithuanian, but, just guessing from the letters, I see "vaz", which is pretty close to "vas", "you go", in Spanish -- maybe "[You] go in [here]". CorinneSD (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

Since you know something about Lithuanian, you probably know there was another language in the group: Old Prussian. Ironic that before they died out the Old Prussians (Pruzzen) gave their non-German name to the Kingdom of Prussia (Königreich Preußen), which ultimately (in 1870) unified Germany — for a while. But don't get me started ... I find Baltic history fascinating. Sca (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sca I just saw this. The only thing I know about Lithuanian is what I read in the article, and that was a few days ago so I only remember a little. Now I'm curious about the Estonian language and how that differs from Lithuanian and Latvian. I've got to read the Estonian and Latvian language articles. I don't know much about European history, but the little I do know is interesting. If Pruzzen was not German, what was it? CorinneSD (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Roque de Agando

@Sca: I was just reviewing the latest votes and comments on the first few Featured picture candidates when I saw that no one picked up on my joke in my comment at WP:Featured picture candidates#Roque de Agando. (See the beginning lines of the nomination.) I also don't understand the reference to the Germans. The photo was taken and uploaded by a Spanish-speaker. CorinneSD (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get either one. Doh! Sca (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

To understand my joke, read where is says, "Reason", at the beginning of the nomination.

I just found the reason for the reference to Germans in the nomination comments. It's in the last paragraph of the lead in the article Roque de Agando. I guess it pays to read the linked article. (Now I want to find out who the Guanches were.) CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sca, did you see this? CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Looked at the article.

Alas, still don't get the ref to June Cleaver. Doh. Sca (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to copy the first lines of the WP:Featured picture candidates#Roque de Agando nomination here:

• Reason

This is A Very Cleaver Image Sould Be I In This Places In Spain and The Canary Islands.

In addition to other spelling and grammatical mistakes, "clear" is spelled "cleaver". I think it should read:

"This is a very clear image that should be in [the articles?] on Spain and the Canary Islands."

But "Cleaver" is the last name of the lead characters in a long-running U.S. television program, "Leave it to Beaver": Ward Cleaver and June Cleaver. I guess only someone familiar with that television series would recognize June Cleaver's name. But surely you noticed the misspelling? CorinneSD (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think National Names (?) is Russian. He might even meant clever image. Hafspajen (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the character. I used to watch Leave it to Beaver with my kids. Billingsly & Beaumont were great. Guess my synapses didn't quite connect "cleaver image" with the show ... doh. Sca (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Have to say his image taste is good though, even if he spells everything with a capital letter. Hafspajen (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Caption format

more Frit - derivatives -Jan van Kessel the Elder (1626–1679)

@Hafspajen:, @Crisco 1492: I noticed that there is a difference in the format of captions for the images in Hendrick ter Brugghen and Gerrit Dou. Which format do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Do you like this? Just added it to the article. File:Henri Edmond Cross - Regatta in Venice - Google Art Project.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the colors and the composition, but I'm not crazy about the pointillism (the dots). I think in this particular painting, the eye is distracted by the dots and the composition is obscured.

I don't think it is necessary to add dimensions to the captions, it is a lot of extra work, and it is in the file descriptions. Same with museums. Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(Please read this carefully.) I wasn't referring to dimensions. In the Gerrit Dou article, the date appears after the title of the work followed by a comma: title, date. In the Hendrick ter Brugghen article, the date appears in parentheses after the title: title (date). I was trying to get consistency. I just re-read the article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts, and I believe we ought to follow the example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Example image and caption. I've copied the Goya example above. The pattern is: painter, (comma) title in italics. period. date or dates. period. [skipping dimensions and museum] At the end of the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions, they do say that some people prefer the title before the artist:

"Note: some editors prefer "Title, Artist" to the other way round. This should be consistent within an article."

But I agree with you that the dimensions and museum are not necessary. They are distracting. It will take a lot of work to make all image captions conform to one style (I'm thinking particularly of the punctuation). I don't mind working on it as I come across them, but first I want your approval of the style:

(a) Do you like the style in the caption for the Goya painting, above (with dimensions and museum left out)?

(b) Do you prefer painter first, then title of work? CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I thought I had copied the Goya example, but maybe it's on your talk page. But anyway I provided a link for you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Better / a comma: title, artist, date. Hafspajen (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean, this -

Francisco Goya,Charles IV of Spain and His Family. 1800–1801. 280 × 336 cm. Oil on canvas. Museo del Prado, Madrid.

- thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks.

If you have an article about the artist, you don't want to use his name like seven times, because everybody knows it is his works. Dimensions, museum and such are attached to the file, if anybody wants so do some in depth diving - they can look at the file. It is only a lot of extra work adding that stuff, it makes the caption often overly long and I don't think it makes any good anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ruszczyc again

I did offer a few answers (in ital) to some of your questions at User:CorinneSD/sandbox. Sca (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ki Hajar Dewantara

@Crisco 1492: Hello, Crisco 1492 -- I've been watching the article on Ki Hajar Dewantara. I had worked on it in October 2013, but yesterday, or the day before, upon looking at a recent edit, I noticed that several sections must have been added during the past year by a non-native speaker of English. It was so bad that instead of attempting to put it into standard English, I thought I would look for an editor familiar with Indonesia who could do that. I had forgotten that you had an interest in Indonesia, so I left a note similar to this one on Gunkarta's talk page. S/He worked on it, and while it seems a little better, it is clear that s/he is also a non-native speaker, so it still needs some work. Do you feel like taking a look at it? While you're there, you can compare the way it was to the way it is now, the before and after. Ki Hajar Dewantara was such an interesting person that I'd like to see the article put into good shape. CorinneSD (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Really glad to see an interest in Ki Hadjar! I've been considering completely rewriting that article (I've got contacts in the Taman Siswa organization, and they have several biographies of him, excluding the one I have at home... but then, I'm in Canada for the next two months). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Yes, I find him interesting. You must really like cold weather and snow to come home to Canada for the winter! Re Ki Hajar, I look forward to reading your changes. On another issue, I just saw a message from Fylb to Hafs on Hafs' talk page that Hafs immediately deleted. To find out more about this, I looked at Fylb's talk page. I started back in August and alternately read and skimmed many delightful exchanges between Hafs, Fylb, you, and others, but mostly between Hafs and Fylb. Then I came to the last few long comments. I had already been distressed to find out that two very nice people had come to such an impasse, but was further distressed to learn that Fylb is having serious health issues. I wonder, between the two of us, if we can somehow persuade these two former friends, both of whom are sensitive and share several interests, to "make up" and become editing friends again. I think it is an absolutely tragic turn of events. What do you think? Do you have any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see Hafs has left a comment on his/her talk page that may or may not be seen by Fylb. CorinneSD (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oil shale in Estonia

Hello, CorinneSD! I don't think we have had any interaction previously, but I have been aware and impressed by your work for a long time. Therefore, I am glad you agreed to review that article. Your comments are already useful because it is always better to learn the article's weaknesses before the FA process than during the FA process. If you agree I will move your comments from my talk page to the article's talk page and will respond there—just to have the discussion about the content on the single page for keeping the process more transparent.

I also would like to convince you that I (or Novickas who has done a significant work with all current oil shale-related GAs and FAs) will certainly respond to all the issues. Due to the real life responsibilities it may take some time. If you don't see any response for some period (up to few days) it is probably because of a lack of time and certainly not because of any ignorance. And thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A question about how to represent large numbers

I've been copy-editing Oil shale in Estonia, and have come across a number which is unfamiliar to me. I scanned WP:Numbers for help but did not see what I was looking for. This is at the beginning of the third paragraph in Oil shale in Estonia#Development during Estonia's independence. The sentence is:

• In 1939 Estonia mined 1.453 million tonnes of oil shale and produced 181,000 tonnes of shale oil, including 22,500 tonnes of oil that were suitable gasoline equivalents.

I want to know if 1.453 million tonnes is correct for WP, or whether it should be 1,453,000 tonnes. CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say either is correct; personally I'd prefer the former. If it were rounded to 1.5 million tonnes it would probably be obvious; equally so if we'd try to write it as "1.435 billion kilograms" (not "1,435,000,000 kilograms"). Huon (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, Huon. I think that, to a scientist or engineer, "1.453 million tonnes" is clear, but to a non-scientist, "1,453,000 tonnes" is clearer. Novickas and Beagel, which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the x.xxx million usage myself. Partly because the article has a lot of statistics as it is; replacing some numerals with prose seems like a good idea.

