User talk:Corinne/Archive 5

Welcome to my new Talk page. You are welcome to continue discussions started in Archive 4.

Esotericism

After reading the article on Exoteric and making a few edits, I am reading the article on Esotericism. I've only gotten to the second paragraph in the lead/lede:

"The term can also refer to the academic study of esoteric religious movements and philosophies, and religious movements or philosophies whose proponents distinguish their beliefs, practices, and experiences from mainstream exoteric and more dogmatic institutionalized traditions."

I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid the repetition of "religious movements and philosophies". I thought the "religious movements and philosophies" mentioned in the first part of the sentence are really the same "religious movements or philosophies" mentioned in the second part of the sentence, so I thought I could put "the academic study of...." at the end of the sentence:

"The term can also refer to religious movements or philosophies whose proponents distinguish their beliefs, practices, and experiences form mainstream exoteric and more dogmatic institutionalized traditions, as well as to the academic study of those movements and philosophies."

I thought I should change "or" to "and" in "religious movements or philosophies":

""The term can also refer to religious movements and philosophies whose proponents distinguish their beliefs, practices, and experiences form mainstream exoteric and more dogmatic institutionalized traditions, as well as to the academic study of those movements and philosophies."

I thought, perhaps, the phrase "more dogmatic institutionalized traditions" is a bit long and that I could shorten it by removing "more dogmatic", leaving just "institutionalized traditions" or removing "institutionalized", leaving "more dogmatic traditions".

What do you think about these three changes?CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Having trouble pasting in both browsers now... I'm inclined to say leave it as it is, as it's complicated and perhaps benefits from being carefully spelt out. Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'more dogmatic' contrasts with 'mainstream' and 'exoteric' with 'institutionised'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. "The term" at the beginning of the sentence means "The term esotericism".CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, just make whatever changes that you think are necessary, and I'll look over them. Rothorpe (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

Best wishes for a joyous holiday and a happy, healthy year in 2014.CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Igualmente! Rothorpe (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you too! – Fayenatic London 19:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isatis tinctoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fusible plastic bead

Please forgive any poor English: Regarding this comment:[1]. The portion was moved to "fusible plastic bead". I did not think the article needed to be mentioned in the edit summary field as that name was enclosed with square brackets in the shortened section. Unfortunatley that article was removed due to "Unambiguous copyright infringement". I guess that would still be the case for the current section in the Bead-article. Best regards, LittleGun (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

O.K., but I still don't understand why you would move a small section from this article to, presumably, a much smaller article. It's not as if the topic of beads is such a big one that it needs to be broken up into a series of small articles, is it? Is there something special about fusible plastic beads that they need their own separate article?CorinneSD (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the article is, if not long, sprawly at least. An it should work better as a list of other uses. I think the portion about fusible beads takes too much room and I think they, and how you craft with them, differs more from the common use of beads (which is possibly why the portion is longer). I am not sure I can rewrite the portion to avoid copyright issues but if I do try, I will also inform better.---LittleGun (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Hi Corinne

I’m a new editor and appreciate the courtesy with which you disagreed with my changes. As you mentioned in your post, I made some grammatical changes that I felt improved the flow of the text. That being said, I can see how someone might prefer the original -- and because you were so polite in your suggestions, I’ll reverse the changes you mentioned above as they don't have any substantive impact to the page.

In any case, I hope more people read and follow this page.

MelaniePS (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie -- That's very nice of you. What did you think of the reasoning I gave? I think Carl Sagan was a wonderful person; I remember when he spoke on television.CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo

To: Fayenatic London - Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you would prefer to delete the edit history of the page. Or you could use {{db-author}}. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I would appreciate it if you would do that.CorinneSD (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism in India

Hey.. I suppose the article is ready? Hope you will contribute. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Actually mentioning "shia" and few lines was worth mentioning, because its obvious that "shia" was invented probably for converting the masses of Iran.. The reason might be anything, most importantly it would had been that if all Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc were killed of Iran, what these Islamic invaders would be ruling upon? That's not just my opinion, but supported by number of scholars.

Point is, whatever happened, might be worth it pointing, like I have done, so that readers can understand that persecution of Zoroastrians didn't solved whole problem, but left the ancestors of Zoroastrians isolated, who remains in Iran, and converted. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not my field of knowledge, so I cannot answer, but the reason that you just gave for mentioning the Shia is still not clear to me. It seems a tenuous (weak, flimsy, distant) connection to the history of Zoroastrianism in India, which is the topic of the article.CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about to be right. I will probably look some what more about it, if there can be some stronger connection, or else remove. Thanks for pointing. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

