User talk:Michael Devore/Archive 3

This is an archive of User talk:Michael Devore for late 2008 and all of 2009.

Talk To Me

Michael Devore (Talk | contribs) (15,972 bytes) (rv editorial remark in article. Please don't do this again, you can revert changes in an article that are incorrect. You cannot publish editorial remarks in an article, use the talk page.)

It said "You cannot undo", I swear. The Talk page was unattended. A formal report to cluelessbot was totally ignored. Explain that. Double Think (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some edits cannot be undone using the "undo" link because of subsequent edits that conflict with the original edit to be undone. This is why the vandal edit could not be immediately undone in Miller-Urey experiment : another editor had manually removed the vandalism (i.e. 'poop' overwriting the original section), but did not restore the section that was overwritten.

If you want to undo edits in cases of intervening conflicting edits, you must sequentially undo the edits affecting the section. In the article, that would mean undo'ing the edit which removed 'poop' (temporarily restoring 'poop'), then undo'ing the full vandalism edit. It would have been better if the editor removing the vandalism had done this, but people don't always notice that content was overwritten. Rather than stacking undo's it is often easier to simply revert to an earlier version of the page content, or to manually reinsert the page content from an earlier version, as I have done there. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can do it correctly next time. As for formally reporting the problem via the Cluebot ref# mechanism, I guess you don't know why it wasn't responded to. How about locking the page, since it has a high percentage of vandalism? At least require a logged in user for edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Think (talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the action of another editor's bot, but ClueBot wasn't involved in the section removal. The section was removed by the 'poop' vandal IP 68.45.99.109. Following that edit, the editor Res2216firestar undid the vandal edit, but for unknown reasons (a mistake or misunderstanding, most likely), immediately reverted their own reversion back to the vandal edit content. It could still be undone at that point. However, the IP editor 24.207.226.208 followed up by merely removing the 'poop' line, apparently not noticing that the vandalism had overwritten a section of the article. Edits got a bit messy after that with posted notices and reversions, causing edit conflicts that made simply undo'ing the original vandalism overwrite less likely to succeed.

You can request that a page is temporarily semi-protected (available for editing only to confirmed users) at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, I believe there is a good chance that such a request would be declined, since there isn't much recent vandalism there relative to heavily-vandalized articles, where you might see a dozen or more incidents over a week or even within minutes of each other. I could be wrong about the acceptance of a protection request for Miller-Urey experiment, though, since it is a judgement call by the administrators there acting on the reports. If you feel semi-protection is a good idea, you can post a request at the page. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for everything. You can delete this section. Double Think (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks you

Hello. Thanks for the contributions to "List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions" Your work there is awesome and great. Let talk one day about boxeo. Su amigo, IoWiki2007

Sri Lankan Tamil people

		Rajaraja Chola Award
		Hi Micheal. Just to say you've done a wonderful job with your edits to the article over the past few weeks - it flows much more smoothly now, and is a much better article for the work you've done. Arulmozhivarman smiles in delight.Taprobanus (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

Hi Michael, you have been helping me for a long time now, and I forgot to ask you if you want to be added as a co-nominator for a FAC (the one you have been copy editing for me now). Are you interested?. This issue came up during my comm with Dan55 a short while back.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary. My interests lie more in improving article content, to the extent I am able, and not so much in whether an article passes community consensus on FA. Anyway, Dank55 is quicker and more knowledgeable at the level of in-depth copyediting FAC wants to see for final approval, so he should be a good co-nom for you. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made several edits in the last week to cover comments by Moni3 and Sundar. Please coitinue your copy edits as and when you find time.thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be having a hard time finding a copy editor to do one last overall copy edit before FAC. Do you think the article reads well as is?