By the way, Corinne, I dropped by to say thanks for your work :) Then I saw that I didn't get your ping at 16:16 on the 2nd - just now checked my alerts drop-down list and didn't find it in there. Can't imagine why. I've gotten a couple other ones in the past few days. Possibly User:Beagel didn't get that one either? Later, Novickas (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A question about Wikimedia Commons

I have a question about Wikimedia Commons. I do not have an account there. (My user name appears in red.) I would like to ask a question about an image file of the creator of the image who does have an account. If I leave a note on his/her talk, or discussion, page, and I sign with four tildes, will my user name appear in the signature? Or is it better if I leave a message here on my talk page? Can I ping a person with just a commons account? How would I do that? CorinneSD (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget this. I looked and saw that the user has not been active on either WP or Commons in a few years, so it is unlikely I'd get an answer to my question. CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You do have a Commons account; you just don't have a user page at the Commons. See meta:Special:CentralAuth/CorinneSD for a list of accounts linked to this one; you have in fact made five edits at the Commmons with your account over there. If you sign a talk page message at the Commons, by default the signature will include links to both your Commons user page (a redlink) and your Commons user talk page. Conversely, you can also check whether the Commons editor you want to ping has an account on the English Wikipedia (and how active they are over here); if so, you can ping them here. Cross-wiki pings to my knowledge do not work; For editors who don't have an English Wikipeda account (or who have one but are unlikely to check it in a timely manner) you should leave a note at their Commons talk page or, if you're adventurous, at the talk page of their home wiki, whatever that is. Huon (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, User:Huon! I had forgotten all about those edits at Commons. I looked at some of them. It's not important, but I noticed that at the end of the one comment I left on a commons user's talk page, it said "wikipedia user:CorinneSD", but no date or time stamp as one sees on Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks as if you added that link manually, but didn't sign the edit. Huon (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I don't remember what I did. CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

Rothorpe and Vsmith The following sentence appears at the end of the second paragraph in the section Adam's Bridge#Geological evolution in the article on Adam's Bridge:

• The lack of comprehensive field studies explains many of the uncertainties regarding the nature and origin of Adam's Bridge, which essentially consists of a series of parallel ledges of sandstone and conglomerates that are hard at the surface and grows coarse and soft as it descends to sandy banks.

I was pondering the verb "grows" near the end of the sentence. I was wondering what the subject of that verb was. If the subject is "a series", then "grows" is correct. If, however, the subject is either "parallel ledges" or "conglomerates", the verb should be "grow": "that are hard at the surface and grow coarse and soft as it [? or they?] descend [descends?] to sandy banks". But even if one changes "grows" to "grow", it is still not clear which of the two plural nouns is the subject. Can you help figure this out and perhaps clarify the sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be plural from 'grow' onwards, the subject being 'ledges'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

this? Frit? - no - Frits!

Frits Thaulow

gold hoop with gold-capped frit beads

Here is a fine example of the many Fritz on commons, Idiot by the river, Frits Van den Berghe - there is also Frits Thaulow

And here is Frits Jansen, and if anybody more talks about some guy called Fritz I am going to scream soon

File:Lluís Masriera - Fermall penjant amb nimfa.jpg, File:Silver safety pins.jpg, File:WLA hmns Garnet and Diamond necklace 2.jpgFile:Golden ear - hear jewellery (Russia, 19 c. GIM) by shakko.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's beautiful, but I have two reservations: (1) it's hard to tell what kind of jewelry it is, and (2) it is similar in style to the Lalique pieces. I'd rather see some really modern pieces, elegant but perhaps not of such luxurious materials. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, not much to find of the kind you want.. Hafspajen (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, can you read Dutch? In the file for the "Sparkling Vortex" piece, next to "Source", is the following:

• Marc Lange, ontwerper en maker van het sieraad 'Sparkling Vortex'. Gefotograveerd door Marc Lange.

I just wonder what "sieraad" means. That might confirm what this piece actually is. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Dutch - I think it say : Mark Lange, the guy who maked this - more - no.

What do you think about these edits? Hafspajen (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like she removed some sections that had no references. But she also removed some sections that had references, particularly in the first bunch. I think she thought they were diversions, not relevant. I'll need to read the article and look at the edits more thoroughly later to see if I agree with her. It's too bad that editors in the past added material without adding the source. CorinneSD (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Marc Lange, designer and maker of the 'Sparkling Vortex' piece of jewellery. Photographed by Marc Lange". Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir Thank you. In the picture it kind of looks like a necklace, but the part that would go around someone's neck is awfully small, so I was trying to find something that really said it was a necklace. CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I also thought when I saw the pic that it was a pendant. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me look at it again. I'm going to put the link to the article here: Art jewelry. CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at it again, and now I'm wondering. If it is a necklace, where does it open so it can be put on? If it's a pendant, from what point would it be hung? Maybe it's a brooch that just happens to have a long somewhat circular wire at the top. Hafs, is there any way you could look at the original catalog, if there is one, from that design contest in 2007 and find out what this piece really is? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about it - was wondering myself - a rather difficult Jewel to wear. Hafspajen (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And a SNAIL, by Frits Ahlefeldt

Well, thank you for all the images. I really like the painting by Frits Thaulow and the one by Frits Jansen, and I think the necklace is beautiful. I assume you skimmed the article on Frit after you read my comment about it on your talk page. I believe it's about a ceramic used in, or produced by, industrial processes more than art although the caption for the image of the necklace says the long beads are made of frit -- so that's interesting. I'll have to re-read the article to see if the picture of the necklace would be at all appropriate. What I really was looking for is a picture of the actual substance discussed in the article, and any pictures of the processes described in the article. So -- no more images by people named Frits or Fritz, O.K.?

Hafs, what happened with you and Fylb? I saw the last two farewell exchanges, then skimmed Fylb's talk page from August until recently, and I saw many delightful exchanges between you two. You have a lot in common, both interests and temperament. I was really distressed to see it all end so suddenly. Then, when I read that Fylb was in poor health, I was even more distressed. Won't you consider making up and continuing your editing friendship? Editing on WP may be one of the few pleasures left to Fylb. Why don't you be the bigger person and extend an olive branch, an invitation to continue your friendship? Ignore and forget the criticisms as much as you can. Make an apology if that's what it takes. Ask Fylb's opinion or help on something. You have no idea how important on-line friendships can be for someone who does not get out much. "Faith, hope, charity, but the greatest of these is love." (Do I have it right?) This is the last I'll say about it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea what happened, she suddenly turned against me. I asked her not to follow around my edits and whack me with a fish because she misunderstood one or two things about Coat's socking - how - I don't really bother . Because she new everything, actually -just never bothered to put together the facts. I really can't do anything - because she banned me from her page, forbid me to post and called me unstable - which I am not, she is not accepting apologizes and she doesn't care.

PS: I did apologize and the next thing was she banned me from her talk. So ... I don't think she bothers much to understand others at all. I CAN*T DO anything. If you are banned to edit others page, it is a major incivility to continue interacting with them, actually it is blockable. Hafspajen (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, I saw that, but people say things like that when their feelings are hurt. You could leave a message on her talk page (or even here), and notify or ping her. Keep trying. I think the nature of written exchanges on the internet (where one cannot see facial expressions, hear tones of voice, or quickly ask for clarification of what someone means) leads to misunderstandings. Sometimes you hint at things and think the other person will grasp your meaning and they don't. They might understand something completely different, and it takes time to sort it out, and in the meantime, the misunderstanding can cause hurt feelings. You know this. Also, when people are going through a difficult patch in their lives, they may be more vulnerable and more inclined to take offense. Well, it's up to you -- completely your choice. I wouldn't blame you at all for moving on. CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't Corinne, if an editor is asking you to leave them alone - you must, otherwise it is WP:Stalking. It is not allowed. and either way, she thinks I am awful, so... Hafspajen (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here

Look at this, [2] - we could use at least three more in the article. Hafspajen (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen Which article? Rene Lalique article?