See my note at "clarification needed" tag that I just added to the article regarding the population figures.CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I just read, what about this source? [2] It has become common knowledge to claim 69,000 Zoroastrians in India, but don't know how to describe. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It says, "According to the 2001 census, there are 69,000 Zoroastrians" in India. That says nothing about the larger figure from the 1981 census. I don't see the connection, nor the reason for even mentioning the older figure. Usually, the most recent figures are given. Also, and I'm not sure about this because I don't write articles or add references, but is a local newspaper a reliable (or the best) source for population figures? Wouldn't the census report itself be a better source?CorinneSD (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting.. No idea because there's no estimate even from 2001's report.. It adds in some "other" categories, which included the followers of Judaism, atheism, and other religions not just Zoroastrianism, only Jainism, Islam, christian, Hindu, Sikh were properly written down. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The template is too big, i don't know how to make it short, otherwise I had added some image. If you see Islam in the United States, Hinduism in India, you will find pics too, I pretty much made that way. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean, "The template is too big, i don't know how to make it short, otherwise I had added some image." I was talking about moving the pictures of individuals lower down in the article and replacing them with another picture -- any size! (I think, by "otherwise I had added some image", you mean "otherwise I would have added some images/an image".)CorinneSD (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Thomas Christians

To John of Reading: I just saw your edits to the article on Saint Thomas Christians. Of course they are fine. I don't know much about correcting references, but I was just concerned that your corrections to the text (typos, spelling, etc.) only scratch the surface of all the problems with the recently added material. (I had gone over that article carefully about two weeks ago.) I looked at some of the sections in which material was added and saw numerous errors in spelling, punctuation and even syntax. Before reverting all of them because of the poor writing, I thought I would ask you what you thought about the references, such as they are, supplied by that editor for all that added material. I wonder whether there are a sufficient number of reliable references. If not, then "Unsourced" or "Insufficient references" could be added to "Poorly written" or "Unencyclopedic" in an edit summary. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there should be more references in each paragraph, more publication details of the books, and page numbers within the books. I've added a tag to the section, but that's only another way of "scratching the surface". Searches at Amazon do show that the cited books exist, but, at least for me in the UK, there's no option to "Look inside". You could try ordering the books through a library, perhaps?

Another question: Suppose this material were fully referenced, how much of it is relevant to the history of the Saint Thomas Christians? Could it be rewritten and trimmed? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I worked on the section "Social mobility". You can read my note on the Talk page of the article and, if you wish, my notes to editors at the "clarification needed" tags. I don't know the subject well enough to know what to cut if it is agreed that trimming the section would be a good idea.CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I see an editor – an IP editor – deleted large sections of the article, the part I worked on and other parts. Probably most of it was poorly written and unsourced, but the editor provided no edit summary. What do you think? Was that a good move?CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That's never acceptable. I've reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Hello Corinne. I'm sorry if you find "whilst" annoying, but that's completely irrelevant to ENGVAR, particularly as many British people find American spelling annoying. The whole point of the guideline is to force editors to respect the variety of English an article was originally written in (unless it relates to an English speaking country). Removing British English words from articles because you think that Americans find them annoying is a clearly against ENGVAR, and therefore not an acceptable solution. Number 57 07:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I said I do not change "whilst" to "while" when I see it. But you will concede, won't you, that there is a difference between using a word such as "whilst" and spelling differences such as "colour" vs. "color"? The difference is not just a spelling difference. It is more like the difference between "aluminium" and "aluminum", or even "flat" and "apartment". It's a different word. I would not support someone who goes around changing every "whilst" to "while" or "but", but I would encourage someone who is writing a new article to consider using "while" instead of "whilst". That's all.CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it's only recently come to my attention that 'whilst' (and presumably also 'amongst') is British. I'm not too keen on it, expecially if used in the temporal sense. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

To Joshua Jonathan: JJ, I have to tell you how impressed I am with how well you write in English in spite of being a non-native speaker of English. You write very nearly to the level of a university-educated native speaker of English. I don't know if you would mind my offering corrections or suggestions now and then, or if you would prefer that I not. Here is one, in the meantime: There are certain verbs that are not followed by the infinitive of another verb but rather by the gerund (the -ing form of a verb which functions as a noun), if not a noun itself. "Avoid" and "enjoy" are two of them. So, you would say, "I will avoid looking at it", not "I will avoid to look at it", and "I enjoy reading", not "I enjoy to read". You can, of course, use nouns: "I will avoid that website" and "I enjoy mysteries". But let me know if you would prefer that I not provide any more corrections or suggestions, and I won't. I certainly do not want to embarrass you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, you are so welcome! I have to confess, I don't even remember those rules exactly for Dutch, let alone for English. But I really appreciate your effort and encouragement - though I can't honestly promise you that I will remember your advices consistently. So, here's a proposal: User:Joshua Jonathan/Grammar, so I can read back your advices. Thank you very much! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your advices on grammar, and the incredible kind way you offer it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Barnstar!CorinneSD (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

BTW, first of all thanks for the edits and suggestion you made for similar pages. I still have them, on my mind. I had tagged this section, for copy editing, days ago, check Death_by_burning#Traditions_in_sub-Saharan_African_cultures. Since so many edits of this page were made recently, you should look whole article, if possible. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did, but it is a short article. I'll look at Revision History, too.CorinneSD(talk) 00:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, on Sanghao Caves, actually that line wasn't meaningless, that "The cave is regarded as highly important, during the Middle Palaeolithic period." Because there is a thought, that these caves had many inhabitants, because people of those times, preferred to live in those places where they can get water, wood, with least efforts. This cave was best possible, thus really important place for that period. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but to say something of value, it is important to specify who considers the cave important and why. If you want to say also that the cave was considered important by the prehistoric peoples of that area, you can, but the verb tenses must then be in past tense; but it's a stretch to guess what prehistoric people considered, or regarded, about anything, isn't it?.CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, this sentence is not grammatically correct, and doesn't say much as it is now written:

"Middle Palaeolithic has been reported from Sanghao Cave."

