User talk:Stfg/Archive 11

Active discussions

Italy is a great power like others

Here are 2 links.I can find tons for India and Brazil too.



You are misunderstanding the article completely. You can post your arguments on the article talk page. Please do not post on my talk page again. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry.I did it. (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sparkman High School

Re edit request... someone reinserted the part you'd removed, almost immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted the re-addition, mainly because the implication of post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for WP:NPOV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Stfg (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
That's what it is in Latin, you know, ..... (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi there!

I'm the person who requested the edit to the Kiss page on 2 October 2013. Thank you for doing the needful. Whenever you have the time, please do visit the Talk page of Man, and read the request that I had made on 12 February 2013 and what transpired after that. You will then realize the reason for my request on the Kiss page and the fact that I fully expected to see what I asked to be edited.

I believe that editors on Wikipedia should be aware of what some people are up to. You'll get a full description there and in the message that I left Jimmy Wales. Do be on the lookout for similar Indian claims.

My best wishes to you!

Andrew Cabral — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, nice to meet you. There's agenda-driven editing from many sources here, unfortunately. It's a mistake to make (or to believe) sweeping generalizations about Indian or any other large group of editors. In "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", there are bound to be a few bad apples. My own approach is simply to do what can be done, piecemeal, to report the naughty ones, again piecemeal, and to avoid getting emotionally involved as far as possible. I think this is the only way to survive the Internet. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


You recently participated in the FAC review of L'Arianna which resulted in the article's promotion. Could you spare a minute to look at, and possibly make a comment on, a discussion on the article's talkpage, here, about a change to the article's lead image. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, congratulations on getting it to FA. Personally I find the Titian more dynamic, and therefore more interesting, than the Turchi, but that's only a personal preference. I have no idea how much the fact of being a contemporary painting weighs in these questions. So I don't feel qualified to weigh in there. By the way, though, I do agree with Amandajm about the semicolons. Overuse of them can come to seem like a tic. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

in case of isfahan city center's exact GLA thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James2ford (talkcontribs) 12:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The second of those is actually a copy of the Wikipedia article, so we can't use it as a source. But the first one does nicely. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the October blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Include Movie

Hello Srfg, i wanted to say that a movie I Love New Year is not included in List of bollywood films of 2013. Its releasing date is December 30, 2013. You can open its article and check. So also include it in the list. Thank You. ( (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

Hi. Please just make {{Edit semi-protected}} requests on the talk page, not here. I sometimes deal with such requests, but I'm not generally maintaining that list. As it happens, there's a problem with that 30 December release date. I've posted at Talk:List of Bollywood films of 2013 and tagged the film's article with {{Failed verification}}. --Stfg (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection Request

User:Celeb13.PK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. (Celeb13.PK (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

The place to make such requests is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (shortcut WP:RFPP). I've made a request there on your behalf. Sorry I can't do it myself, but I'm not an administrator. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comfort women

I'm puzzled why you flagged the New York Times article as failing verification. It seems to hit all the points in the preceding sentence. --Yaush (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please would you refer to Talk:Comfort women#Edit request on 21 October 2013 (the first of the three sections with that title), where I point out three claims that are not supported by that source. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Dear

Sorry for protection request dear. I wasn't know that you are not a administrator. Cheers. (Lifebouy (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))


Good afternoon, can you tell me this song is in F major or in G-flat major ? (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Assuming they are tuning to A=440, it's in F. Rgds, --Stfg (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Between F major and G-flat major ? (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I say, it depends what they are tuning to. But I would say it's most likely F major. G/F is quite an unusual key. --Stfg (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The second song's key is higher than the first song. (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

But not by a whole semitone. One last time, this is a question of tuning, not of key. I'm not going to keep on doing this. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. No more of these questions here, please. --Stfg (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


I think you meant Q6 not Q5.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So I did. Thanks for pointing it out. --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WP: GOCE October blitz barnstar

  The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts during the October 2013 blitz! For copy editing in excess of 4000 words, please accept this award along with our thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 15:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Stfg (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Google Doodle

Hello Stfg, you commented on the discussion page for Halloween about Google Doodles. Please draw your attention to these edits: Maodhóg (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. Feel free to do with it what you will   --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