Honestly, I don't think it reads quite well enough to pass FAC without objections as it stands. With FAC supposedly stricter in extensions and quicker fails nowadays, I think the article might fail and require a resubmission after the new "few weeks" guidelines between renominations, which is something you probably want to avoid. In the article, I still see wording issues that copyeditors known for the final in-depth polishing of content are good at fixing, people like Finetooth, Risker, and Dank55. Unfortunately, those type of copyeditors are in high demand and really busy. Can you get Moni3 to copyedit the content besides the PR review type feedback? It's hard for me to make the necessary time and effort to go into the level of detail probably needed, but if you want I'll try to gather my thoughts to post a more detailed overview of what I see as remaining FAC-level problems. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep hunting for copy editors.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me which sections need a better topic sentence? Seems to be an important buz word.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look through the article again later tonight. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ranna has been introduced earlier, in the par "Mainstream literature"Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look carefully at the "folk literature" section. I modified the sentence on mass appeal. Does it read well now?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be reworded for best effect, Revolutionary because the Veerashaivas, acting in protest, used the pure form of Kannada language in their poems, encouraged writers from lower castes to participate and completely eliminated themes that had been considered standard by the king and the monastery.[38] Thus, written in native metres, in a language close to the spoken form of Kannada, the Vachana poems gained mass appeal.[39] I will read through the books again to ee if I missed anything.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometime this week, I plan to move ahead with the article. A lot of peer reviewing has been done. I have to assume the prose is much better now, after you completed your recent round of cpedits. Hopefully, all will go well. When you find time, please continue to improve the prose.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and free up a couple more 1+ hour work sessions over the next two days to clean up the rest of what I saw as problematic before you take it to FAC. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Great.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just nominated for FAC. Are you sure you don't want to be a co-nominator?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't get involved in the FA or GA reviewing processes other than working on articles if requested and occasionally making a comment there. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Félix Trinidad

Here is a groundhog eating, or at least that's what he wants you to think...

You know, I don't remember giving you the thanks for all the work done in this article. We landed some of the most demanding reviewers out there, without your copyedit it wouldn't have passed the second nomination, kudos! - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA. I had thought the article was pretty close to making it from the first GA nom, but hadn't watchlisted it for a while, and didn't notice the follow-up nomination/pass. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the second nomination was quite late, Puerto Rican Amazon held me back for a while. However, most of the text's core was your work with some tweaks done by Tony, you are as responsible for the successful follow-up nomination as any of us. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for fixing typos in USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) and USS Samoa (CB-6). Your help is greatly appreciated. :D Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Víctor E Reviglio

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Víctor E Reviglio, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KCinDC (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create this article content. You might wish to check the history more closely in the future to avoid misunderstandings when article moves are involved. The comments should indicate how the article came about, due to restoration of an article following its usurpation. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Further remarks on who to address this PROD notice to will be posted to your talk page. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have relied on Twinkle. —KCinDC (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a minor thing really, other than I think User_talk:Nationsguard might want to be notified of the proposed deletion. I don't think the article stands much chance of sticking around without a significant rewrite. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard Justice

Thanks for the fixes to Hard Justice (2008). Before you do anymore I just wanted to tell you that what is in the article right now is not the finished product. I'm doing a copyedit in my sandbox. The article is ready for GAN but I need to cut it down in a sandbox and it is going to wait for a long time on GAN so I thought to just place it up now since I'll have it ready tomorrow. Long story short, thanks.--WillC 04:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your help on Roman Catholic Church. I know you spent a decent amount of time copyediting this page for FAC. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out again. I hope you will come back to help and I thank you for all your past efforts to improve this article. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 00:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thank you

I just noticed your name on a few articles on my watchlist. Mony thunks far tedying ap me tarrible toping! --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba

Nice to see you around. I request you to keep the article in your watchlist and point any other problems. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Vithoba: There are some issues that the copyeditor has raised about dates, dashes and use of Indic words. Please provide your valuable input regarding these issues. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I request to add more comments or edit the article for any problems you find (which is what I would prefer), if you are free. "it's your decision what changes to make and if you want to make them" I feel that you are a better person to decide what changes to make. If the meaning is not the intended one, i will surely reword. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I request you to read the article one final time and point issues remaining like the dash one or prose. I plan to go to a FAC soon , but before i need your final word. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, like to hear more. Thanks again. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Heya, I just want to drop in a line of thanks over the corrections you did to Half-Life: Blue Shift. I managed to miss them entirely. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