If you want to describe to me what you want to convey, I will be glad to help you put it into Standard English. (Please also read my reply, above.)CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that if we are "guessing", which should be avoided, we may further cite "may have", or something similar. And sure, since this line "Middle Palaeolithic has been reported from Sanghao Cave" is backed by reliable source, we can think for expanding probably. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yukon

I wonder if someone could help me and another editor fix formatting problems in the article on Yukon. We've discussed them on the Talk page of the article, but neither one of us knows enough about formatting to fix the problems.CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've made some adjustments to the page and am now watching the talk page of the article for further discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandalwood

I'm reading the article on Sandalwood and I came across a pair of figures I would like to convert, if possible. It is in the first bulleted item in the section "True Sandalwoods". It says "$2,000 per kg." I tried to find a conversion template that would convert both the dollar figure and the kg. to lbs. but couldn't find one. Do you know if there is one that would convert both figures? If not, then I'll have to convert kg. to lbs. first, then calculate the dollar figure. Just thought I'd ask.CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You can use ${{convert|2,000|lb|kg|abbr=values|disp=x| per kg ($| per lb)}} to produce this: $2,000 per kg ($910 per lb)

It seems awfully tortured though. Note that you have to swap lb and kg in the convert template because effectively you want to convert 1/kg into 1/lb. I don't think we have a conversion template for currencies; that would be too dependent on the date of conversion. Huon (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Lilium

I noticed a bunch of edits to the article on Lilium in which there are a lot of references in Chinese. I don't know whether these are acceptable or not. I just thought I'd ask.CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language references are absolutely fine, and even encouraged since they aren't used half as much as english language sources, giving the site somewhat of a bias towards english language coverage! Samwalton9 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept!  :-)

As their other mentor, may I please be permitted to accept in their stead, your most gracious offer to be a co-mentor.  :-)   I've also pinged J.J. to see if they want to help at this rodeo. Feel free to set any conditions that you feel will improve our chances of getting Bladesmulti properly trained. This is undoubtedly not just their last chance offer from you, but their last chance to avoid be indef'd. And of course, they may yet been indef'd at AN/I today, but if so, that just means the initial mentorship-phase will have to occur on Bladesmulti's user-talkpage. Might even be a good idea, to start there. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

J.J. said they would sleep on it, and think it over.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K. You're welcome to read the message I typed to Bl on my Talk page the other day which after a day or two I deleted; I don't know if he saw it. Also see the exchange, above, on "Sanghao Caves". By the way, how come you don't have a user name that's a name rather than a number? It's sort of strange to be corresponding with a number.CorinneSD (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I had read your upstream messages with Bladesmulti, but I will see the deleted messages now, also. As for my jersey number, it is easier to type 74 than it is to type my name on my homeworld.  ;-)   I don't use a login, because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... which is why we allow IP-based editing by anons, and also why we have pillar five, so that people can edit without worrying about remembering a password, and without learning a bazillion rules. JimboVision™ is what I like to call it. That said, you are free to give me another name if you like; some call me 4711, Mandy, you know, normal nicknames like that. Ahem... Hafspajen? Care to explain all this silly stuff?  :-)   p.p.s. JJ has decided to be a co-mentor, it now seems, and will focus on teaching WP:RS and such. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Take me on.... be my mentoooorrrrr... (No I can't explain.. - Spock - this is one of those inexplicable things one has to accept) Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, my understanding of the Sanghao conversation, is that Bladesmulti wasn't trying to ignore your kind offer. They simply didn't understand that you *were* making them an offer. Methinks "convey" and "describe" and maybe "Standard" were reasonably hard words, but furthermore, the sentence structure of the offer (if-clause comma-separator implicit-then-clause) was possible a factor. Now, it is true that in their actions Bladesmulti ignored the *sentence* containing your offer. They didn't understand it. They ignored it. They responded to what they did understand. You didn't reply further, so they assumed everything was fine.  :-/