I just noticed the section above. Hadn't noticed it before I wrote this. Will read it now. CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Some bot has redirected the page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frit&redirect=no - Hafspajen (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess we're not going to find any pictures for the Frit article on commons. It's a substance found, or used, in industrial processes more than art, I believe. But I asked you because I thought you were much better able to find images even outside of commons than I was.

I know, I was working with it when we made design in ceramics at a factory. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. That's interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The picture of the snail is quite good, whimsical but nicely drawn. CorinneSD (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Peace and goodwill

Fylbecatulous

Just a note to say I was sorry to see that your editing friendship with Hafs has come to such an unhappy end. I don't remember your ever having discussed articles or images with me, but I have seen your comments over the last six months or so. When I saw the most recent farewells, just out of curiosity I skimmed your talk page from August to recently and saw many delightful exchanges. It really is too bad, because you and Hafs have a lot in common, definitely interests but also, I believe, temperament. I was also very sorry to read that you've been having health issues. I really think the combination of Hafs' incomplete knowledge of English, his/her often writing things in a hurry, and the inherent difficulty of really knowing what someone means when chatting in writing on the internet all led to a misunderstanding that led to more misunderstanding and then ruffled feelings. I know what upset you -- you outlined it on your talk page, but you know, Hafs was a bit upset, too. Hafs can be clumsy; I've been taken aback a few times, too. But I've tried to overlook those few instances because I value Hafs' friendship and the opportunity to learn from him/her about many things. I think that, sometimes, when reading Hafs' comments, one needs to work a little harder than usual to fully grasp what s/he means. Sometimes I have to ask him/her what s/he meant by a certain phrase or statement. (Sometimes I don't even understand the explanation.) If you value your on-line friendship with Hafs, and being part of that delightful art-lovers group, I'd like to encourage you to reach out to Hafs and re-kindle your friendship. It would just mean forgiving and forgetting what has been said and starting fresh. No one likes to see you upset, Fylb. Please reconsider. I wish you all the best and hope you have a very nice holiday. CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Corinne, it is really nice of you to try to fix it. But I was pondering a bit about it and I start to realize that, you know - I don't really want this to be fixed any more. It is a serious thing to ban someone from your page - and it should take a great deal more to do this to anyone. Notice that I didn't banned HER from my page, it was she who banned me. The other editor, the one I asked not to come there any more - it took several month of serious conflicts (even conflict on the Simple English Wiki, where my page was vandalized 18 times by an IP, and still as we speak it is vandalized) - before I decided to put that warning - stay away.

She decided to do this thing to me - mark my word -after I apologized (!) to her - and removed my comments from her page that she claimed hurt her. This is not the Christian love someone you prayed and worried for you expect to get back. I am sorry, but I am not interested any more. Hafspajen (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... Corinne, I will address this to you. I try to be known as thoughtful and caring with others. I hope my three years of of edit history overall reflects that I am kind, patient and considerate of others. I can be known to have my moments of over-reactions and being unkind, I know.

Somewhere in all this seems to have gotten lost the fact that I am desperately ill. It was actually advised by a physician that I find a hobby that allows me happiness and guards my intelligence. I found Wikipedia.The morning I decided to not allow Hafs back on my page, I was in such pain I could not even gather papers together to go a doctor. It took me two edits to correct a notice from a bot and only five hours later did I return to thank DPL bot and find the lastest action on my page by Hafs.

After Hafspajen left the apology on my talk page, it really should have been my turn next to decide what to do. I would have accepted the apology and archived it all hidden away. (Which I ended up doing anyway). The comments that hurt were not the ones that they removed, but the paragraph remaining that was fighting with me. I did not care about the socks. I cared that Hafs was mad and angry with me. I understand Hafs has an argumentative and emphatic reaction when they are upset and I have tried my best in the past to walk on eggshells, because I really do care for our friendship. Their reaction in calling me MEAN and out of touch with reality and continuing to fight with me as they deleted my edits from their archive and called our prayers invalid (God already gave me a generational curse, I do not need another :( ), does not give me any reassurance that I do not have reason to be afraid of their reaction in the future.

Since I had already said my goodbyes a month ago, and Hafs still came to my page to bring up our past to now argue against me and continue to complain about me and then not wait for my response before making another edit, it really is best this way that I do not allow them back. It is not out of meanness but self-protection, even as I know it hurt them. I am not out of touch with reality as Hafs said on their page. Their reality is vacations in Scotland and work at University. My reality is stark and limited by starvation, falls and the grief of dying. I cannot risk emotional chaos. I wish Hafs well, but I too agree that I cannot try again. I really just need to be able to peacefully continue to edit Wikipedia. Thanks, Corrine Fylbecatulous talk 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I tried. Fylbecatulous, I am sorry you are going through a difficult time. I hope Wikipedia, and each day, bring you happiness. CorinneSD (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Corinne, you tried. I could tell a story or two about what I went trough, too. I know all about illness and evil faith, and my life was not at all easy - why are people think always that others have never experienced any trouble but themselves? - But I will not complain here. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Vertumnus

The Three Musicians (painting) The Three Musicians

Extra food for the poor guys

Hafspajen "I wondered why we had not had (or hadn't had) an Archimboldo yet." (Past perfect tense) (or had not seen / hadn't seen, etc.). CorinneSD (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes dear, whatever you recommend, you are the grammar and copyed expert - hope to get it right this time. Hafspajen (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You can, of course, use simple past tense: did not have / didn't have, did not see / didn't see, but after "wondered" we would use past perfect tense because the action took place before the wondering (which is in past tense) -- when you refer to two actions in the past, the earlier one is in past perfect tense (had + past participle). Also, when you refer to an action in the past that took place before a specific time in the past, that action is also in past perfect tense: "By 1985, he had already graduated from college." CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

My head spins. Hafspajen (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? I thought I had kept it clear. Compare:

• I wonder why we don't have an Archimboldo yet.

• I wonder why we haven't had an Archimboldo yet.

• I wondered why we hadn't had an Archimboldo yet. CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful. Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to the link to the Google art project (it's now at the top of my talk page). Then I saw all the links to the various museums. I clicked on the Hermitage museum, and got to the article on the Hermitage museum. In the gallery, at Hermitage museum#Gallery, I clicked on the image of the Diego Velasquez painting thumb|300px. I wonder if you think this image is a good one to nominate for Featured picture.

• Did I follow the right steps to find pictures to nominate?

• How do tell whether a painting is already a featured picture? Do I have to check that first every time?

• Is this a good image to nominate? I noticed that the colors around the edges of the painting are a little lightened, but that may be because of the age of the painting, not the quality of the photo of the painting.

CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a weird glare at the left, it wont work because of it. But it is a great artist, other paintings could work. Hafspajen (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Diego Velázquez - The Three Musicians - Google Art Project.jpg - this? Hafspajen (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't have an article, you have to write one. Hafspajen (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• :OK, wrote that, grammar time. The Three Musicians. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen

• Why is the link to the article in the caption of the second Velasquez image, above, red? There's an article now. Is that the image I should use to nominate? And why does the first image of The Three Musicians look like a portrait and the second like a landscape? I just realized that the second one looks different from the first one. Why?