This is still about 2-3 weeks from a initial copy edit. However, since it is pushing 56K of data and I have another 10K of data coming, do you think we need to initial paragraph in "Overview section" called "Literature prior to 16th century". I though of including it to give context.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It would not have been possible without you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me 10 days or so on the above article, after which it should be ready for first round of copy edits and a simulteneous PR. I plan to wrap up the PR by Dec 30th.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

However, if you are free, you may start off on overview, 17th and 18th century writings. Also, the first part of 19th century writings. I will only be adding on topic sentences to these sections in the coming days.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been pondering over changing the name of the article to something that is more inclusive of a new section I want to introduce. This new section will deal with poetry written in the Northern Karnataka region, outside the Mysore kingdom, for completeness. But keep in mind that much of the literary production came from Mysore court. Some choices are,

• Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE
• Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore and neighbouring lands
• Developments in Kannada literature, 1600–1900
• Developments in Kannada literature–post Vijayanagara to modern era (because post Vijayanagara means after 1565 and mature modern era flourished from 1900)

If you can think of something more sutiable, please feel free to recommend.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The choice "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE" sounds the best to me, if you're going outside of the Mysore kingdom in content. Since it's literally two seconds to change the title later, you can pick what you like best and change it at FAC, if necessary. I've seen several FACs where the title of the article changed to better match content or standards, didn't seem like a very big deal if the main reviewers and authors agree. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is now in PR.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Happy New Year to you. If you have time, please look at the comments by User:Taxman on the PR regarding the prose in the Lead section.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the dispute in the article with Fowler&fowler now resolved? During the last article interaction involving him that I was also party to (at Kannada literature), quite a lot of time and effort was spent in discussion concerning wording changes to address FAC objections. Many of these changes were subsequently removed or overwritten. I don't mind if my own edits are reverted by authors or informed parties, but the edit wars over previously agreed-to content there struck me as a waste of everyone's time, particularly when accompanied by such rancor. I am far from an expert on these topics, so I cannot support or challenge the content claims of one side over another to help avoid such a mess. If there is going to be another prolonged content dispute, I don't think my own edits can be beneficial until the dispute is settled.

I do mean for this feedback to be interpreted in a helpful way and wish you a Happy New Year as well. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have discussed this issue with Dank55 who has adviced that the article title be best resolved in the FAC, per recommendations from the reviewers, which is what you also adviced. So I dont see any reason to stop the article here. regads,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Is there an email address I can contact you at?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the website linked on my user page has a valid e-mail address on its front page. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Made a few small changes, I'll try to get together a more detailed post or posts on wording later tonight or tomorrow. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for catching the typo at Canadian Heraldic Authority! //roux   05:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

River Irwell

Thanks for fixing the typos in the River Irwell article. There I was copyediting other articles and while I'm not looking someone's fixing typos in stuff that I've written - I'm gutted! Why is it so much easier to see the mistakes in other people's work? I suppose that's one of the great mysteries of life :) Richerman (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

More thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For copyediting 82nd Sustainment Brigade (United States) within minutes of my nominating it for GA. You've helped edit a number of my GAs and been a great service to mine, and everyone else's efforts, as evidenced by many people thanking you for copyediting so much over the past few months. Thank you very much! -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for a year of great copyediting. I always appreciate your assistance in keeping/making my articles clean.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable biofuel

Thanks for copyediting this article. It is currently a Good Article candidate, and I was wondering if you would like to do the review. Johnfos (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do GA reviews. There are judging standards and processes to pass/promote GAs I am not prepared to get involved in. However, since you inquired, I will try to do a more thorough copyedit of the article later, as time permits—something beyond the typographical error checks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough copyedit... Johnfos (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hazlitt Typos