bolded phrases got through... most phrases did *not* get through

Also, on Sanghao Caves, actually that line wasn't meaningless, that "The cave is regarded as highly important, during the Middle Palaeolithic period." Because there is a thought, that these caves had many inhabitants, because people of those times, preferred to live in those places where they can get water, wood, with least efforts. This cave was best possible, thus really important place for that period. -B ((attempted rewrite)) During the Middle Paleolithic period, it is hypothized that the cave was highly important to hominids of the era. I know, but to say something of value, it is important to specify who considers the cave important and why. If you want to say also that the cave was considered important by the prehistoric peoples of that area, you can, but the verb tenses must then be in past tense; but it's a stretch to guess what prehistoric people considered, or regarded, about anything, isn't it? -C This sentence is not grammatically correct, and doesn't say much as it is now written: "Middle Palaeolithic has been reported from Sanghao Cave." If you want to describe to me what you want to convey, I will be glad to help you put it into Standard English. (Please also read my reply, above.) -C ((what Bladesmulti grokked)) don't guess... okay, so I will suggest we can say this. "The cave is may have been regarded as highly important, during the Middle Palaeolithic period." doesn't say much... okay, if you want it to say more, that is fine, we can expand the section, later. "Middle Palaeolithic has been reported from Sanghao Cave." Agree that if we are "guessing", which should be avoided, we may further cite "may have", or something similar. And sure, since this line "Middle Palaeolithic has been reported from Sanghao Cave" is backed by reliable source, we can think for expanding probably. -B see explanation above. This sentence has too many fancy words: If you want to describe to me what you want to convey, I will be glad to help you put it into Standard English. Instead of making an offer, I have learned the hard way just to do it. If I do make the offer, I try to make it as simple and concrete as possible. Version 1.0: "Middle Palaeolithic has been reported from Sanghao Cave." Version 1.1: "Middle Palaeolithic archaeological findings have been reported             from archaeological digging near Sanghao Cave." Version 2.0: "Archaeologists have found evidence that Sanghao Cave             was inhabited by humanoids during the Middle Palaeolithic." Not knowing anything about the cave, and not reading the source, I'm not sure if that is correct. But that is my guess, that I would start with, to try and lead Bladesmulti to water.

  At least, that's my understanding of this particular mishap. If you want to help Bladesmulti improve their wording, that would be excellent. I would suggest that you just visit User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship which is where all the mentoring-stuff is happening, and when you see a sentence by Bladesmulti that needs correction, just offer the suggested fix. Like this:

I see, had this page from the talk of Tryptofish honestly, requiring cleanup, but obviously you can suggest better. Bladesmulti @ 12:50

ALT: "Honestly, I saw the suggestion that Hindu art required cleanup, over at User_talk:Tryptofish. 74, what wording would you suggest we use in mainspace?" ((rewrite by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC) ))

This will help Bladesmulti learn by example. Of course, feel free to do the same with changes they make to mainspace. p.s. Is there an english-textbook at Wikiversity or Wikibooks? Or maybe, Bladesmulti should try downloading the TOEFL practice tests? They understand English better than I understand most natural languages, but there are some gaps... how to best fill, is the question. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I think you are right, that Bladesmulti did not entirely understand what I wrote. My first reaction is that, if he/she did not understand what I wrote, he/she should not be writing on English Wikipedia. My sentences were not especially complex, nor did they contain unusual words. Also, what he/she has written demonstrates that his/her knowledge of English is far from fluent, in fact, is more at the beginner level than even the intermediate level. Perhaps he/she should take some time off from WP to learn English before resuming his/her work on WP. I don't know at the minute what I would recommend as far as study materials. I'll have to give it some thought. But, if you and JJ are willing to work with him/her, I will do my best, or I'll at least try it for a while.

Regarding your suggestion to simply take a chance and re-write what you think Bladesmulti meant in good English rather than discuss it with him/her, as you did above with that sentence on Sanghao Caves, Middle Paleolithic, I don't agree with that approach. First of all, you are guessing. Maybe you will get it right sometimes, but maybe you will get it wrong other times, and it is not clear that Bladesmulti knows enough English to know whether we have gotten it right or not. I prefer asking questions and making Bladesmulti do some thinking about what is missing from the sentence, or what is not clear. If he leaves out the subject, I would ask "Who?" If he uses a pronoun ambiguously, I would ask, "Who is 'they'?" If the sentence (or a phrase) could mean several different things, I will suggest the two or three possibilities and he must choose which one he means. If he can't do that, then he either needs to ask me a question or start using a dictionary.

By the way, why are you using the plural possessive adjective "their" for Bladesmulti? Just because you don't know whether he is male or female? "Their" is certainly not correct to use for one person, and for a literate English speaker is annoying to read. I would use "he/him/his" or "she/her/her", for subject pronoun/object pronoun/possessive adjective, or the pairs "he/she" (subj. pron.), "him/her" (obj. pron.), and "his/her" (poss. adj.) (or ask Bladesmulti to say; then we can use the right pronouns and poss. adj.). I'm glad to work with you to help Bladesmulti. What will your role be?CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I use singular they due to gender-anonymity reasons. Sorry it is annoying, but other editors find he/she annoying, and "he-or-she"/"(s)he"/"ve"/"xyr"/"'e"/"thon"/etc very annoying. I've seriously considered falling back to archaic thee/ye/thy language, which is unambiguous, and more funny-sounding than annoyance-inducing. Good idea, you think? Or even *more* annoying?  :-)

