User talk:Armadillopteryx/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Howling Bells

Thanks for your copy edit on this article, hopefully it will pass GAR. Do you think you can leave a comment on the article's GA talk page to let the reviewer know that you have gone through it? Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've left the comment. Best of luck! Armadillopteryx (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. =) I'm currently removing some of the excess references. I didn't realize how many were packed in there. :p Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's better to have too many than too few. But now you're improving your own editing skills! : ) Armadillopteryx (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's true. On it's first attempt at GAN, I discovered that I did not have enough, so I added a bunch. ;D Howling Bells and Radio Wars are two articles that I have also recently nominated and they are awaiting review at GAN. I wouldn't have a problem with you copy editing those as well, if you would like. Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to copy edit those articles for you. However, I'll be pretty busy with some non-Wikipedia things during the next several days, so if you need the revision very soon, I can't promise it. But if it can wait a week or so, I should be able to manage. You can also feel free to post another request here in case another editor can get to it before I can : ) Armadillopteryx (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's no rush, so whenever you get time is cool. I can wait, but if you find you will not be able to do it within two weeks, please let me know. ;-) Mattchewbaca (meow) 03:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be able to take care of it within the next two weeks. If, by the end of this week, I find out otherwise, I'll let you know. Armadillopteryx (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Armadillo, you have helped Howling Bells reach GA status! You can add an icon on your user page if you would like. Here are two different examples of what I'm talking about: User:Shaidar cuebiyar and User:Malconfort. Thanks again! Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and congratulations to you! I know you yourself put an enormous amount of work into it. Good luck with the other articles, too. I hope they achieve the same success. Armadillopteryx (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Armadillo, for continuing to watch over and improve the article, it is very much appreciated. The wording in the sentence that I changed yesterday just didn't seem to read correctly, and after my edit it still didn't read correctly! ;D Possess the ability to rearrange the words of a sentence so that it can read properly, I don't. Good job for recognizing that, it reads much better now. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Glad to help! My contributions are small compared to yours, though. I did my best to improve the citation that was added as just a bare link, too, but I don't have as much knowledge about that as you, hence the lack of archive URL, etc. I'm glad to keep a watchful eye on the grammar and syntax. Any plans to try to bring it to FA anytime soon? That would be a fun project, no? Armadillopteryx^talk 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you attempted to provide fields for that ref, that's very good. User:Shaidar cuebiyar showed me how to format refs, and I'm indebted to him for that, because it's a good thing to have the refs look professional. Even though I've recently discovered that he has knowingly withheld vital information from me that would have improved the two Howling Bells articles that you have copy edited, but I digress. If you would like me to show you how to format references or to archive them as well, let me know. FA for Howling Bells? It's a very strong article, thanks to the stability of it's foundation. Three, five, ten years from now while other articles are crumbling around it, it will still be standing strong, as long as it is properly maintained from this point forward. After maybe a couple of more albums from the band the article could be ready for FA, but it currently isn't comprehensive enough for that status. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometime, if you've got a few extra minutes, might you be able to show me how to archive ref links (and/or how to improve them in general)? I could give you a ref that I've written that, to my knowledge, is pretty complete, and you could show me what's missing (or, more importantly, how to find things that are missing that don't necessarily show up right on the article's page). That would be nothing urgent, but it's something I'd like to learn if you have a chance. : ) Armadillopteryx^talk 09:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I would enjoy showing you how to do these. May I see the ref that you are talking about? Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ... how about this one? At the moment, all I can see missing is the archive URL (which I don't know how to find), but I'm sure there must be more. Also, should I include both the "work" and "publisher" fields, or should it be one or the other? Thanks!

Flock, Elizabeth (May 24, 2011). "Aelita Andre, four-year-old prodigy painter". washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 9, 2011.

Armadillopteryx^talk 23:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, including both "work" and "publisher" fields I think is a matter of preference, so since you are the creator and major contributor of the article it is up to you to decide what to include and what not to for reference fields. Aside from their website, The Washington Post is also a newspaper, so you will want to use {{Cite news}}. Wikilink The Washington Post, because they have an article of their own on Wikipedia, but only at the first occurrence if they are referenced more than once in the same article. Their article is where you will find the owner or publisher of the organization, in this case it is The Washington Post Company. You can add them to the reference in the publisher field and wikilink to their own article if you would like.