• I love the painting by Beert. I looked at the article on Osias Beert and was surprised to see that this oyster painting is not in the article. Is it because it is such a short article that the two are enough? CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is just iconoclasm. Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Like this guy, at the article Christmas tree , who went removing basically all galleries - like a just day ago. Just check at Talk:Christmas tree. Do you like the Three musicians? I wrote that for you if you want to do something with that painting. Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hafs, you didn't answer all my questions. Regarding the images in the Beert article, when you say, "it is just iconoclasm", are you saying that someone removed an image? If you didn't mean that, then I don't understand the connection. CorinneSD (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Now - I didn't got your ping again. Yngvadottir said once that it requires a fresh signature, in order to make it work. About iconoclasm (painting and illustration - hate) - some old fashioned people think 5 pictures are to much. So they add only 2. Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

HEY; you didn't answer all my questions... do you like the Three musicians? Hafspajen (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see this question before. Well, I can't say it's one of my favorites. I think it's too dark, and it seems there are very few colors in it, just black and yellow. I just realized that the one above The Three Musicians at the right is a different painting. I thought it was a different view of the same painting. I guess I wasn't very observant earlier today. I actually like the first one -- is it Three Men at a Table, or Three Men Eating Dinner -- better than The Three Musicians, but they're both kind of dark. CorinneSD (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm - well, yes, it is a nicer painting - but we don't have any god files on it, unfortunately. And until than - it will not work. Hafspajen (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My grammar

Yes I'm Mexican and my English is not perfect, anyway "Entymology" was a typographical error, I know as much that it spells "Etymology". Thanks for your assistance. I'm working very hard on the Citrus taxonomy page that I created. Another user tries to correct the grammar but is not knowledgeable enough with the topic, so he misleads the information, which is probably legal. I would appreciate if you can copy edit the page. Riversid (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Riversid I'm glad you were not offended by my comment and my offer to help. I saw that you had corrected the spelling of "etymology", and that's good. By now you will have seen that I corrected a few other errors. I had already gone through the article carefully before you started editing (except for the taxonomy section). I will keep an eye out on the article for a while. Which user, may I ask, do you think has tried to correct the grammar but is not knowledgeable regarding the topic? Since I don't know the subject matter very well, I try to be extra careful when editing the scientific parts of plant articles. I usually defer to a botanist such as User:Sminthopsis84. Now that we know of your interest in botany, perhaps we can all work together. CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Was referring to User:Etaoinspiffy. He edited the information that was referring to hybrids that does not come true from seed, to say another statement that hybrids are seedless or infertile, which is true to a mule but not to citrus hybrids that are usually fertile, besides if you cross a tetraploid with a diploid, which will result in a triploid which is seedless. Besides this he have tagged all over the article, when the information was cited from a source placed at the end of the statement, usually in the next line. It seems that he didn't put any effort to follow the sources, but just placed tagging. Riversid (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad for your mention of User:Sminthopsis84 that claims to be a professional botanist, if so, I would ask you to invite him and to run the show! I'n only semi professional, and very interested to see what he can deliver. Riversid (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as you are careful not to engage in edit warring, I don't see a problem with removing a tag with an edit summary saying, "This is covered by the reference at the end of the sentence," or something like that. (If the other editor adds the tag again, then you would have to begin a discussion on the talk page.) CorinneSD (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Riversid I did not realize that the second sentence of the original copy was related to the third (I thought it was 1st to 2nd, with 3 being a separate point): "The taxonomy of citrus is quite complex. This is mainly because that citrus species hybridize very easily, forming new varieties that are not identical to the parent. Some of them are continuing a new stable lineage only through vegetative propagation, not through seeds, that usually provide only sexual reproduction." The article's current wording is clear. Also sorry that I went a bit overboard with the citation needed, I intended to go back to that but ran out of time. Etaoinspiffy (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Belated reply

Catechism, 1545

"If Pruzzen was not German, what was it?" (7 December 2014)

Well, some educated-guessing here, but from what I've read over the years it seems to have been the Old Prussians' name for themselves, subsequently germanized as Preussen (Preußen). True, the en ending of Pruzzen does itself look suspiciously German, but the Germans would have pronounced the word written with Zs Proot-sen (rather than Proo-sen or Proi-sen), so I tend to think Pruzzen was Old Prussian, at least in origin.

The Old Prussians had no writing system. Their Teutonic overlords developed an Old Prussian language catechism and other religious texts for them, written in the Latin alphabet, though apparently in Fraktur. Sca (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: In Lithuanian and Latvian, the other two languages in the Baltic group (besides Old Prussian), the word for Prussian is Prūsų, which I think would be pronounced Proo-soo, though I'm not absolutely sure. At any rate, Prus definitely seems to be of Old Prussian origin. Sca (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca Thank you so much for all the clear explanations. I've always been interested in typefaces, so now with the links you provided me I see I've got several articles I've got to read. I really knew nothing about those old typefaces. I also know nothing about Old Prussian (or the Prussians), so I've got to read those articles, too. So much to learn! CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Je vous sans prix. Baltic history is fascinating. (It's hard to know much about a people/language that died out three or four centuries ago.) Sca (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca It has been quite a while since I studied French. I remember a lot, but I don't remember what that means. Can you tell me? Also, if you are Swedish, Happy St. Lucia's Day. If you're not, enjoy sweet pastries anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I never studied French, which you can tell cuz I shudda said Je vous sans prie. It's an idiomatic phrase that means roughly you're welcome. I picked it up decades ago in the Fr.-speaking part of Switz. I guess it can also mean please. There are also such dual-purpose words/phrases in other languages I've been exposed to — German, Polish, Lith., Russian.

Linguistic trivia: In Lithuanian, thank you is ačiū, which sounds like a sneeze.

No I'm not Swedish, I'm something far superior: Norwegian. Ha!

(edit conflict)----WHATTT??? Sca ... ??

I knew Hafs would find this. CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That is, I'm of half-Norwegian, half-German descent, but American like you.

Hafs sent me his St. Lucia buns, too. I sent him a reply here. Sca (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been quite interesting seeing the pictures of the St. Lucia celebrations (in the St. Lucia greeting) and reading about some of the traditional foods (on Hafs' and Sminth's pages). I told Hafs (below) that I had forgotten all about St. Lucia's Day. We learned about it in elementary school or girl scouts -- can't remember which. I also just learned about kvarg, or quark, which I had never heard of. CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the only quark I'm familiar with. Sca (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Love these...

Well, the only quark I had ever heard of is a particle in physics, which subject I know very little about. See Quark. Compare with Quark (dairy product), which will make you hungry. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dari language

Omnipaedista Kwamikagami Here are some concerns I had about Dari language which I posted on another editor's talk page but to which I received no reply. I've copied my comments here.

• I was just looking at some edits to Dari language, and I found some errors in syntax and usage, and was just fixing those. I removed "can be considerable" because of what followed, "can be likened to the differences between American and British English", which, to me, are not considerable. If the phrase "can be considerable" (or "are considerable") is desirable, then I think "can be likened to the differences between American and British English" needs to go.

• But then I was looking at the list of differences in Dari language#Phonology just after that. There were some punctuation errors which I fixed. I added one short note to editors (visible only in Edit Mode), but overall, I thought the list was not especially clear. The words "realized" and "realization" are used repeatedly, but -- maybe because I'm not an expert in linguistics so I don't know all the lingo -- those words are not clear. The actual differences -- this is the case in one language while that is the case in the other language -- are not uniformly clear. (Some are clearer than others.) I wonder, if you have time, whether you could look at this list and fix it up a bit. Since there have been quite a few edits made recently to this article, I wouldn't be surprised if you found other things to fix, also. CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• P.S. In Item 3 in that list, it says "Dari, on the other hand, is more archaic". I wonder why "Dari" is used instead of "Afghan Persian" which was used elsewhere. I think that's confusing to go back and forth between "Dari" and "Afghan Persian". Also, I wonder about the use of "archaic" here. Wouldn't "more conservative" be more accurate? CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a new comment on the same article:

• I've just noticed a few edits to the article which to me are questionable, particularly changing a percentage of native speakers from 50% to 25%. I have not been able to find an expert on this subject. User:Lysozym has not been active lately. Is there any chance you could review these issues? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Since "are considerable" is vague, I'd drop that in favor of the more concrete comparison with English. A phoneme or morpheme is "realized" as different things in different environments -- or, in this case, cognate phonemes or morphemes are "realized" differently in different dialects. Questionable how rigorous (literally true) either kind of statement is, but it's common (standard) phrasing. E.g., the English plural is realized as /s/ after voiceless consonants and as /z/ after voiced ones (e.g. /kats/ but /dogz/). Yes, switching between names is confusing. Probably due to the history of edits in the article, or maybe a merge. Yes, "conservative" is better. No idea about the %ages; would need to do research I don't have time for. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami Thank you so much, Kwami, for answering my questions. Thank you for the explanation of the use of the word "realized". (I did study some linguistics for my M.A. in TESOL, and have done some reading in linguistics, mostly related to English, but I don't recall seeing that word used that way. I do understand what you mean now, though.) If you agree that the terms used in the article should be more consistent, would you approve of changing instances of "Afghan Persian" to "Dari", or shall I just leave them? CorinneSD (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it matters which you use, as long as you're consistent and define your terms. There might be reason to leave some instances of the other name, if e.g. some ref distinguishes between them, but IMO it's generally a bad idea to use different names for the same thing in academic writing, where you want to be precise. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kwami. I don't know if I want to take the time to make the individual decisions you suggest be made. CorinneSD (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

St. Lucia's Day

Happy Saint Lucia's day!