  My role is enforcer: I'm the "WP:NICE nazi", and you are the "grammar nazi".  ;-)   If Bladesmulti does not WP:LISTEN to you, as the behavior-enforcer, I will reduce their freedom. Right now they are making 5 edits to mainspace and article-talkpages per day. If they do well at their studies, it will increase to 10 per day, then 20 per day, and so on. If they do not listen, I will decrease their allowance: 2 per day, then 1 per day, then 1 every other day, then 1 per week. Also, I will try and help close the SPI and the AN/I threads successfully, and help engage in the mentorship-page. If JJ teaches sourcing, and you teach grammar, and I teach behavior / conduct, that will cover the key bases. I could not find any troubles with pillar three. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WHile you are both a really experienced editor and mentor besides, CorinneSD (in contrast to myself!), isn't it a bit harsh to say that someone with low fluency in English should not be an editor at English Wikipedia? Isn't a FIRST suggestion to such users that a) They limit themselves to add good faith edits (NEVER EVER reverts!) and b) that they accept fully that other editors may rephrase their own edits, even significantly? It just seemed a bit harsh judgment by you here, that I felt a need to respond to. To teach humility to non-English speakers seems to be the preferred 101 Course, in my view, rather than disqualifying them...:-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I really am sorry you found it harsh, but much of the material Bladesmulti has added to articles and in his many comments has been incomprehensible, and I am used to reading writing by non-native speakers! I could not even begin to guess what he/she intended to say. Nevertheless, I offered to help him/her, and am helping. We'll see how it goes.CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD is helping; I hope it goes well. Saying that fluency is required for editing mainspace *all alone by yourself* without help from other wikipedians is harsh... but it *is* fair. My advice to good-faith users with fluency limitations is to use the talkpage, so that the fluent and the non-fluent can *help* each other. Together we are strong! Wikipedians are supposed to always be WP:NICE to each other, that is pillar four, but pillar five is the most important: if any rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. CorinneSD is telling Bladesmulti the harsh truth, and the truth sometimes hurts feelings, but the real goal here is not to hurt the readership. They *trust* us. This is an encyclopedia, and we wikipedians are here writing / maintaining / improving the encyclopedia *for* that readership.

  There are 500M readers every month, but only 80k editors. That means that every editor has over 5000 readers depending on us! Bladesmulti has a duty to those readers. Bladesmulti is a very active editor, more than most editors, so they have an especially strong duty. Bladesmulti is like a strong ox. Bladesmulti can feed the entire village (the readers), by pulling the plow (doing a lot of edits). But just like an ox, Bladesmulti can hurt the villagers (the readers), by stepping on toes. Bladesmulti has to learn their strengths, and learn to use them wisely.

on dealing with lack of language-fluency, and on dealing with lack of subject-expertise ... use the talkpage is my advice, so that other wikipedians can lend their strength

When editing mainspace, strong fluency is not required from an editor who makes a couple edits per year... if they insert a couple paragraphs of less-than-perfect-English, somebody else can come along and clean up later. But in the case of Bladesmulti, they are a hardcore heavy-duty editor. That is great! We really like that commitment, that enthusiasm, that gumption. But because Bladesmulti is editing seriously several times per day, it is important for Bladesmulti to understand two things. First, to understand where they have fluency enough to make proper changes (themselves), and second, to understand where they do not (help needed). If the change involves a straightforward paraphrase of a straightforward source, Bladesmulti should put the change into mainspace. If the change involves a controversial touchy subject, or if the source-material uses complex subtle language, then Bladesmulti should start with the article-talkpage.   This is not just a rule for Bladesmulti. I have to do the same exact thing!  :-)   I am working on an article SORCER which has some newspaper clipping in Russian. I cannot just use bing.com machine-translation. That is not good enough. I need to check my reading of the sources, with a native speaker like Ymblanter, on the article-talkpage. Similarly, there is an article called Duck Attack! where Gerda Arendt is trying to translate from English into German... she is quite fluent in both, but there is not a German way of saying "awesomely weird" aka cult-favorite, that she could find, so she has to ask on the Yngvadottir talkpage for advice. I'm also working with Clover1991 on an article about WT:Articles_for_creation/DUROMAC(M)_SDN_BHD#DuRoMac which has many sources from Malaysia... it was *hard* to translate the meaning of the award-for-first-woman-in-the-world-to-drive-a-sixteen-tonne-road-sweeper. And we're still not 100% positive we got the sentence correct.  :-)   This is also more than just about language-fluency. Consider an article about the history of Jainism, which I do not know very much about. I would not edit that article directly, unless I was very sure that the source was perfectly reliable and true, plus also, that I understood exactly what the source said! This happened to me on Talk:Islam, where an editor named Salaamthebody helped me to write up some correct changes about the Ahmaddiya subset of Islam. Even though I tried hard, I still made mistakes. That is fine: my mistakes were on the talkpage (most of them!) and the few that got into mainspace were quickly fixed. Consider the article about SORCER, which is a very complicated computer programming system. I have a lot of experience in computers, but I still check with the SORCER experts on the talkpage before I edit.