Well, thanks for catching those typos in the material I added to the William Hazlitt article. It's been just over a year since I've seen your name in the history of any page to which I've made major contributions. When that happens, I know it's a sign I've been getting sloppy. Unlike some others around here, I'm generally pretty good with spelling, grammar, and so on, and, as I've mentioned, I used to make a living, at least in part, by doing what you're doing here. But this is a reminder, once again, that copy editors need their own copy editors, and proofreaders need their own proofreaders. Keep up the great work! And have a happy holiday season! --Alan W (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to hear from you again. I'm pleased to see you continue to improve articles, particularly given your strong experience and ability. Too many other excellent editors leave Wikipedia over time (although apparently a few come back under a new name). -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again for your kind words! Always nice to be appreciated. --Alan W (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank for your edits to Port of Albany-Rensselaer, most of those grammatical errors were mine I must admit! Im grateful you caught them. I'd love to hear any critique or comments you may have about the page, anything to make it better, anything you thought was lacking or was too much. I'd like to make the page GA sometime soon, not much traffic goes there though, so getting feedback and someone to do a peer review is hard..

Camelbinky (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Camelbinky (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review done. Pass 1, at least. Dunno if there will be a pass 2. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what your opinion of linking years is. I notice some articles link the first mention of each year that shows up, others link only certain years, others dont link years at all.Camelbinky (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Date linking has been a controversial issue the past few months on Wikipedia, particularly with respect to full dates. The emerging consensus appears to be not linking years or full dates unless the year/date itself is key to interpretation of the content. I don't think any dates in your article need or should be linked. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all the issues on your peer review have been addressed (except for more information in the history section between 1932-2002) as have the issues in the semi-automated review on grammar and style. Your review was really helpful and appreciated, very thorough. If you find time to check out if everything was fixed right and if there are other issues that would be great to hear again. Best critique on an article I have seen in a long time. Thank you so much. Camelbinky (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Thank you for the copyedit of USS Iowa turret explosion. I can't believe I missed that many. Thanks for the help. Cla68 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Best wishes for the coming new year!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hybridmaster

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hybridmaster, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.--Charles (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, not my article. There, I fixed a typo. I fear this may be becoming an unfortunate trend of warnings on articles I did not create or improve with significant contributions, and hope it is not an indication of a bug or misbehavior from automation software used to post the warnings. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I recently created 1989 Valvettiturai massacre and Jaffna hospital massacre, if you have time could u please take a look at the language. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see any obvious misspellings or doubled words. I'll try to do a basic grammar check on them in a day or two. -- Michael Devore (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up, I have come up with another Madhu church shelling. If you have time. Thanks Taprobanus (talk)

OK, I cleaned up a few basic problems. It (and the other two) will need more thorough copyedit and content work if you're going to later take them to Good Article Candidates. I don't know if that is your plan. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Goble

Thanks for picking up those silly typos that everyone else (especially me) missed - Happy New Year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Oops. Thanks for removing those extra signatures. Peanut4 (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your copyedits to many of my GANs. :) TheLeftorium 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Bombay

HelloM ichael Devore. I notice that you are a great copyeditor. I wish to nominate List of Governors of Bombay for FLC. Can you copyedit the prose of this list. Actually, there is hardly any prose since this is a List. Help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see much to fix as far as basic grammar and misspellings; of course, I know nothing about the topic. Good luck with FLC. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I keep seeing your name pop up on my watchlist, and every time it's because you've found niggling things that others have missed. You're a very productive editor in a role lots of people can't do; thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		My watchlist shows how much you do to fix minor flaws, especially in articles that I've defaced with my lousy typing edited Philcha (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore

Hi Michael. I know you are heavily overburdened with cpedit projects, but I do have to request you to copy edit this FAR article, if you have any time remaining. Regards, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, but with that article involved in an extremely contentious featured article review, there is a good chance that large portions of the content may change. That dispute needs to be substantially resolved before I would be comfortable investing significant time on the article, including the requisite discussions with you on specific copy changes. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone should agree; just that neutral parties would find the sourcing and writing to be an acceptable version of events. For now, I see no neutral party interaction helping establish consensus.