I believe I have responded to your expressed concerns, here. Perhaps you would take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just doing the strikeouts and typing my support as you wrote that. It's looking great now. Thanks very much. --Stfg (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates to discuss the revised wording we settled on. sroc 💬 08:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Great job. --Stfg (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Those parts have been unreferenced for years. Please at least try to cope with Malleus. (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

But they haven't been tagged for years. I will deal with Eric's rudeness to me in my own way; I have no real issues with him on content. And if you know that much about it, why haven't you arranged to be able to edit semi-protected articles? I'm not prepared to be dragged on to anyone else's battleground. --Stfg (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Privacy of sandbox

How do I make my sandbox so that only I can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissEnoshima (talkcontribs) 23:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry. It's unlikely that anyone will edit your sandbox unless you use it for some very evil purpose. If you're really worried, though, you can ask an administrator. The way to do that is to copy the following text on to your talk page:
== Question for administrator ==

{{admin help}}
I would like my sandbox to be semi-protected please. --~~~~
and someone will be along to do it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't edit my sandbox anymore

because of the semi-lock thing, is there any other way that only I can edit it but when I link it to others they can't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissEnoshima (talkcontribs) 02:53, 11 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello again MissEnoshima. The administrator who semi-protected it for you has now fixed things up so that you can edit it. There's no way to make it so that only you and nobody else can edit it. By semi-protecting it, Kudpung made it so that unregistered and very new users can't edit it, that's all. But don't worry about it. People don't edit other people's sandboxes. If a vandal ever does so, you can simply revert their edits. Please enjoy your editing and don't worry too much. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Schenkerian GAN

Greetings, Stfg! Your thorough and well-informed comments at the GAN page trouble me greatly, and make me doubtful (not for the first time) of the wisdom of having a one-person judge and jury for GANs. Clearly both the proposer and you know a very great deal more about the subject than I do. Your comment "And that last one makes my jaw drop. There are pieces with no predominants at all!" had me hailing the coastguard, so far was I out of my depth. I take your point about some editorialising, but it didn't trouble me unduly at this level – different at FAC, I grant you. The GAN criteria are surprisingly liberal if you look at them closely. For all that, I really wonder if I am competent to continue the review, given that you point to matters of factual accuracy on which I simply cannot make an informed judgment. I should be very grateful indeed for your thoughts, as one long-standing Wikipedian to another, rather perplexed, one. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Tim. For predominants, see Predominant chord. The commonest ones are II, IV, and V of V. I wouldn't worry too much about your ability to carry out the review. I believe Hucbald is very expert in the subject and merely needs guiding as to how we do things in Wikipedia. That's much of what I was hoping to do with my comments, but I can defer to you about how far to go with that, for example on editorializing. If you can do that and trust him on technicalities, I think we can hope for a reasonable outcome. Most important, since he has real expertise that would be a real asset to Wikipedia, is to keep him on board. I'll keep watching the article and the review. Have you thought of maybe asking someone like Jerome Kohl to take a look too? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Simon. I think we have as satisfactory an outcome as was possible, and happily Hucbald still intends to go on contributing, which is a very good result. We are so much the better for contributors like him/her, even if they don't fit comfortably into the WP mould. And may I thank you very much for your thoughtful contributions to the GAN, too. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


You removed a section created by me on the talk page [1].-sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm ever so sorry. It happened when I was deleting all those duplicate requests it was bombarded with today. I've restored it now. Apologies again. --Stfg (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Elway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Cardinal jersey was retired on November 7, 2013, at half time during the Stanford-Oregon game.<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)



Thanks for getting back. I am sorry about the extra edits, I did not mean to upset you or anyone else. I did not know why the page was not getting updated with my information about Sachin Tendulkar's test match statistics. Hence the extra edits that you deleted.

Could I know I why I am not the point of reference under the statistics on the wiki page? I was the first to send in the request for change and it was plain simple maths to calculate his total test match runs and batting average after his last innings.