  Anyways, I hope this helps explain why CorinneSD is correct in this case. Editing wikipedia is surprisingly complex and interesting! We have to work together, which is hard, many people from many cultures, with strong opinions, and strong emotions. But if we assume good faith, and when appropriate ignore all rules, it all works out for the best. Thanks for improving wikipedia folks, and sorry about the WP:TLDR. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry CorinneSD, in the way it decidedly could look like that I would sort of challenge you on mentorship/or the crucial importance of your helpful suggestions towards Bladesmulti on the English side. It wasn't my intention, but rereading, I see that what I actually wrote perfectly well could be read like that. Mea culpa! You are much the better editor than me, and I must agree to your basic concern here, that Bladesmulti needs quite a bit of increased English fluency. I am impressed how you have taken on that challenge!Arildnordby (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Arildnordby. I wasn't offended. Seventy-four, thank you for the explanation, (I suspect your forte is explaining things!), and for defending me. However, I think you tend to go on a bit too long. You could say much the same thing with fewer words. Also, wouldn't this all be better located on Bladesmulti's regular or mentoring talk page than my talk page? My original note, above, was just to you, responding to your note. That's why I put it on my talk page (although I know that others, including Bladesmulti, would probably read it); in the future, you are always welcome to transfer a discussion to the other page if you think it ought to be there.CorinneSD (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am kind of dense, so I found 74's detailed explanation really helpful to see the error of my ways! :-) Good luck with your great work with Bladesmulti!Arildnordby (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby and myself both have WP:WALLOFTEXT disease. Corinne, we are suffering from a disease! Be gentle with our feelings.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As for Bladesmulti, they she has been unresponsive to my lessons on policy, and to your lessons on grammar... because they he did not understand that 5-edits-per-day was not applicable to User_talk:Bladesmulti. That has been straightened out. I'm attempting to give a grammar-lesson of my own at the moment, in the "old dispute we can still learn from" section of the mentorship page. Bladesmulti is trying to speak tersely, but ends up not communicating at all. I have the opposite problem... I speak at length... but the same end-result, I end up not communicating at all.

  Anyhoo, my message for you today is short and sweet: Bladesmulti has been ignoring you, again, but like last time, due to miscommunication. This time, because I failed to communicate that User_talk:Bladesmulti was exempt from the five-per-day limit. I will send them to give feedback on your grammar lessons, before they start working on mine.

  p.s. You may find these external tools useful, as a rough fluency-gauge, although they are pretty dern rough. http://sarahktyler.com/code/sample.php http://writingtester.com/tester/grade_level.php These rough tools tell me *your* writing in lessons is perfectly clear ~10th-level English, but you may have to aim for ~7th-level, an estimate I get from putting the writing of our mentee into the same rough tools. Bladesmulti must learn to walk through the grammatical forest, before they can learn to run. Speaking of which, I also noticed a bunch of USA-state-level exams in English, which perhaps Bladesmulti will want to mess with, as we get further along.

  Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. Your efforts are appreciated by your co-mentors, even if Bladesmulti has not yet been responsive.  :-)   And let me know if there's anything I can do, that will improve the teaching-environment. We *may* need to specify a special day of no non-grammar-related-edits (no mainspace and no sources-discussion and no policy-discussion), where Bladesmulti and the co-mentors focus like a laser on English. Good idea? Or no? — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As a non-English (I'm Norwegian) editor, I am DEEPLY impressed by your conscientousness on pointing to at times glaring, at other times subtle, unclarities you have been pointing out to Bladesmulti, CorrineSD. I personally have learned a LOT from your edits, CorinneSD. I wish to convey my personal thanks for your endeavours, and that even if, unfortunately Bladesmulti won't in the future respond to your thoughtful comments, you already have achieved that ONE editor, namely myself, have felt great benefits from your efforts. Thank you for what you have already posted, it is not just Bladesmulti who can gain (and have gained!) insights here, even though he is the one you have adressed your comments to!Arildnordby (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'm glad you have benefited from the "lessons". If at any time you have a question about grammar, or would like me to go over a sentence or paragraph, please feel free to ask me here on my Talk page. I actually enjoy editing writing and explaining things. CorinneSD (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentally, I've already tagged you as "English expert", CorinneSD, even though I can't award you such an official title on Wikipedia. But, be warned, if I come up in a quandary concerning formulating my thoughts on English, you are the first person I'll bewail my fate to..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's great! I can't help it.... "get into a quandary", not "come up in a quandary", and "formulating my thoughts in English," not "formulating my thoughts on English" (unless you have some thoughts on the English language as a whole). – CorinneSD (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lesson 1! :-) :-)Arildnordby (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I believe you enjoy languages as such, I'll add that it is such a tricky matter to translate back and forth between languages, particularly how to translate correctly those small, "innocent" prepositions like "on", "in", "about" etc. For example, if I were to express my thoughts on English, I'd probably try to express my thoughts about English (which I think is perfectly OK to say in English as well!). Our Norwegian equivalent to "in", though, is completely wrong (unless we are speaking about "talking in tongues" like religious ecstatics do.), even though it is correct. In English, that is.Arildnordby (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "express my thoughts about English" is probably better than "express my thoughts on English", but often these two prepositions are interchangeable for this sense. I also agree that learning which preposition to use with which verb or expression is one of the hardest things to learn for a non-native speaker. It is one of the things which shows who is a native speaker and who is not. There are lists on-line; I have seen them. Also, if you have a college level English dictionary, you can look at three verbs: get, make, and take. You will see many, many two-word verbs and idiomatic expressions using those three verbs.CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Organizing the lessons for Bladesmulti

I started a new section. The last one was getting too large. Hard to get to the end.

I think a day of grammar only would be great. I wonder if we could create a separate Bladesmulti mentoring page just for grammar. I think mixing up your lessons on editing with my grammar lessons creates a confusing page. This way, he could look at the grammar lessons whenever he wanted to. I am not going to take on the job of being a private tutor, providing links to other websites, etc. You can do that if you want to. I will just focus on a few grammar points related to what he has written.