Leaving aside the behavior of participants as tangential to the issues, I do not know who in the FAR is more correct regarding the accuracy of the article content. The arguments made go to the the heart of what and how the content reads. However, I will say that the delist arguments made in the FAR because a copyedit is needed are not compelling. Given the article's existing FA framework, those sorts of issues can be resolved more quickly than the FAR itself has already lasted. Articles with a similar (or possibly worse) level of writing remain FAs not under review. If it gets to a point where a copyedit is the main issue, then I'll help out to the best of my modest abilities. If you feel my comments here may help assuage editor concerns outside of the content dispute—a dispute I am completely unqualified to remark upon—you may copy the comments where you believe them relevant. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your candidness. However, please do continue your PR which has brought so much value to the Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry again, but the latest FARC brouhaha has lead to implications that we are somehow in collusion to bring biased versions of articles to Featured Article status. Since I was heavily involved in editing your last (I believe your last) Featured Article, I think it would be better for Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore's FA candidacy were I not significantly involved in editing it (assuming you plan on bringing it to FAC after the peer review). My work with you on this could be used as a point against your submission, and I already foresee a hard battle there based on the current opposition.

If you remain interested, I should be available for help editing your next FAC or other article after this FAC is over, pass or fail. In the meantime, I hope you can find a good copyeditor for the current article—perchance an editor with greater talents than my own limited set—because Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore does appear to need more work and copyediting to pass FAC. I further hope, though it appears unlikely in the extreme, that Fowler&fowler and you might work past your differences and perhaps collaborate here to create the best possible article on the subject that a reader could wish for. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Careless or disingenuous?

Dear Michael Devore, I'm disappointed both to see your post here and to see it copied on the FARC page.

I've taken you thus far to be a neutral and fair person, but I am surprised to see you inserting yourself in a situation, where, as a copy-editor, you should know better. You say, for example, "... the delist arguments made in the FAR because a copyedit is needed are not compelling." Who has argued for "delisting" on grounds of poor prose? I can't seem to find anyone. All that people have said is that in addition to issues of poor sourcing and factual accuracy, of lack of comprehensiveness and the presence of bias, it doesn't help the article any that the prose is so shabby. That's quite different from arguing for delisting because the article hasn't been copy-edited.

Many problems in the text that don't fall under bias, citations, or comprehensiveness, are in any case errors that a copy editor will likely not catch. The classic howler (which has since been removed) was, "The economy of the Kingdom of Mysore was based on agriculture, due to the majority of the population being villagers." Fixing the grammatical errors alone there won't do much, since the author has confused cause for effect!

Also, it is disingenuous, in my view, to characterize the FARC—in which the primary author of the article has been accused of bias—as a dispute between two equally biased parties which requires intervention by a neutral party (whatever that means). Perhaps you would like to do a Google Scholar search on each of user:Dineshkannambadi's sources and decide for yourself how obscure they are; contrast them then with the results for the major authors who have worked on the topic of Mysore.

I understand that you may have some empathy for user:Dineshkannambadi since you have worked with him for some time now, but as a copy-editor you need to stay above these frays. user:Dineshkannambadi might be a very hard working editor, but the topic of history requires certain skills, not only of accurately paraphrasing a source and of clearly expressing oneself, but also of understanding historical methodology and perspective, skills that, in my view, user:Dineshkannambadi doesn't display on his pages, however much we may admire his hard work and drive in putting them together.

I would like to request that you ask him to remove your post from the FARC. If you would like to add something to the FARC, you should do it yourself. At the very least, you risk your message being misused unwittingly. If you choose not do this, I will be copying this post to the FARC as well. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My comments were carefully structured not to take sides in the crux of the debate, and I believe them to be accurate within the scope of a disinterested party with no special knowledge of the subject, to be on point, and to be potentially helpful to those who are concerned, as some were, about the copyedit of the article. Since I do not recommend pass or fail at FACs, and I have no strong feelings on what is kept or delisted at FA (the article quality is the same regardless), I left the decision on whether to repost my comments to the primary party in the FARC interaction: Dineshkannambadi. My remarks clearly cannot not be found to support his basic content position, but do demonstrate a willingness to help out at the article in another possibly problematic area if the factual nature of the content was consensus approved. Various comments related to Delist at the FARC assuredly do significantly remark on the writing style and copy.