I appreciate your time Thanks and have a good day

Sameer Pimpalkhute Sameer Pimpalkhute (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sameer. Thanks for your message. No problem about the extra edits. Nobody is upset, but I needed to advise you against doing it. Updates don't always happen very quickly, but once you have made a request, it is there for everyone who services such requests to see, and repeating it doesn't make it happen any quicker.
I'm not sure if I've understood your question correctly. In wikipedia articles, we don't name the Wikipedia editor who provided the information; we name the book, report, news item or web page where anyone can go to check that the information is correct -- in that case cricinfo. Does that answer your question?
Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Sorry about my english. In es: an IP has report a discordance date of death between Abraham Lincoln and Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. First indicates 15, and 2nd says 14, but this last one has got a source. However link doesn´t point to what source says. Is any way to know wich one is the right and fix it? I fix it then in es:WP. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why you chose me, but welcome. It appears that Lincoln was shot at around 10:25 p.m. on 14 April but died in Peterson House at 7:22 a.m. on 15 April. Both articles actually say this. I agree it's confusing that the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article states the date of the assassination as 14 April, but it just means the date of the shooting itself. If you read the detail in the article, it agrees with the other one. By the way, the link in the assassination article no longer works. It points to something else now, so I've tagged it. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I did it `cause I see this edit and I check you are active. I understand your explanation. However, both intros set different days, and also both infoboxes. So I think disagree should be fixed, or at least add a note in intro itself explaining this, because readers shouldn't read the hole article to understand this discrepancy. Cheers. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair point. I've rephrased the opening of the assassination article to make it clearer. I think the infobox needs to keep the date of the shooting, but with the lead sentences as they now are, that should no longer mislead people. --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Christmas tree

Hi there I have a picture of a Christmas tree in London which I feel would look good on here - can you add it please? I wait for a reply. Thanks David.

page- Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry it took me so long to reply. I don't want to add pictures to the Christmas article. What you can do is to upload the picture and then post at Talk:Christmas to see if other editors like it. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide

Hi,while there are many sources of box office reports for Bollywood films.A consensus was made for Boxofficeindia to use as a reliable source at wikipedia,that's why we are using it for the sake of removing conflicts with multiple sources.I was not aware and consider you a newbie while writing edit summary.Please see here for it's notability as it is used by reliable newspapers.---zeeyanwiki discutez 19:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should edit the first sentence of the lede, which says "... as reported by sources such as Box Office India,[1][2] Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi, and other reputable sources". --Stfg (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, the WP:NPOV policy states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (First sentence of WP:WEIGHT). So what are you lot doing prioritising one source over others? --Stfg (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing: that consensus you claim doesn't exist. I've just read the whole talk page. No agreement was ever struck to favour BOI at the expense of the others. See this edit, and this for other views. --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Could you, if you don't mind, check an edit request I've submitted on the talk page of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Thank you. Japanesehelper (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there. Let's see what the consensus is. --Stfg (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Pather Panchali peer review

Hi! If you have time, could you please have a look into this? Your comments will be highly appreciated in this peer review. not an explicit copyedit request :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC).

Hi Dwaipayan, hope you're doing well. I'll take a look later, possibly Friday. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am doing fine. Thank you. You can take as much time as you need, we are not in a hurry!--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Giatharodaki is back

He has made a second account called Daki122.Alhanuty (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but for two or three quite strong reasons I very much doubt that that's Ghiath. --Stfg (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A checkuser will show.Alhanuty (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for asking for one. If you want to ask for one, it's up to you, but do take care you're not doing it for the wrong reasons. It could rebound. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Urgent Copyediting required

My article is currently on DYK and an editor has suggested for a copyedit. Since I saw many articles currently backlogged at WP:GOCE, I am coming to you to request you for help. It isn't quite a long article, has some 2k characters. Thanks for any help that you may put up. Here's the article: The Siege: The Attack on the Taj. EhthicallyYours! 12:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  Done, just this once. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You had mentioned that you ain't quite interested in copyediting; and yet you took the trouble to copyedit The Siege: The Attack on the Taj. I appreciate your efforts! EhthicallyYours! 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Ethically Yours, glad I could help. --Stfg (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOCE November backlog elimination drive barnstar