Let's try the following Sky News Australia reference from your article:

"Four year old artist opens NY show". skynews.com.au. June 6, 2011. Retrieved June 9, 2011.

For this, you have used {{Cite web}} which is correct (Good job!), because they are strictly a cable and satellite news provider and not a print media. Just use Sky News Australia in the "work" field and wikilink to their Wikipedia article. You will also want to wrap Sky News Australia in italics, this reverses the work field in {{Cite web}}, which it's default parameter is set to italics. Only print media like newspapers and magazines should be italicized. On their Wikipedia article you will see that they are owned by Australian News Channel Pty Ltd., which itself is owned by three different organizations. I suppose you should probably just put Australian News Channel Pty Ltd. if you provide the publisher, but I guess if you wanted to you could list each owner separately, and that would be cool too.

If you are wanting to know publishers for websites that do not have articles on Wikipedia most of the time you can find that information at the website itself. Here is a reference from your article for The Village Voice. The ownership/publisher information can be found at the bottom of the page, and in this case it is Village Voice, LLC. Sometimes, the publisher is not so easy to find out and you should look through the "About Us" page on the website to find out more specific information about who is in charge and so forth. I also use Whois to find out who the site is registered to and in most cases the information is easier to find and more comprehensive. When I search villagevoice.com with Whois it gives me the full name of who the site is actually registered to, in this case it is Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. You can see it here This is not always who the publisher is though and if you can't find any different specific publisher information from the references website, than use the registrant information from Whois.

If you use Mozilla Firefox as a browser their is an add-on called Flagfox, it is a very handy tool, this is what I use. After you install it you can just center-wheel click on the flag while you are on a website for whose information you would like to find out about and Whois will display the information.

For archiving the two most popular are Internet Archive and WebCite. You can manually archive web pages with each of them. Using Internet Archive all you have to do is copy the url and place it into the address bar where it says Wayback Machine here and click on "Take Me Back", if it's already archived it will be displayed to you like this for example, click on the blue date and that is the archived page. If it's not archived yet you will get a page like this, click the "Latest" button and it will take a snapshot of the web page and then in a few months or so it will be permanently archived. Just wait some months and then enter the url into Wayback Machine again and see if it is archived yet. WebCite is instant archiving, I prefer this so you don't have to wait. You just go to their site and click where it says "Archive" and enter the url and your email address and that's it! You can choose to fill out the rest of the fields if you would like. To see if a page has already been archived through WebCite just click "Search" and enter the url. I've already entered this reference from your article into both services here and here. As you can see WebCite didn't archive it well, but Internet Archive did a little better job, you'll just have to wait for it to become permanent though.