I can see you have a compassionate, gentle manner, and that you have a sense of humor. I just think sometimes a message can be more powerful if expressed in fewer words. Thanks for keeping me posted.CorinneSD (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done: User talk:Bladesmulti/Grammar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To 74: Would you mind looking at the last comment on Bladesmulti's Grammar page (see link just above this) and my reply to him? I don't understand either his response, "Excellent. No argument here." or his question.CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Corinne, I actually saw the Bladesmulti-question on the grammar-subpage, and tracked it down independently.  :-)   He was asking about a revert in an article, that some twinkle-wikiCops were making. Basically, the short version is that a vandal had blanked 3 sections in 3 edits. Simultaneously, a rescuer restored one section, and cluebot (independently) restored all 3 sections. Therefore, the article had a duplicated-section. Later, two different anons came along and tried to delete the dupe, but two different wikicops saw the "anon blanks section" tag and reverted the anons! Sigh. Anyways, it is fixed now. I left nice notes for the rescuing-anons. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I would like to help Blades improve some of his sentences, but I don't know where to look for them. A few times, I looked at some of the mentoring lessons on his mentoring page, but haven't found much to work with. Can you tell me where to look, provide a link to something I can work with, or just copy and paste some of his writing on his grammar page under a new heading? Any one of these would be fine. Do you think what I have already typed on the grammar page has been of any help to him?CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what you write is of help to him. But it can only be of limited help, if he reads but does not practice. Bladesmulti is reading, though. And of course, having the topics written up, will help later (if we can convince Bladesmulti of the value of re-reading "old" wisdom :-)   ...plus of course, will be of use to other grammar-school attendees, that may someday be under your tutelage. Or mine for that matter; I'll be swiping your lessons for sure!

  Joshua Jonathan and I are thinking that we need to pick a very narrow subject, with a small number of sources, and then work on that to the exclusion of all other topics. I'm also thinking that we should devote specific days-of-the-week to grammar practice (with Bladesmulti doing actual rewriting ... not just reading the lessons but putting them into use on practice-problems). Similarly, other days would be devoted to sourcing-practice... but of course, that mostly boils down to grammar as well: practice on understanding what the source says, and then summarizing what the source said (without paraphrasing too closely). Finally, we need at least one day a week devoted to behavior/pillars; maybe two.

  So I'd suggest that we downshift from 5 edits/day, to 1 edit/day, and furthermore focus on one single article-topic (perhaps a publishing-company or perhaps the author named Abel). Bladesmulti is getting into trouble in mainspace, and a few hours ago has gotten into a situation where sourced information was removed. Do you have any objections to tightening the focus severely, for the next while? If not, do you vote for publishing-company, or for Abel the author, or something else as a laser-topic-area? TFIW 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, nothing really troubled, issue was months old, and I had discovered some more sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, you asked for a sentence to correct?  :-)   So that you will know what the sentence here ought to have said, I will recap. Here is the sequence of events within the Kalapani-topic. Back in late December, Bladesmulti deleted some WP:RS from the article (e.g. CIA World Factbook), plus then renamed it to a non-neutral title. This was noticed at the time, but not fixed, so it has come up again. Bladesmulti's changes from December were reverted yesterday (albeti not the rename). Bladesmulti has added many sources (as 'further reading' aka without adding prose). Bladesmulti has also deleted a source, however, with minimal talkpage discussion.[3] The edit summary was "add source" which is technically true, Bladesmulti did add one source. But during the same edit, they also added another source, to replace an existing one. So I guess that would be *two* sentences that need correcting: "nothing really troubled" as the first, and "add source" as the second example. TFIW. p.s. Bladesmulti, read WP:DEADLINK. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to catch-up... Sorry, I really have to refocus again and again after the prolonged discussions on sources... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

JJ, no apologies needed. Even with three co-mentors, it is hard to keep up with Bladesmulti's rapid shift from topic to topic. I suggest we halt all edits to mainspace, for 2 weeks. See the Bladesmulti talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people comments on talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Tea, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Won't do that again.CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy

To Rwood128: I saw your edits to Thomas Hardy of February 14, and, while I think most are an improvement, I feel the following is not. It is in the second-to-last paragraph in the section on "Poetry":

attack animal cruelty, and he was opposed to Vivisection and a member of The Royal Society for the Protection Against Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).

I wonder if you would re-read the way it was before you changed it and reconsider your changes. I feel that, before your edit, the sentence was more elegantly constructed. If you had a particular reason for your changes, I would be interested to hear it.

Subsequent to your edits, today I made a few more edits to increase clarity and conciseness. I hope you approve.CorinneSD (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes that wording is clumsy -- I didn't check it properly. Glad to have your help and advice, especially as I was working fast -- because I never meant to getting involved with the Hardy page! Rwood128 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually on further thought I prefer my revision, sorry. I didn't like certain words like "exhibited", but maybe the real problem is that the end of the sentence should surely read:

exhibited also in his antivivisectionist views and in his membership of the RSPCA.