  The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Stfg for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words as part of the GOCE November 2013 copy edit drive. Thanks for the great work! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonesey, for this and for all the work you've been doing to keep the drives running smoothly. --Stfg (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I want you to know, Stfg, that I really do appreciate your level of diplomacy. I know we have a disagreement on a current discussion, but I appreciate your work as an editor and how you handle yourself on Wikipedia. You are a fair and passionate man, and that I respect. I hope that we can work together in future endeavors. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Тимофей, that's a really nice thing to say. We had a difference of opinion in that discussion, but no personal clash. You, too, are fair in standing up for your beliefs (and you proved to be right in that case). I hope we will find ourselves working together again in the future. Best wishes, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

  Hi. This is just a quick note as I feel I owe you special thanks for being the first editor to have participated in my RfA. Apologies if you're not so keen on tea! Cheers   -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 11:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I can always slip a wee dram into it   Congratulations on your appointment and thanks for offering to serve. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)



Thanks for getting back and I really appreciate that. I see your point in case of a subjective or research oriented topic. Over here it is plain simple Mathematics to calculate SRT test average after knowing his total test runs and innings. I am his fan and have been following his career statistics match after match. Lastly I was the first to send in the change request ahead of cricinfo.

Please do not misunderstand me and take it in the right spirit.

Thanks Sameer Sameer Pimpalkhute (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sameer. I'm sorry, but I can't work out which edit you're referring to. Tendulkar on 15th November, I guess, but which one? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On Pather Panchali

I am hesitant to post this message, still writing it. If you have time, could you please have a look at the article Pather Panchali? Even if you look at sample texts, and comment, that will be invaluable. I apologize for frequently requesting. The peer review link is here. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dwaipayan, I'm so sorry. My computer went unstable and I've been fighting that, and I completely forgot about it. I've made some initial comments now and may have more in a day or two. As I say there, a copy edit is desirable and I'd love to do it, but it may be a week or so into January before I can. If you put up a GOCE request, someone may step up sooner (unlikely, as most GOCE people take requests from the top, but possible.) Happy festivities. --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I read your comments in the peer review. And that's precisely what I needed, a quick sampling from you. That was enough to detect the deficiency in prose. I'd put the article in GoCE after a few weeks (increasing the chance that you may take it up). Meanwhile, I will follow the comments you made, and if you make anymore comments. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Jesus

This is a note to let the main editors of Jesus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Jesus (7–2 BC to 30–33 AD) is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament. Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return. The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural. In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reporting edit war I'm not involved in?

{{Help Me}} I want to report the edit war currently going on at List of Malaysian politicians of Indian origin (history), which has currently got to 5 reversions each in about 24 hours. WP:ANEW is contructed mainly to enable one involved party to complain about another involved party. I'm not involved and don't wish to be. What's the procedure? Thanks in advance. --Stfg (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple - warn both editors with one of the standard templates (just done that), and you can use WP:ANEW - especially if they continue, or consider WP:RFPP - User:Yngvadottir has done that.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was headed back here to suggest RFPP for next time. Feel free to join in the discussion on the talk page and thanks for asking :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Stfg (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Hi Stfg, it's post-RFA me here! Whilst I'm still unsure (as others were) whether my edits to Luzula wahlenbergii were close paraphrasing, but for the sake of safety, I've tried to change my editing method with regards to biological descriptions. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at my description of Silaum which I've just written - do you think this is better and/or avoids close paraphrasing. I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks, :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Acather96, nice of you to drop by. Congratulations on passing your RfA. As to L. wahlenbergii, the people who commented on the RfA talk page are very good, experienced editors, so although I'm still not quite persuaded, I have to admit that I'm in a minority on that. Anyway, I think your description of Silaum uses a much better style, as it's much more readable for those of us who don't know plant biology. Also, by making use of two sources, you've safely avoided any hint of close paraphrasing, even for a stickler like me.
One thing you might like to do is to see if you can improve your writing a bit, especially if you want to get any of these articles to GA. One way to tackle this would be to get an article to the state you want it, then to use the Guild of Copy Editors requests facility to get it edited by a good writer. Then take a good hard look at the diff of their edit. They won't change the content of the article, but they will improve punctuation, sentence shape and other things like that. I hope this helps. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection Request

Hello Admin, first i will wish wikipedia A Happy New Year. Now, will you please protect an article? This article is about List of Bollywood films of 2014. It is necessary to protect the page so no any IP will include unsourced link in it. Thanks.