If you have questions about any of this, I'd be more than glad to help. Oh yeah, and thanks for your latest cleaning up edits on the two HB articles after I got done with them. :) Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for such thorough advice! Whenever I have a little more time, I'll go through my articles and practice this with all my citations. I'll let you know when I get around to that. Maybe you can see how I've done, then. And you're welcome for the (minor) grammar edits on your articles. I enjoy editing them. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went through my two articles and edited all the refs. WebCite really wasn't doing a good job archiving any of them, so I used Internet Archive. However, only a few of them had already been archived, so many of the refs will have to wait a few months before I can add those. I did add the ones that were already permanent, though. Sometimes, a website or news agency's owner/publisher in the Wikipedia article didn't match what I found on the bottom of the website's page as the copyright holder. Also, the Wikipedia article for many of the sources listed a single person's name in the Publisher section of the infobox. That didn't seem right to me, so sometimes I used the owner instead. What do you think about that? If you've got a moment, could you take a look at Aelita Andre and A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade to see if I've done everything correctly? Thanks! Armadillopteryx^talk 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely Armadillo, there's a few things I've spotted that you will want to change and add, but for the most part it's good. When you are using {{Cite news}}, the "work" field should either be "newspaper" or "magazine". Only use the "work" field for {{Cite web}}. For refs where there are multiple authors, like your ref #9 on Aelita Andre, you will want to use: |last1= | first1= |last2= |first2=, and so on, depending how may authors there are. I would say that since you wikilinked the media outlets in the main text, to not link them in the reference section, but that is completely up to you. You may also want to de-link common terms like bark and twigs, because that is just an open invitation for an editor who uses a script to come in and mess something up on your article. For A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade you will want to use |language= Portuguese, and also, |trans_title=, for all of the refs, since they are not in English. And, are you sure you used WebCite, because I searched some of those and couldn't find em? Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the publisher/owner thing. Unless it specifically says publisher than I would use the copyright holder, like you have. I don't know if you're talking about this in particular: Globo, but if it was me I would not use Roberto Marinho. For one, the guy is dead, so he is definitely not the publisher. And two, it doesn't give a specific publisher, so yeah, what you have used is cool. Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt, thanks for the advice. I'll make these changes. What I meant with my question about the publisher applies to sources like The New York Times, which in its infobox states that its publisher is a single person (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.). This isn't the only source that gave me this issue. It seemed more logical to use the owner instead in cases like these, right? That's not the same as the Globo article, which doesn't quite call Roberto Marinho its publisher. Let me know if you want more examples of what I'm getting at if that would be helpful. Thanks again! Armadillopteryx^talk 22:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I would use Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., since he is indeed the publisher. Any other Wikipedia articles where it mentions a particular individual as publisher, I would use them as well. I don't understand Portuguese, so I don't know where to look on those references' web pages for who the publisher may be, but they may mention a specific individual or organization other than the copyright holder. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I changed all of the "work" fields within the cite news parameters to "newspaper" or "magazine," and I've added the language and title translation fields to A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade. There are 3 English sources in that article, and I chose to specify the language as English there to distinguish them from the Portuguese sources. Is that all right? Armadillopteryx^talk 23:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it says at {{Cite news}} that if the default language is English than do not use this parameter, but if you want to use it, there's nothing wrong with that. The only thing is, is that a particular editor may come across it and decide to remove it using a script and it could mess something else up in the article. For ref #8, you can either not use title translation or use the English translation. For ref #10, the site is registered to: Tutela Empresarial Ltda. If I could read Portuguese I would try to look for a publisher, but when I look at all the words and I'm like, whaaaaaa??? ;D Mattchewbaca (meow) 00:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, how did you find out where #10 was registered? I tried searching "whois" on that site, but it didn't return anything for me. I removed the English translation of #8 since it was indeed redundant. I do prefer to leave the |language=English fields there, because I don't want someone reading over the refs quickly to think that all the sources are in Portuguese. By the way, what are these mysterious "scripts" that you keep mentioning? Armadillopteryx^talk 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I found it with the add-on for Firefox that I mentioned before, Flagfox. I just clicked on the flag and it showed me the information. Scripts are just JavaScript programs that people make specifically for Wikipedia, so that they can go around and enforce all of Wikipedia's "rules". The scripts will sniff out variants between British english and American english, wikilinks for common terms, news publishers, etc. Most of these people really don't care about creating articles per se, they just like to play rent-a-cop, but nobody is renting them. User:Ohconfucius decided he didn't like seeing popular news publishers on two of my articles and used one of his scripts on them and in the process messed up all of the other references by squeezing all of the fields together. Here is his scripts page: User:Ohconfucius/script. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I should see about downloading Firefox, then. If someone used a script, for example, to remove the English fields in my references in that article, could I not just undo the edit and explain to the user that my decision was carefully considered and not merely an oversight? It doesn't seem like there's a rule giving script edits priority over non-script edits. It seems a little different from undoing a bot edit, which is usually harmless, clear-cut and simple. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you could undo their edit and then make friends with them, but if you undo their edit and don't make friends an edit war could erupt between the two of you on your article. When he ran the script on mine, it wasn't until after you had copy edited the article that I realized what had happened to the reference fields. Mattchewbaca (meow) 01:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Here's another question, by the way: You said to use The Washington Post Company as the publisher for The Washington Post and Village Voice, LLC as the publisher for The Village Voice, but their Wikipedia articles also list people rather than companies as their publishers. So should I change The Washington Post 's publisher to Katharine Weymouth and The Village Voice 's publisher to Michael Cohen? Armadillopteryx^talk 01:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I overlooked the publisher for The Washington Post when I looked at it yesterday. Yes, use the publishers that are listed for both. Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your last edits of the two HB articles. I see that Yobot has hit your articles too. Mattchewbaca (meow) 03:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to help. The articles are coming along very nicely, by the way. Armadillopteryx^talk 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the stupid citation tag on the article. Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Armadillopteryx^talk 03:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A Banda Mais Bonita Da Cidade DYK nomination