I prefer that you not imply that I have cast a special regard for Dineshkannambadi's side of the content debate because I "have worked with him for some time now". I do not know Dineshkannambadi any better than I do you. Moreover, I have worked with a number of other editors, several preceding him, although it is true that three of his articles have my highest edit counts. In fact, I would have no problems working on articles on which you are the primary author, as I note that the article you authored and mentioned twice at the FARC currently has its own copy issues. Dineshkannambadi's articles, your own, and all articles, should stand or fall on their own merits.

Since you have chosen to suggest in your section title that I have acted disingenuously, I will in turn choose to be blunt in commenting on one aspect of this dispute—in fact the range of disputes—you have had with Dineshkannambadi. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. All work done here should be performed with an eye towards building articles and making them better. The issuance or revocation of FA badges should always remain a weak second to these goals. Despite this, you have begun and continued spending incredible amounts of time fighting with Dineshkannambadi in FAC and FARC, with many accompanying side comments and personal remarks wholly unrelated to fundamental content issues. If you had instead invested most that time in writing quality articles, I have little doubt that you could have been the primary author of as many, or more, Featured Articles than Dineshkannambadi. You spend your time and talents far too cheaply.

In closing, you have spread your debate with Dineshkannambadi across multiple pages of Wikipedia. Those would seem sufficient to your task. You are not welcome to further this fight with him, directly or indirectly, at my talk page. Please do not post to my talk page again in this vein. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing the typo in Icos. I've read the article quite a few times and I'm surprised I missed that. Anyways, if you didn't know, Icos is being peer reviewed, and I'd like all the help I can get. In particular, there are some rough spots in the "Acquisition by Eli Lilly" section that I haven't been able to iron out. Thanks again! Shubinator (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, did a review. Not an exhaustive one, but it might keep you busy for a little while. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I've made the changes you suggested, and I explained some parts at the peer review page. Your comments are very helpful. Keep them coming! Shubinator (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore

Please take a look at Proposal. You don't have to respond there, but if you think your comments might be useful, you may want to. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and copyedit the rest of Kingdom of Mysore if you'd like to. I will not be adding any content to the article. Thanks for waiting. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always

Thanks for finding so many typos in Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 - one of these days I will learn to type ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More thanks ...

Hello Michael Devore, what can I add to this list of thanks? Probably not much more than just another "thank you" for fixing my typos and spelling errors in the Randolph, Tennessee article just in time for its GA nomination.

Recently, I wrote something similar to a user who fixed some bad links in an article I was writing on, and I am going to repeat myself here. What I like most with Wikipedia is that at some point, when it is needed most, someone with knowledge who cares about the details comes along and fixes the errors you made. Wow, there is so much administration going on at Wikipedia; discussions, consensus, more discussions and so on, and so on ... neverending. I don't want to understate the importance of discussions and consensus, they are very important and of much value indeed. However, if a majority is busy administrating, the work is not done effectively or not at all. Have you ever paid attention to these roadside construction workscenes? Usually at least three people are busy discussing something, looking important and one guy is doing the work in the meantime.

Without users like you, Wikpedia would be a pretty poor place. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even More Thanks

Thanks for changing it's to its on the Launceston, Tasmania article. Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 06:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oopsie

Your edit is entirely fair, of course. It was my editorial word from some time ago, informal indeed, and i expected someone would get around to removing it, though i couldn't make myself do that when i recently revisited the article to update about that site.  :) doncram (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I might turn a blind eye to a mild interjection in poorly-written articles which need significant content work. Here, your article is of better quality, and I felt it would be a disservice to your efforts to keep an "Oopsie" in there, because it could make readers less likely to take the article seriously. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

Ravenloft has been nominated again for FAC. :) BOZ (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Giguère

Hi, If you really have an interest in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gigu%C3%A8re) and similar pages, I strongly suggest you get acquainted (and eventually intervene) with this link: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Robert_Gigu.C3.A8re.C2.A0.28d.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0h.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0j_.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0.E2.86.B5.29

In short, Utilisateur:LPLT in the French Wikipedia eliminated the french version of the page 3 hours after I posted it.