===={{la|List of Bollywood films of 2014}}==== Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Yasir Mushtaq Talk 03:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Yasir. I'm not an admin, so I can't do that. To make a request for semiprotection, please follow this link -- WP:RFPP -- and follow the instructions there. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Soham (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Soham. Have a great Christmas yourself! --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy new year, Stfg. Know what? the year has kick-started for me with my first GA! Soham 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yay! Well done! Happy New Year. --Stfg (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hope we'll cross paths while were building an encyclopaedia. Happy editing  . Soham 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Johann Lamont copyedit

Thanks for the copyedit you did on Johann Lamont. You've done a great job and it's reading much more succinctly now. I'll put it forward for GAN and hope for the best. Thanks once again, Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. It was pretty good before I got there, actually. I'll keep it watchlisted, and wish you success with the GA nom. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


In our eagerness to edit, you didn't notice I had already started and I didn't notice your tag. I don't generally use the tag because I get pushback and don't generally mind interleaving. It's all yours now. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep going as I've actually nearly finished. It really is better to use the tag -- I've never had pushback from it, and anyone who objects to its use is just wrong. If you really don't want to use the tag, it would at least make sense to remove the copyedit cleanup tag from the article before you start work. Then it would no longer be in the cleanup category, which is where I found it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


"format to avoid messing the numbering" - thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No probs :) --Stfg (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can it be done with blobs instead, ie

  • things

So it doesn't look like I'm replying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Bullet-points...that's what I meant by "thingys". I've just remembered the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, blobs and thingys are fine :) But I can't see how to do what you want. We have to have a # sign to preserve the numbering and then we have to have something else like : or * to signal that it isn't a numbered !vote. For exampple, if we try #*, this is what we get:
    • even worse.
I think that on an RfA page people will be able to see what's going on, and you needn't worry about it.
By the way, please sign your talk page and RFA posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your contribution is needed

  Hello Stfg/Archive 11, you are cordially invited to join the initiative Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. We're a group of editors working to maintain and improve database of those editors who are no longer with us. All of these deceased Wikipedians have changed Wikipedia for the better in some way. Now, it is our turn to pay them tributes and obituaries.

If you know any Wikipedia editor, who is no longer with us, but their names are not included in our list still, please let us know. Visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Rudra john cena (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Rudra john cena (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


I didn't express myself very well, but you got the wrong end of the stick ... I've never had a negative reaction to anything you said, and I've been nothing but supportive of the GOCE. I uwanted to fire a warning shot in case anyone else wants to get "factional" ... which will probably happen in some form or another at some point ... but I shouldn't have said anything, it was too soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry if I misunderstood. Yes, you've always been supportive of GOCE, but not everyone has, and I suppose FAC may have hade its detractors too. And certainly, if things ever get factional we need to squash it pronto. --Stfg (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE January drive

  The Cleanup Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting a total of 18,507 words during the January drive. All the best, Miniapolis 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pather Panchali copy edits

Hi, thanks a ton for the copy edit you did. I have not been able to be online for the past several days. I will follow up on your comments at the talk page of the article, and alert you when that is done. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year :) I hope you're well. I have it watchlisted. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Tried to add an explanation of the term epiphany of wonder as an endnote. Ended up mostly just quoting the source! It's really difficult for me to paraphrase those sentences without losing the meaning. Is it any better now so far as the easiness of understanding is concerned? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Dwaipayan, I seem to have overlooked this message somehow, but I did see the edit you made. I'm not sure how many of the Hindi words in parentheses are needed, but otherwise it looks like a very good approach. As you say, those sentences are hard to paraphrase, and this way you've made sure to keep it faithful to the source. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the approving nod.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting issue

I am in need of your second opinion or third maybe. I know you are very busy, but if you have a moment to spare I would ask a favor of you.

I am undertaking a major copyedit of the article located here.

I am kind of stuck on the formatting of one of the sections in the article. It is the one called Television shows and series. If you get a moment, could you please take a look at that one section, and perhaps suggest to me what sort of wikicode or formatting code will get rid of the awful blue box business. I mean that thing is worse than the BSOD on one of your computers!