Hi Armadillopteryx, good work on expanding and sourcing A Banda Mais Bonita Da Cidade. I've nominated it for Did You Know since it was over a 5x expansion. Feel free to offer a different hook at the nomination's entry. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qrsdogg, thank you for the nomination! It's the first one I've had. When you say that I may offer a different hook, does that mean that I can suggest a different fact from the article? I just want to clarify the meaning of the terminology. Thank you : ) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad to help. I love to see articles at AfD get re-written like that. Yes, that's basically what it means. Generally if you think there'a catchier fact from the article you can put something below the first suggestion like "Suggest ALT1 ... that [fact from the article]?" Qrsdogg (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I do have another question that perhaps you can answer. I've been wanting to make a very minor change to the name of the page, but I don't know if I should do that while it's at AfD. The change is simply to make the word "da" lowercase. Would that create a redirect/any AfD trouble since the only change is the case and not the word itself? Armadillopteryx^talk 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, there is a general rule against name changes while AfD's are ongoing, but I can't see anyone objecting to a change in capitalization like that. In fact, I doubt anyone would really notice.

You know, what's really funny to me is that there are more delete than keep !votes in the discussion on pt.wiki but it looks like the article will be kept here. I wonder if the Portuguese wikipedia (like the German Wikipedia) has a higher inclusion criteria? It's a bit counter-intuitive, I would have thought that they'd be more likely than us to keep an article on a Brazilian band. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I find that ironic, too. Their deletion system is different from ours, though. It doesn't come to a resolution through consensus. Rather, they simply vote and briefly justify themselves. If at least 4 people vote to keep the article and there is a 2/3 preference toward keep, it's kept. Similarly, if at least 4 people vote to delete the article and there is a 2/3 preference toward delete, it's deleted. There are also rules for what to do when neither of these situations is the case. Actually, at the moment, they're 2/39 short of having their 2/3 preference for delete. I don't know why so many of them don't want that article. What's the German Wikipedia like? Armadillopteryx^talk 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the German Wikipedia's voting process, but I think it is somewhat similar to the voting structure you described. I do know that they have much higher inclusion standards, the current state of an article (rather than its potential) plays a big role. They also tend to delete articles about internet or pop culture phenomena much more that we do, I think. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Aelita

Did a bit of detective work based on the 22 month old exhibition. Deduced from the BBC that she celebrated her b2nd birthday on Jan 9 2009, so Jan 9, 2007! Also Sidney Herald sayd on Jan 8 2009, turns two tomorrow, so definitely Jan 9, 2007!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Hi, I was just editing an article that used a Portuguese source and someone noted that a translation should be posted in the references section. Could you check the (machine) translation that I posted here for accuracy? Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

em / px / pt / ex / ...

It wasn't really an error. In modern HTML you can specify widths in a variety of different relative units. You can use "percentages", "em", or "ex". It also allows for absolute units (e.g., "px"). It's typically best practice to use relative units, since those will scale when a user rescales his/her browser or font-size. A nice summary of the various units can be found in the official spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units . What you did was perfectly fine, and wasn't an error. I just thought that in this particular case, it would be good to have the quote box contain a fixed number of lines, which did not depend on the width of the browser window, or on the size of the font. Note that "em" units are relative to the font width (I believe the width of the letter M) and "ex" units are relative to the font height (I believe the height of the letter X). Thank you for your work on the article. My changes have been very minor. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The template:infobox, which is called by template:infobox artist, uses "22em". It also uses "f9f9f9" for the background, which is specified by MediaWiki:common.css. Thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted

Yes, You misunderstood something about the CC license - please see Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Your image is not acceptable as it is licensed on Flickr as: CC License: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Best, feydey (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aelita Andre

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lucía Pérez

The image is on Commons, so it can be used on any Wikipedia site - like here at Lucía Pérez. feydey (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Italisation in cite web