---

"Good Morning" Corinne :
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia!
13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Devis (1712–1787) - Mr and Mrs Atherton - Google Art Project

Thank you so much, Hafspajen! I had forgotten all about St. Lucia's Day. When I was younger, we learned about it in school. I don't remember the origin and symbolism. I guess I'll have to read about it on WP. I wonder how Swedes got into using saffron as a flavoring. It doesn't grow in Sweden, does it? Thank you again. You brightened my day. CorinneSD (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wonder too. Have to find out. Hafspajen (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it came in the 1600s. there is some story about the Devil, tvi, - came dressed like a Cat - and made a lot of evil things for the the people this time of the year. So people wanted to put saffron in the buns because the Evil doesn't like light - ans saffron was associated with light, sun and so, because of the colour. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This+ ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Very interesting. Thank you. I think Scandinavian pastries are among the best in the world. CorinneSD (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to wish you Happy Saint Lucia's Day. I realize it is a holiday in Sweden, so I should already have done that. Do you bake the buns or cakes yourself? CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Eh, I let others do that- but in case of emergency cam make rather good ones myself... Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, I will let you know when I am ready. For the moment I lose work all the time when we edit conflict each other. I am working on that section right now. Hafspajen (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, sort of sorted out. I responded on your questions and as usual, you have very good points. Hafspajen (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that was good. Hafspajen (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What was good? Thanks for the two images. I really like the Mr. and Mrs. Atherton painting. Shall I nominated it for FP? What did you do to the first part of the St. Lucia greeting? CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

your fixes, Corinne. AAh, wait .. wait a second! image need to be used. Just caught the idea before ghitting the button. Yes, if you like it you may, but it's not used. wait a week. Hafspajen (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

hm, messed up the, looks like. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, have you ever thought about working with good articles? I think your talent in grammar, sentences and your patience would really be an asset. I think you should start watching those reviews, and add a commentary or two occasionally. Hafspajen (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here, take a look at those and give it a try. In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Hafspajen (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

have you noticed the above, Corinne? --Hafspajen (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I haven't yet clicked on the link. I first wanted to catch up on my watchlist. I'll look at it in a minute. CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone can go there, read the article and add useful comments like - '''Comment''' this and that.Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, start counting the days... Arthur Devis (1712–1787)--Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Geburtstag

Beethoven, born on Dec. 16, 1770

Happy birthday, Ludwig! Sca (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Beethoven would be pleased to know we still celebrate his birthday and that his music is still loved and played. CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Never realized that Dad was born on the same day like him. Hafspajen (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere recently I read that "Beethoven never stops surprising us." Sca (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

Sminthopsis84 I saw the edit summary at Cinnamon. Wow. Let me know if you need any support regarding English. I saw the phrase "is generally lacking" was in quotation marks. Does that mean it was a quote? If it was, then that's a justification for using the phrase. If it wasn't, or even if you're willing to give up the quote in favor of an accurate paraphrase, one of us could come up with a wording that expresses "is generally lacking" other than the inaccurate "There is no evidence". How about, "There is little evidence", "There is scant evidence", or "Strong evidence is lacking"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

kill the plot

James Robertson (monk)? Hafspajen (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• No, this. http://www.merton.org/Research/Correspondence/y1.aspx?id=677 Hafspajen (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's the second one. What a surprise to learn you're interested in Thomas Merton! Is there a WP article, or a section in a larger article, about him so that a proper link can be made? CorinneSD (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This

Geography of ice cream - do you think this is a good title? Hafspajen (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't like it. I prefer "Ice cream around the world". Then it will be perfectly clear what the article is about. CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It was called "Ice cream around the world". Read the discussion at talk "Talk:Christmas traditions". Hafspajen (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Background color

Hafspajen Hafs, what's with that pinkish-purple background on your talk page? Do you really like that color? It's your talk page, I know, but that color is something else, and it's a little dark, so it's hard to read any words on it. Your page is usually such a treat to look at. CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you've just changed it back. It's much better, much nicer to look at now. CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• HATE IT! I just tried to find a color I like very much - but that is not looking like that. Hafspajen (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Winter landscapes in Western art

Hafspajen (Please read carefully.) First, I'd like to say that I think the article Winter landscapes in Western artis both quite interesting and generally well-written. I see you have re-done the lead to ensure that it expresses what you want it to say. However, from the perspective of a writer, I have to tell you that it is still not very well written. I'd like to suggest a different wording that will make the paragraph more cohesive and more concise but still say everything you want to say. I'm going to work on it here so that you can decide. I'm not going to touch the article any more unless you approve of any changes here first.

This is the lead as it is now:

• The depiction of winter landscapes in Western art begins in the 15th century. Wintry and snowy landscapes are not seen in early European painting since most of the subjects were religious. Painters avoided landscapes in general for the same reason. The first depictions of snow began to occur in the 15th and 16th centuries. Paintings that feature snow as a theme are mostly landscapes, even if some of these works involve religious or even fantasy landscapes. Most of these winter landscapes in art history are plein-air depictions of winter landscapes, using the quality of gray winter light to create the special winter atmosphere. Depiction of snow in Europe is essentially a northern European theme.

I suggest the following:

• Winter landscapes, and landscape painting in general, are not seen in European painting before the 15th century since most of the subjects of paintings were religious. The depiction of winter landscapes in Western art begins in the 15th century. Paintings that feature snow as a theme are mostly landscapes, with some having religious or fantasy elements. Most of these winter landscape were painted en plein air – in plein air – with artists using the thin gray outdoor light to capture the special atmosphere of winter. In European painting, the depiction of snow is essentially a northern European theme.

You'll see that I left one sentence out. Four additional points:

1) I added "thin" to "gray light" because when I read "gray light", I don't get a mental image of anything. To me, winter light is not always gray. "Thin gray light" suggests the light of winter better, but if you don't like it, remove "thin".

2) I changed "to create" to "to capture" because to me that's what landscape artists do: capture something they see (or imagine) and depict it in their paintings. They're creating a painting, not creating an atmosphere. Again, if you don't agree, feel free to change it.

3) I think "plein air" does not need a comma when it is used as a noun (as in "in plein air") but should have a comma when it is used adjectivally (as in "a plein-air painting").

4) If you look carefully at your version, you use the word "landscapes" seven times. I think that's too many. My version uses it five times. CorinneSD (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What version? Hafspajen (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll see it above, where I write, "This is the lead as it is now." CorinneSD (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Paine Ellsworth Thank you, and the same to you! CorinneSD (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine 

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vertumnus

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Porträtt, Rudolf II som Vertumnus. Guiseppe Arcimboldo - Skoklosters slott - 87582.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Offizieranwärter beim Sport vor der Sporthalle der ehemaligen Sportschule

Flensburg

According to Ger WP it's the "former sports school", apparently part of the old German Naval Academy. Whether it's part of the current German Naval Academy isn't clear to me.

You could substitute this pic & translate the caption as, Officer candidates exercise in front of the sports hall — without mentioning the former sports school. Sca (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. But I kind of like the picture of the building more than the picture with the officer candidates exercising. If you have time, maybe you could look into this a little further. You didn't find this image anywhere? CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Image at left is in Ger article about the naval academy. I thought it was somewhat interesting cuz it has people in it, & cuz many of the cadets are women. Sca (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suppose they're both all right. As you might have seen, I was in the process of changing the caption (for the other photo, the one that's there) when I saw that the identical sentence was in the article itself just after the photo. I just couldn't leave them there so changed the text and the caption so that they're at least written in English, but the truth is that I was guessing as to what "at the edge of" meant, which I probably shouldn't do. What do you think? If you think the text is all right, we can still change to this other photo. (Can't you find the original text in the German WP and translate it correctly?) CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jutland

Okay, I boiled it down and corrected errors that included called 'Cimbria' only in ancient times — Hamburg is NOT on the peninsula. What do you think? And BTW, why is there also an article called Jutland Peninsula? Sca (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding link to article for convenience: Jutland. CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, replying here to CorinneSD's note on my talk page: the article Jutland has had a hatnote since 5 October 2009 saying,

This article is about the Danish part of the peninsula.