I also left a note for Miniapolis on her page to take a look if she can. I really appreciated the support both of you showed toward me when I first joined the Guild of Copy Editors. I am pretty sure you both got a terrible first impression of me, but I can assure you both that my work and deeds here at wikipedia are up the the strict standards of GOCE. Believe it or not, I am in real life a writer and published author, as well as a copyeditor, proofreader, book editor, etc for like about 17 or so years.

Anyway, I will be thanking you in advance if you have an opportunity to take a look at that one section. Thanks! I hope you will have the most perfect day today!

Ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carriearchdale: GOCE coordinator Jonesey95 has fixed it now and appears to be looking through it. The issue you had was that you put a space at the start of that line. In wiki markup, that creates the shaded box, which you rightly don't want. If you want indentation, the way to do it is by putting a colon at the start of the line. But we don't specify our own indentation in article text, as a rule. We leave that to Wikipedia's own rendering. Hope that helps. --Stfg (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I have replied to your question at my RfA. Thank you for taking the time to ask it and feel free to ask me to clarify anything or just enquirer further. I appreciate questions - I am with Sagan on this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark W. Rocha

Hi, I am actually not Mark W. Rocha. I made a mistake when making the account. I used his name because he is the sole reason why I wanted to make a wikipedia page. I have already requested to have my username changed for this reason.Mark W. Rocha (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk back

Please see this User talk:Jim Cartar#Notable help and you will get the answer why I am here. Jim Cartar (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

See this

See this article. While randomly browsing, I found this article. But I'm not sure if it is notable or not. No proper online source is given so that I can verify. That is why asking you to see and tell me if it is notable. You might have more knowledge in this subject than me. So I asked you. Thanks. Jim Cartar (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The two sources given in the References section are reliable. I think it's notable enough. --Stfg (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

BWV 172

Thanks for your insight to the translation at BWV 172. looking at it again, I'm sure you're right: uf sein Verlangen = 'at his request', not 'their request' as I surmised. Without the full text, it's hard to get the full sense of dargegen, literally 'against that', but I don't think 'however' is too bad. Perhaps Gerda can post the full text of the piece for you to dissect? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean, but there's an old-fashioned usage where a favour (position, loan, ...) can be given against a condition, and I suspect that might have been the meaning there. "However" jars, because I don't see how being required to perform new pieces can contrast with getting a post as Konzertmeister. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bach pictured

Look, we possibly have a new picture of Bach. You think it's redundant to says that Bach named a recitative "Recitativo"? I don't think so. Bachs titles were in the structure until this, - I think we better stress that he didn't speak English, but - for musical movements - Italian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda: Nice picture, if genuine. Could you point me to the change that you dislike? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Certainly, nothing in Nikkimaria's edit worries me. --Stfg (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
(The pic was in today's news.) In the version before, "Structure" showed Bach's terms for movements, Coro, Recitativo etc. After the change, it shows nowhere that Bach used the Italian names. I think it's interesting, - although normal for his time, not every reader will know that. I tried, perhaps you have a better way? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're referring to. Personally, I could live with either version, but you have a reasonable point. I think you'd be within your rights to restore the Italian terms with an edit summary explaining why you prefer them. --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I did that ;) - your turn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to do that (too close to ganging up). I think you need either to raise the issue on the FAC page or to live with it. --Stfg (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP, regardless of your vote change at my RfA. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, --KeithbobTalk 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Symphony categorisation

Hi there, Stfg.

Regarding this revert: It seems you're correct, but I think we need to restructure these categories.

A symphony from any particular period should not be assumed to be for full symphony orchestra. There are plenty of string symphonies written in the 20th century too. The split between symphony orchestra/string orchestra/chamber orchestra and the split between 18th century/19th century/20th century symphonies should be separate branches from Category:Symphonies. Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz. Very good point. Yes, separate branches, and any work should have a category from each branch, if I understand you correctly. It will be a pretty big job, won't it? Do you want to get consensus from the Wikiproject before starting it? I don't mind helping out if everyone's happy with it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've referred the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music #Categorisation of symphonies needs restructuring. Thanks for the support. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put it on my watchlist. Talk page visitors, probably best to comment there rather than here, so that all watchers there will see it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ivry Gitlis page

Thank you very much for your corrections. Emilio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epessina (talkcontribs) 12:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so, Emilio. --Stfg (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Stfg/Archive 11".