Content of |work= in {{cite web}} is italised automatically by the template. Manual of use reads ""Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.". -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, thanks for your message. Only print sources should be italicized in the work field (and in those sources, I used no italics code); websites, however, should not be italicized and so the italics code is needed specifically to de-italicize the work when it appears on the page. I know it would probably be hard to program Yobot to differentiate between types of sources, so I wasn't upset with the edit. However, it did cause formatting problems in the refs. My edit summary (typed in the Twinkle window) apparently exceeded the character limit, so this wasn't properly conveyed on the page. My apologies for that. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Is there anything relevant to the Manual of Style? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding comes from this page, where italicization is explicitly mentioned for book titles, journal titles, names of newspapers, CD names, and titles of films/TV series, but not for websites. Actually, I misspoke above; I don't think it's necessarily a print vs. digital issue so much as the rules for specific types of media. Strictly online sources (e.g. not digital reproductions of original sources, like nytimes.com) are the only ones where the rule is to mention the title but not to italicize it. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I 'll ask Rjwilmsi's opinion on that. He spends a lot of time every day improving citations. He 'll know better. Either the manual or citeweb's documentation needs to be updated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good to me. Once there's a definitive resolution, I'll be glad to make sure the refs in the articles I watch reflect it. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dorival Caymmi

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, a great page on an amazing man. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Vrba : agressive removal of former edit

Hi Armadillo, I understand you like punctuation and exactitude, but in the case of your removal of my modest edit of Rudolf Vrba entry, your energy to undo is not justified and quite aggressive: - the name of Dr. Pollak was mentioned twice - before my edits of today - once written as Pollack and once as Pollak. So I checked in the just-read french edition of the book and it says Pollak. So I corrected. - I also changed the date from 24 april to 25 april 1944 as the french edition (page 336)reads: "Le lendemain, 25 avril, Fred et moi sirotions un verre d'alcool, au quartier général du conseil juif de Zilina en racontant notre histoire au docteur Oscar Neumann, porte-parole de tous les juifs de Slovaquie, à Oscar Krasnansky, Erwin Steiner et un nommé Hexner...." This is on page 336 of the "J'ai Lu" edition of the book and I have not checked on which page it is on english editions (!) but there should be no difference. And if there is, it seems the latest published version be best. So the story is told to four persons, and the last one is referred as "someone named Hexner".

So why dropping, as I wrote in my change: "date of meeting and participants according to french edition of Vrba book". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.90.70 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm sorry if my revert appeared aggressive, because I understand your edit was well-intentioned. I would agree that the name should be spelled as in the French edition of the book if this were the French Wikipedia, but since it isn't, I find the spelling that was already there to be more appropriate. Often, when works are translated into other languages, some names' spellings are changed to make the pronunciation more intuitive for readers. Therefore, on any language's Wiki, it's preferable to use the spelling found in sources written in that language. I have checked the article again, and I see your point about the inconsistency in the spelling of Pollack. I think it'd be better to change the single instance of "Pollak" to "Pollack" like the others.

Also, in the edit you made, there were a couple other issues (using a space before the period/misspelling Hexner: " ... someone named Hexler ." and saying "in presence of" instead of "in the presence of"). I thought it best to remove these things, especially because you did not provide reference information in an inline citation. If you have the book's information and want to add the details back, I don't have a problem with you inserting the information as long as you source and proofread it. I don't doubt your good intentions or the credibility of the book.

All that said, I am not one of the article's main contributors and really only have it on my watchlist because it was one of the first pages I edited when I opened my account. You may want to consult with someone who's spent more time on the article than I have.

Let me know if you have any questions or if you'd like any help. I'm glad to see that you care enough about the article to follow up.

Armadillopteryx^talk 21:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

No worries, we all do something like that now and again. And awesome username, by the way. Cheers! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Actually, the reviewer is generally not the same person as the promoter. Once you pass the review, it is not your responsibility to promote the article to the prep area, as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Robert Frascino

Hi Armadillopteryx, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino and we need to hammer out a better hook. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for the review. I've replied to your comments there. Armadillopteryx^talk 17:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Frascino

Orlady (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Frascino

Hi,

Regarding the reference format, let's make it very clear. You wrote the article, you decide on the style. You are free to revert my edits.

Having said that, I always favor cite templates ;-). Here are my reasons:

• Style can change on the future as a result of the community consensus. If you hard-encoded it, somebody will have to manually change it afterwards. Template are future proof.
• Using templates encode references in a machine-readable format allowing bots to do some tedious work. Bots are not perfect but very helpful.
• It make easy to translate it into other wikis. English is not my mother tongue and I contribute to Spanish and French wikis too. Templates always help.
• Hopefully in a near future, citation style will be user defined. I prefer Harvard style due to my scientific background. Others may prefer the Chicago style. Why choose if we could have both? This is only possible if you use templates.
• Using templates makes you focus on content not its formatting. Moreover, Cite web can be easily filled from the wiki editing bar. Why complicate editing?