Jutland Peninsula is about the whole peninsula. There was a merger suggestion in 2009 which was rejected, see Talk:Jutland Peninsula#Merge, leading to that hatnote being added.

I suggest you (plural) merge most content about the German part to the article Jutland Peninsula.

However, if you think there is an insufficient core topic to justify a separate page about the Danish part, then open a fresh merge discussion and tag the second page with {{mergefrom}}. – Fayenatic London 00:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unhappy

Re your note re Hafspajen, sad isn't? I wash my hands of this matter. Sca (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. It's really too bad. CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

− 1) you should discuss and not revert +

2) you should try to act civilized

− what are we here for? Ask Crisco 1492, for example if it is OK and rational behaving like this. Read just User talk:Hafspajen#Hilfe bitte! Oh, than I was good to have. Only TWO DAYS AGO!! But now ... edit war! And it was MY work the layout, it was my work that blasted Winter landscapes in Western art article - and I don't usually go editwarring with people who are nice to me. No, if somebody from outside is not getting into this - explaing that it is not OK editwarring - I AM NOT interested. I am not here to help people just for getting kicked in the as as a thank you for being nice. just read this now deleted exchange. Help me please.. and two days after behaving like this.... I had enough problems in my private life and a whole lot other things. If no admin is at least explaining him that

I seriously think that this is not fixable if someone from the outside is not stepping in.

• I am tired of Wikipedia, I am seriously thinking of stopping editing soon. Maybe in a short while.

This is not fun, people getting crazy like this. Hafspajen (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sca, ASK Ask Crisco 1492 IF IT is a good layout you made, but most of all, ask if it is OK to revert 4 times in 24 hours . Hafspajen (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca, why don't you answer to THIS -> you just don't ansver instead of telling Corinne I am not rational?? Eh? Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John William Waterhouse - The Lady of Shalott - Google Art Project.jpg.. yikes] Hafspajen (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said in big letters on my talk page, do what you want with Baluschek. I won't make any more changes. Let's just drop it. It's a dead horse. Sca (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sca, earlier, I skimmed the last difficult exchange between you and Hafs, and I think s/he's most upset by your having reverted his edits on the gallery several times. Come on, Sca, you know that galleries and images are Hafs' special interest. I really don't understand why you would revert her/him and re-insert images that s/he had removed, several times, it seems. That's guaranteed to upset Hafs. You asked for Hafs' help on this article; s/he put a lot of work into writing it and arranged the images in a very nice way. Why didn't you -- why don't you -- just leave the images up to him/her? If you had an area that you felt was your special interest, I don't think you would like it if someone else kept reverting your work -- especially when that person had asked you to write the article. I'm asking you -- please -- to apologize to Hafs, and instead of throwing up your hands and washing your hands of it, thank him/her for all the work s/he has done, and say -- in a nice way -- that s/he is free to arrange the images in the way s/he wants to. (You can still suggest images to be added, or suggest a re-arrangement, on his/her talk page or the article's talk page.) THANK YOU in advance for your goodwill. CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca Sca... Where are you? You know, if you are upset or angry, you can explain why. There would be nothing wrong with that, and Hafs will listen. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding -- that often happens on WP. I'm trying to patch things up here. Help me out. I've so enjoyed working with you on articles and discussing things. I hope you're not upset with me now. I hope you've just gone out to do some shopping or have some dinner. Sca... CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I took the liberty of going to the store to pick up a few things, including some excellent Full Sail double bock, which I'm now imbibing. Soon I plan to watch the news, depressing though it may be. Sca (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I never acquired a taste for beer. I found it too bitter. CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca Sca, did you see what I wrote on Sminth's talk page, to Hafs, and Hafs' reply? This is really upsetting me. I want to be able to interact and discuss things with both of you. Would you please consider apologizing to Hafs for reverting his/her edits several times in a row and for your harsh words about a week ago? Apparently, you really upset him/her. (I don't understand your several reverts in a row either; you could have discussed before you reverted, and avoided this whole situation.) I like discussing things about artists, images, and European history and geography with both you and Hafs. It will be distressing for me to have to keep discussion with you separate from discussion with Hafs on the same topic. Please do this for me, Sca.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I already apologized to Hafspajen for the Baluschek fracas on his talk page:

Like -"sorry I reverted you for 4 times, after all the things you did for me..." or something similar.Hafspajen (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry I reverted you however many times — though I didn't actually revert, I re-edited. Now, go ahead & revert me — I don't care. Sca (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(I see he's converted that whole section into small faint-pink type that can't be read in normal mode.)

Also told him I'd learned a lot from him – which I freely acknowledge – and begged him not to let minor disagreements ruin our working relationship. I posted my xmas greeting on his talk page. I've repeatedly given him carte blanch to do whatever with Hans Baluschek. As I told Yngvadottir , I'm sick to death of this whole subject. I just want to move on.

I've taken his talk page off my Firefox list of favorite places on WP, and at this point I'm just avoiding him. I won't say anything about my view of his rhetoric in this matter, but I will say I'm tired of being blamed (perhaps also by you?) for the whole thing; it takes two to tango tangle. You don't think I was upset? I thought Hafspajen was my friend!

I'm truly not one to harbor a grudge. If he wants to let bygones be bygones, that would be absolutely fine with me. But I'm not going to keep on begging. Sca (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Menno Simons

I'm reading the article on Menno Simons. In the section Menno Simons#Anabaptists is a blockquote. However, it had those large blue curly quotation marks around it which, according to the first paragraph in WP:BQ, are not to be used unless the quoted material is also in the article itself. So I wanted to put the <blockquote>, with </blockquote> at the end, which usually works, but now I can't figure out how to put that attribution line under it. I couldn't find anything in MOS specifically on how to do that. CorinneSD (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The only attribution that is needed is to cite it as a reference. Done. :) Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

T13, I don't think that was what CorinneSD was asking for. He/she asked for the ability to put an attribution line under a blockquote; that ability is given by {{Quote}}. APerson (talk!) 03:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, both. APerson, that was what is there now, but it yields the large, blue curly quotation marks. Perhaps when the regular blockquote is there, just a simple reference number, and no attribution line, is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The {{cquote}} just needed changing to {{quote}}, which I've done. Primefac (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I just saw the change. It looks fine now. What a difference one letter makes -- no "c" before "quote". Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

Frohe Weinachten und

alles gute zur neuen Jahr!

Wesołych Świąt i

Szczęśliwego nowego roku!

Linksmų Kalėdų ir

laimingų Naujųjų Metų!

Sca (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sca! I know the first one is German, and I can kind of figure out what it means, but not completely. I don't know what the first line means, except for "und" -- and. I think the second line means "All/Everything good in the new year". Can you tell me what the first line means? I figure the other two are versions of the same message in two other languages, but which languages? Is the second one Polish? What is that letter at the end of the first word in the third version? Thank you, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, too. I'm glad you're not upset with me. CorinneSD (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

First line: Joyous (happy) Christmas and... (Christmas tree = Weinachtsbaum.)

Second greeting is the Polish form of the same thing. Merry Christmas and... (I think Świąt literally means saints or saints' days, i.e. it's idiomatic. Don't ask me how to pronounce Szczęśliwego!)

Third greeting is Lithuanian.

English, German, Polish and Lithuanian are the languages of the four (or five - UK) countries I've either lived in or traveled extensively in, but I don't speak Polish or Lithuanian.

Thanks for taking an interest. Sca (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca I found an interesting table: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Germanic_languages

CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Frisian

Try this. Sca (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Try this"? I was just reading that article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you ask me for help? Sca (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, here's the sentence I revised in an effort to fulfill your request:

Most of the Frisian Islands are protected areas, and an international wildlife nature reserve is being coordinated between the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Natural gas and oil drilling continue, however, and in the vicinity of the Ems, Weser and Elbe estuaries ship traffic causes tension between wildlife protection and economic necessity.

Hope it works. Sca (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw your sentence in the article; it's very good -- perfect, in fact. I just didn't know what you meant by "Try this". I guess you meant "Look at what I have written". You're a good writer, and thank you for your quick response. CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. Sca (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Orchid

What do you think about the Orchid article? Wonder about the section Uses? Rather poorly illustrated.