RSPCA should also be given in full.

Hope this makes sense and that my brain hasn't just cut-out? I liked the revisions that you made. Rwood128 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the earlier version with "also" added -- but isn't there still a problem? Might not this sentence be read as suggesting that Hardy wrote very few poems involving nature? Feel free to delete my "also". Rwood128 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the sentence the way it is written now. I think the only thing that needs to be considered is whether the phrase at the beginning of the sentence, "A few" is the correct phrase. You may know more about Hardy's poems than I do, so you might know whether "a few" is accurate. "A few of..." could be changed to "Some of...", "Several of...", "A number of...", or "Quite a few of...". I think the "also" that you added is all right. It means that his love of nature and opposition to animal cruelty that are seen in this poem are also seen in his membership in the association, etc.CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert, but I think that it is right to say that a few of Hardy's poems deal with cruelty to animals, but that many reflect his love of nature. But I don't think that this what the current sentence says. I suggest that the phrase "love of the natural world" be removed, or that it is made clearer that many of his poems reflect his love of nature. A fuller discussion of Hardy's poetry is really needed, but I don't want to get in researching this at the moment! Rwood128 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase regarding his love of nature. I hope you don't mind that I used the information you gave, above, in the edit summary.CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Great to work with you. Rwood128 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George and Thomas Hardy

To Paine Ellsworth: I'd appreciate your opinion on an issue of style. It is not contentious. There is just simple disagreement:

David Lloyd George – The recent addition of the word "the" before title + name throughout the article. See discussion at User talk:Inglok and User talk:Rothorpe. CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For helping resolve a conflict between myself, Til, Christina and others that occupied the better part of our day! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 00:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's the first Barnstar I've gotten!CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS:Layout

I have been searching for the exact place in WP:MOS where it tells how section headings should normally have only the first word capitalized and the following words in lower-case, in order to refer editors who make edits capitalizing the words after the first word, and I cannot find it. I did see something like that for titles, but not for section headings. Can you direct me to the right place? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSCAP#Section_headings. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign place names

I wonder if you could tell me what the policy is on the spelling of foreign place names, in particular whether an accent that appears in the language of that place ought to be used – for example, Yucatan or Yucatán. I can understand including the accents in proper names (names of people), but I wonder whether the accents are necessary when it is a place name (since English has no accents). Can you also direct me to the right place in WP:MOS? Also, if accents ought to be used in foreign place names, what is the difference between this situation and the use of English place names instead of the name as it is used in that place – for example, Cologne is used instead of Kõln, Turin instead of Torino, etc. I realize that this is really two questions.CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME, which states the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources should be used for the Wikipedia article (with other variants redirecting thereto). For the individual articles we need to reach some sort of consensus on what name is the most common, and some articles are infamous for long-running edit wars over just such issues. For your example of Yucatán I didn't see such a discussion and would have expected at least the article on the peninsula to use the "Yucatan" spelling, but I didn't really look at the sources in depth - more modern sources may tend towards having the accent even in English. Huon (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Another discussion is found at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English. Where an English-language version of a place-name is well established (as in your examples of Cologne and Turin, but also Venice, Genoa, Munich, Moscow, Mexico City, Vienna; Spain, Finland, Italy, Russia, etc.) it should be used in preference to the native form. In more doubtful cases, American practice tends to favor the native form, while British practice tends to favour the anglicised form.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your last statement, would "Argentina" versus "the Argentine" be an example? Americans say "Argentina". Or isn't "the Argentine" used any more? CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. The edit I saw today was in Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I was just a bit surprised to see Yucatan changed to Yucatán because I've seen Yucatan so often. What do you suggest in this case? Revert the edit with an edit summary including the link provided above, or just leave it? CorinneSD (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Argentina" versus "the Argentine" might be one of those examples, but I'm not sure about that one. In America, I don't think we ever say "the Argentine" (I see this mainly in British writing) and, in a geographically related case, I believe it is more common here to say "Rio de la Plata" rather than "the River Plate", but I live in the Western US, where Spanish names may tend to be more familiar than in other parts of the country. In the case of "the Yucatan" or "the Yucatan Peninsula", used in just those phrases, it seems perverse to put in the Spanish accent (and yet go on pronouncing it with the stress on the first syllable, despite the fact that the sole purpose in Spanish of the accent is to show where the stress falls) but use the English article "the", the unaccented "península", and English word order (which I see is nevertheless exactly what is done on the corresponding Wikipedia article).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Following what Huon said in his reply, above, I was about to change "Yucatán" to "Yucatan" when I saw that it appears in the caption for an image. I wonder if that that makes a difference and should remain as it is, with the accent. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Since both the Yucatán and Yucatán peninsula articles use the accent, changing some other article that refers to Yucatán seems counterproductive. If you want to change it to just "Yucatan", you should launch a discussion at a more central location (say, Talk:Yucatán) to resolve the issue for all articles at once. I doubt this accent is worth the effort, though. Huon (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You're probably right. But then, unless I misunderstood your explanation of WP mark-up policy, above, those articles go against the policy. I just don't understand why there is a policy and then articles are allowed to go against that policy. But I'll leave this one as it is.CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)