Coming back to your article, not all the citations are web citations IMHO. Some were journal/news citations, some were pure web citations. That's why I took the liberty to change some reference coding. Take care --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand your reasons. I'm more than happy to hear your opinion about this, because even though I did write the article, I don't own it, and I'd really just like it to be as strong as possible.

In the few articles I've written, if a change were ever implemented through consensus, I would rather make the necessary adjustments manually. This is because bots are generally very helpful, but I have seen bots damage refs in some articles. This is mostly because, exactly as you've said, the citations come from various places: the web, newspapers, journals, etc. However, bots that correct italics do not differentiate between pure web sources and the others. The problem lies in the fact that names of websites in the "work" parameter should not be italicized, whereas most other types of "work" should be italicized. So when you de-italicize the "work" parameter intentionally, bots will sometimes reverse that and create an error in the ref.

If you'll notice, the format I use when handwriting the refs is copied exactly from the output of the template. So the final product of template citations and mine is actually the same. I use MLA citation format for my off-wiki work, but I do stay faithful to the template conventions here (minus the physical templates, of course). I still prefer this, but if you feel the templates are better, I'm willing to leave them for awhile. If you want to do that, I'll de-italicize web-only sources (e.g. The Body but not The New York Times) and see if the bots leave them alone.

Thanks, Armadillopteryx^talk 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your undo of my edits as discussion was not leading to your change. Nothing personal. I just wanted to record the lack of agreement. You reverted edits on journal/news source and web sources alike. From now on, feel free to adjust it to your taste. I leave it up to you. Have fun.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion long ago of Robert Frascino page

Hi there, Armadillopteryx. You asked me some time ago why I deleted Robert Frascino back in 2005. I looked through the delete log, and my terse comment was simply: content was: db-copyvio|url=http://www.concertedeffort.org/robert.html. I would very likely have double-checked that complaint before deleting the page, so in summary, I deleted the page because it was lifted in whole and without attribution or license from another website. Apologies for this slow reply, and kudos for building a solid new page! HorsePunchKid (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dorival Caymmi

The article Dorival Caymmi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dorival Caymmi for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Howling Bells

Thanks for your copy edit of the article, it's much better :) Again, I don't know proper grammar but I am just curious about a couple of things. You changed The Killers to the Killers. Is that right? Because the name of the band is The Killers. And in the Influences in musical style section you changed it to features and returning. Shouldn't it be featured and returned? Mattchewbaca (meow) 03:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem :-)

1. If we were just talking about The Killers as an entity, "The" would be capitalized. However, in that context, I understood the phrase to refer to the studio owned by The Killers. In that case, the band's name is used like an adjective (i.e. the "Killers-owned studio"). Here, the "the" isn't really part of the band's name (since you could just as easily say "a Killers-owned studio" or something else with no article at all. As such, I changed it to lowercase. Did I misunderstand something about the intention of the phrase?
2. As long as the album exists, it features the music, right? It didn't only feature it in the past at the time of its release. Compare it to the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is thousands of years old but still features the fifth king of Uruk. Generally, when discussing a work of art (written, visual, or musical), the default is to use the present tense unless the work has been irrecoverably destroyed and indeed can only be spoken of as something gone.
3. Regarding returning, it's an optional construction that I chose for concision. Although the sentence in Howling Bells is longer, the syntactical structure is analogous to that of a simpler sentence like "I sighed, turning away from her." Does that make sense?

Armadillopteryx^talk 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, heh, I guess that makes sense.

Good luck with your Dorival Caymmi GAN, you've done a good job on the article. I just notice one thing that maybe can improve it. Do you want me to edit it? If you don't like it you can change it back. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd appreciate some input. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I think that is better too. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Howling Bells

Thanks for the copy edit. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Armadillopteryx^talk 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

GOCE March drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles. Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here. Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress). Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE news and September drive invitation

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC). September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GOCE September activities

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors A quick reminder of our current events: The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC). The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable. Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote! August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 30 (UTC). September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. 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 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)