Hafspajen (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

First let me thank you for the beautiful photos of orchids. Then, let me say how happy I am to hear from you. Now, I'll respond. Well, it's a long article; I will read it in a little while. I read the "Uses" section. It's written all right. I don't know what you mean by "rather poorly illustrated". Do you mean that it has only one image? Or do you mean that the image that is there is not a good one? I like the image. I can't think why you wouldn't except perhaps that the background is dark. Do you think the section needs more than one image? Or maybe the image that's there doesn't really illustrate the uses of orchids. It's a rather short section. Maybe one image is enough. When I think of orchids, I don't usually think of their uses. Before I read this, I didn't even know orchids had any uses. Maybe one image (besides the image of vanilla drying, above that), showing the tubers either just as tubers or being prepared for food would really show uses of orchids. CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

.There are no god illustrations for the uses, meaning the image that's there doesn't really illustrate the uses of orchids... I was thinking about maybe these two. Or is there any other use? What do you think? Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Or this File:Wrist corsages.jpg... Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

'I mean if you have never met an orchid, just by reading that article you would't really have a clue how they look like. Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe some, but not all
• 
  'Mrs Mahler Mem Fred Tompkins'
• 
  'Queen Sirikhit Diamond Crown'
• 
  'Hawaiian Wedding Song Virgin'
• 
  'Chia-lin'
• 
• 
  'Barbara Belle'
• 
  Beaumesnil 'Parme'
• 
  'Chocolate Drop' x 'Pao de Acucar'
• 
  'Empress Frederick'
  × Cattleya mossiae
• 
  'Hermine'
• 
  'Little Angel'
• 
  'Marjorie Hausermann York'
• 
  'Miva Breeze Alize'
• 
  'Nobile's carnival'
• 
  Pernell George Barnett 'Yankee Clipper'
• 
  'Portia'

(edit conflict) 1) I think the wrist corsage image would be wonderful for the article;

2) I wonder whether the "Uses" section could be combined with the section that is now just below it;

3) I found this website: http://www.ionopsis.com/edible_orchids.htm Maybe some images from it can be used, and even maybe some information from it can be added to the article -- if you think it is a reliable source.

4) I found this website about the food gathering traditions of the Australian aborigines. Orchids are mentioned in the 4th, 6th, and 7th paragraphs of the "Plant foods" section. https://www.anbg.gov.au/apu/overview-peopleresources.html

5) I found this website: http://www.mary-cairncross.com.au/rainforest-bushtucker-guide.php The fourth plant down is Tiger orchid (Dendrobium gracilicaule).

6) I found this website that has a sentence about the tiger orchid: http://indigenousdreamtimemethods.weebly.com/indigenous-bush-tucker.html

7) I found this website that also has a gallery (see menu at left) (first you've got to know the scientific name for orchids): http://australiansucculents.com/edible-succulents

8) You might find something about the uses of orchids in medicine here: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/9/625

or here: http://tasteaustralia.biz/bushfood/bush-remedies/

Well, that's all I can do. CorinneSD (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

?? Looks rather wild

I just saw your last comment (before the "Edit conflict") and the gallery of orchids you placed above. Those orchids are so beautiful! I think the article could use a few more photos to show the wide variety of shapes, sizes and colors of orchids. I like the two you placed at the beginning of this section. I know that in the Philippines, many people grow orchids, and I've seen them grown in pots in yards. So, at least one image of orchids in a pot, like the one at the upper right, would be good. I think one image of orchids growing on the branch of a tree would be good, too. Maybe in all of those websites to which I provided links, you could find images of uses of orchids as food and in medicine. CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, those were rather good points. Can you combine those sections? I think that showing one that grows on a tree is exactly what is missing. How many do you think are enough of the above. Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(a) Regarding the two images you placed at the beginning of this section, I like both. I like the one at the right a little better, but there is a problem: it has a round, white disk behind the plant that might confuse a reader if not explained. Is that a special grow-light? If you like that image better than the one at the left and want to include it, perhaps that thing could be explained in the caption. Otherwise, perhaps it's better to use the one at the left;

(b) I looked at the "Uses" section again and realized that there are two sub-sections: "Uses as food" and "Traditional medicinal uses", after an initial general section. That's all right, I suppose, but if you read the first few paragraphs, you'll see that it gets a little far from the topic of "uses". The first paragraph is O.K. The second paragraph starts:

• The other important use of orchids is their cultivation for the enjoyment of the flowers.

Do you consider "cultivation for enjoyment of the flowers" a use? If so, then that paragraph and the two subsequent paragraphs about the organizations follow that theme. If not, then that paragraph and the two subsequent paragraphs don't really belong in a "uses" section. (You're more familiar with how plant articles are organized than I am.)

(c) I think the first image (at the left) in the section Orchids#Flowers is not a good image because it has lines and numbers pointing to various things in the flowers but no legend to explain the parts. I love the other two images, though.

(d) If you include the image of orchids on wrists as corsages, do you also need the image of the orange orchid showing the type of orchid often used in corsages? (That's the one with the dark background.)

(e) Of all the ones in your gallery, above, I like:

• the first and last on the first row,

• the second, third and fourth on the second row, and

• the third, fourth and fifth on the third row. I also like the first one on the third row, and would really like to see an all-white orchid in the article, but maybe the image is not very clear or bright; what do you think? Regarding the Pernell George Barnett 'Yankee Clipper', I think it should be included in the article because the flowers are so different, but can you find another picture of the same orchid that has a little more space around the flowers? CorinneSD (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a very nice, clear image of an orchid growing on a downed branch of a tree. Very natural looking. We could use that. How about the image at the top right corner of page four of this essay:

http://www.australianorchidfoundation.org.au/images/Essays/3rd%20Prize%20Orchid%20Conservation%20at%20home%20-%20Arthur%20Stafford.pdf

If that one is not clear enough, we could keep looking for one like that.

(You might find interesting the author's system for collecting every last drop of water for his plants, on page two.) CorinneSD (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think I move the gallery - (or a copy to Sm) Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That, the round thing - is a price tagg. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes - i thought "cultivation for enjoyment of the flowers" a use. But maybe is not?

You like like Mahler Mem Fred Tompkins and 'Chocolate Drop' x 'Pao de Acucar'? don't know what is your end of the row. Hafspajen (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be different in different screens, in a packed gallery. Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I keep forgetting that. I'll name them here:

• 'Mrs Mahler Mem Fred Tompkins'
• 'Hawaiian Wedding Song Virgin'
• 'Chia-lin'
• the one right after "Chia-lin"
• I like the flower "Barbara Belle", but the image doesn't seem real clear
• Beaumesnil 'Parme'
• 'Chocolate Drop' x 'Pao de Acucar'
• I changed my mind about "Empress Frederick"; the image seems stark.
• I like the flower "Little Angel", but the image doesn't seem real clear
• I like the flower "Marjorie Hausermann York", but the flower isn't very bright
• Miva Breeze Alize'
• 'Nobile's carnival'
• I really like the flower "Pernell George Barnett 'Yankee Clipper'", but the flower takes up the whole image; can you find an image of this flower that has a little more space around the flowers?

Of course I like the orchids that I didn't list here, but I think the images are not real crisp and clear. I also don't like images with a black background around the flower.

You could ask Sminthopsis84 about "uses" (above). CorinneSD (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Heligoland

Sca, could you please read User talk:Vsmith#Heligoland, and perhaps help with my points 1, 3 and 4? CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and you seem to be doing fine copy-editing. Was there a specific point you wanted me to address?

I guess we can let them have their capital letter since it's capped in the Buntsandstein article. I suspect the bicycle ban was imposed because Heligoland is small and there are millions of bikes in Germany (along with millions of Germans ) — so many that they sometimes create a sort of bike-jam in some cities. In view of the island's violent history as a military base, I suppose German planners want Heligoland now to be as wild and untrammeled as possible.

(It must have been an appalling sight after the British tried to blow it up. German WP says they used 4,000 torpedo warheads, 9,000 depth charges and 91,000 artillery shells! What for? And why were they constantly bombing it heavily during WWII?)

Personally, I don't see much reason to call it Heligoland in English when the Germans call it Helgoland. It's not as if we can't pronounce the latter. But accepted practices must be accepted, I suppose. (Why do we call Nürnberg Nuremberg, Braunschweig Brunswick?) Sca (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the lede, we read: "Heligoland was formerly called Heyligeland, or "holy land"..." by the Frisians. I think "Heligoland" is closer to Heyligeland than "Helgoland". Regarding the others, I do think the English name is just easier; it's the way an English speaker would say those -- more natural sounds. Anyway, can you read item #2 at User talk:Vsmith#Heligoland? Maybe you could translate the name of the ornithological group properly into English. CorinneSD (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I would translate Ornithologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Helgoland as "Ornithological Society of Heligoland" — I don't think it's necessary to translate the Arbeit (work) part; it just means that members (voluntarily) work on local avian topics.

I had to search for a while before I found a definition for e.V. It stands for eingetragener Verein, which means "registered association," but probably it's not necessary to translate this into English. The abbreviation e.V. appears after the titles of countless privately founded German societies and clubs. (I would guess an e.V. is similar to a U.S. non-profit organization with a 501(c)(3) tax exemption.) Sca (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Xmas

Happy Xmas! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan, thank you, and the same to you! CorinneSD (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Commas and periods inside or outside of quotation marks

Dougweller Would you mind reading the latest comment by SchroCat at Talk:Ian Fleming#Another opinion? It not only contains inappropriate language but demonstrates an unwillingness to engage courteously in a discussion that revolves around interpretation of the MOS:LQ guidelines, started in the section immediately above that at Talk:Ian Fleming#Full stop and comma inside or outside quotes. This is not the first time that SchroCat has tried to end discussions by saying the other editor's viewpoints were disruptive when in fact they were simply expressing disagreement. CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I should explain that this is the third thread over three articles on this incredibly minor point. I have been willing to listen to others, and have provided external rationales for the interpretation of the MoS. The other editor has not. They have posted misleading statements, been unwilling to listen and deliberately misled regarding parts of the MoS. Yes, my language was intemperate, but how long does one have to engage someone who is unwilling to drop something and move on? In my opinion their actions have gone passed the point of being constructive (opening a flaming ArbCom case, for goodness sake – that was just laughable). My patience with them has evaporated, I am afraid.b- SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

CorrinneSD, the language is not inappropriate when you take into account the frustrations one suffers when people don't want to listen. He has also not helped his case by taking his quest to ArbCom where, let's be honest, he made a fool of himself. This really is such a minute matter and I think his time could be better spent elsewhere. Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, Cassianto, I was unaware of the long history of discussion regarding this issue. You might also forgive Anomalocaris for filing an ArbCom case out of a sense of frustration that may be equal to your own. Just so that you know, until this time, I have had very little interaction with Anomalocaris. I have read and re-read MOS:QUOTEMARKS, particularly the section MOS:LQ, as well as Quotation marks in English, particularly Quotation marks in English#Typographical considerations, and have not found anything that says commas and periods go outside the final quotation marks if the quoted material is not the entire sentence from the original text. In fact, the only thing I found that seems remotely related to this is in MOS:LQ. I will copy the statements and the examples here:

• Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside.

Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."

Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".

From the material inside the quotation marks in the second example, it is clear that the meaning of "fragment" in the second sentence (before the examples) is "grammatically incomplete sentence", not "a portion of a longer sentence".

Another thing that would argue against your interpretation of "fragment" as being "a part of a longer sentence that appears in the original text" is that, in fact, more often than not, I believe, what is quoted in articles is not always the entire sentence that appears in the original text. It is often just a part of that original sentence. However, even that part may be a grammatically complete sentence, and might even be the last part of that original sentence. It would make for a lot of confusion among copy editors if, in order to decide whether a period or comma goes inside or outside of final quotation marks, they had to determine whether the quoted material was the entire sentence in the original or only a part of it. I never heard this kind of requirement before. In my experience, it all depends upon whether what is inside the quotation marks is a grammatically complete sentence or not. In American style, there is no problem; commas and periods uniformly go inside final quotation marks. When I started editing on WP and saw changes (often edits, revert, edits, etc.), I read the MOS carefully. I was persuaded that it was logical ("logical quotes") to put commas and periods outside if it was just a single word or a phrase, but to put commas and periods inside if it was a grammatically complete sentence. (I could even be persuaded to limit this to the times when a final, end-of-sentence period in the quoted material "coincides with the end of the sentence containing it", as above.) Only now, reading your exchange on the talk page of the Ian Fleming article, do I see that there is another understanding of logical quotes. To me, your interpretation -- that commas and periods go outside the final quotation marks if it is not the entire sentence in the original text -- is not only not logical, it is not supported by either statements or examples in WP:MOS. I am not going to argue over this any further, however. I just hope that we end up editing different articles so this doesn't come up any more. I would, though, appreciate it if you could point out something in WP:MOS that supports your point of view. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Peace and goodwill toward our fellow men and women, and that includes you two and Anomalocaris. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Bless you for the copying it all here. Unfortunately, it's irrelevent where it's copied to, I still think we should move on. Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Following an edit conflict while you archived your page, the following wasn't saved.mfeel free to archive this as well, but I feel a response is appropriate, particularly the final sentence:

"From the material inside the quotation marks in the second example, it is clear that the meaning of "fragment" in the second sentence (before the examples) is "grammatically incomplete sentence", not "a portion of a longer sentence"." No. It is not clear at all. 1. The MoS does not say "a grammatically complete sentence" (or incomplete one). 2. A sentence can be as short as one word. 3. I have provided British style guides which point out how this is followed in BrEng. If there is an ENGVAR difference between the two, then BrEng LQ should take precedence over a foreign version. CorinneSDlet oo many KBs have been needlessly wasted on this topic, but I can only hope I never have to come into contact with Anomalocaris on any other articles. His method of obfuscation, making misleading statements and deliberately twisting the MoS to suit his own ends are all things I can best do without. I hope you enjoy what is left of your Christmas Day, and the remainder of the festive season. - SchroCat (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD: I agree with your initial thoughts regarding the latest comment (of 22:45, 24 December 2014) by SchroCat at Talk:Ian Fleming#Another opinion and I disagree with every excuse offered for it.

SchroCat says here and elsewhere that the disagreement is over an incredibly minor point, but evidently SchroCat cares a great deal about it. Whether a disagreement is over a minor point or a major point has no bearing which side has the better analysis and does not affect the obligation of all parties to be civil and assume good faith.

SchroCat says I have posted misleading statements. I never posted any statement intended to mislead.

SchroCat says I have been unwilling to listen. On the contrary, I have patiently engaged with SchroCat. It is SchroCat who has been unwilling to listen. Just for one of many examples, SchroCat freely admitted at Talk:Ian_Fleming#Full stop and comma inside or outside quotes, at 10:44, 21 December 2014: "your wall of text is tl;dr", which means "to long; didn't read" — yet SchroCat accuses me of being unwilling to listen. Notably, SchroCat's comment was in response to a message I carefully wrote in short paragraphs, with bold headings, to avoid a monolithic wall of text. Also notably, my detailed comment was necessary to end SchroCat's repeated editing of my comments, a serious violation of WP:TPO, which prohibits editing the Talk Page comments of others except in very limited circumstances.

SchroCat mentions I took the step of "opening a flaming ArbCom case". Yes, I filed a request for arbitration, not over the underlying disagreement over the plain meaning of MOS:LQ, but because SchroCat, a party to that discussion, arbitrarily ended the discussion by using Template:Discussion top in violation of the prohibition against its use by a party to the discussion. Before filing my request for arbitration, I urged reconsideration on SchroCat's talk page, but SchroCat deleted my comment in the same minute I posted it. As soon as I understood that Wikipedia has intermediate methods of dispute resolution, I withdrew my request for arbitration. There was an apparent consensus that the request for arbitration should be denied, not on the merits, but simply because Wikipedia prefers that intermediate levels of dispute resolution should be tried first. While my request for arbitration remained open, every person who had anything to say about it agreed that SchroCat was wrong to violate the prohibition against a participant in a talk page discussion using Template:Discussion top to end the discussion.

After reviewing the revision history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the archived discussions at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style, I believe that CorinneSD correctly understands the meaning of the word "fragment" in MOS:LQ. — Anomalocaris (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)