What do you think if I cite page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability:

it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

This guy apparently has not read that. He is on a rampage to eliminate all biographical pages he judges are only of a genealogical nature and his list includes the English page on Robert Giguère.

Thanks for your support, Alainr345 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainr345 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Thanks

Invariably, when I check the edit counts of my most recent WP:GAs, your name pops up for your consistent copyediting.

This user helped promote Bennie Oosterbaan to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

High-pressure area is not the first article which I've submitted for GA of which you've corrected small issues. Therefore...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for your important work copyediting articles nearly ready for GA. It likely saves the reviewers a bit of time and heartburn during GA reviews. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Bonnie (1998)

Hey, could you check Hurricane Bonnie (1998) for typos and doubled words that I might have missed? No worries if you don't have time. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I had time to do more than a basic typo pass on it, but did not go through a full review. There are wording issues in parts of the article you might still want to address before taking it to FAC, assuming that is in its future. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A request

Would you mind looking at Kinzua Bridge for typos? I just finished a copyedit and User:Dtbohrer wants to take it to FAC soon. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much to pick at there. Just found the typo and the wandering period. It's pretty darn clean, near as I can tell. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK error

Good catch! Really bad to have such a glaring error on the mainpage.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing those spellings on the 2008 German Grand Prix. I obviously had a bad day spelling "offical"... oh, sorry official! Darth Newdar (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Though I am certainly embarressed... err... ambarrassed embarrassed by my glaring typos, it's an honor to have you correct so many of them for me! Thanks for your diligence. Your minor edits make a major difference on this project. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

homosexual transsexual

Hi, I'm GA reviewing homosexual transsexual. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I only made one minor edit to the article. I'm not sure why I am receiving the notice. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your help on The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. I certainly need it after seeing the list left for me at the FAC. Do you have any suggestions regarding the name of the article? Sandy doesn't like the word "The" in the title. I was thinking of maybe "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" but I am very open to other suggestions. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No suggestions on the title, religious nomenclature falls outside my purview. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I will be doing some work on the Ten Commandments page to address the comments about content and referencing and I will probably ask you to have a look before I send it up to FAC again, do you mind? NancyHeise ^talk 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can make a more detailed review of it than a basic typo fix pass if and when you want. Just let me know. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

La Isla Bonita

Hi, I just saw your wonderful typo error catching work on the "Live to Tell" article. Could you please do the same for my La Isla Bonita" article. I'm developing it for GA. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee. --Legolas ^(talktome) 08:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed obvious misspellings and a few other wording problems during an initial read, but overall the article does need more work on the wording and content before it is ready for GAN. Good luck with the (future) submission. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Really appreciated. --Legolas ^(talktome) 09:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your taking up the time to look in to the article and improving it. Thanks for all you did. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Loihi

Hi. I was snooping around in Loihi and Hawaii hotspot's edit history, looking for a good copyeditor- and you showed up prominently. I need another set of eyes to look over Loihi for FA technical criterea compliance, and get it ready for the FA process. Sorry to bombard you, but I also need someone to tell me how well Hawaii hotspot looks...please? ResMar 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I use your "Sort words" tool. The one thing is, once you see a misspelled word, how do you find it in the article?

Thank you!

Yeah, give me a day or so to look at it. My workload is heavy right now.

You can control/option 'F' to find a word in an article page with about any popular browser. If it's not found, you might not have all tables or section open on the page with "Show" instead of "Hide. Also sometimes the error is in a template and not obvious. You can also control 'F' check on the full edit page, in case the misspelling is hidden from normal article view. Occasionally the misspelled word is in a link, so it's OK. I'd like to filter out words in link URLs from the sort, but haven't had time to dig around and see if it's possible without major code rewrites. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a chance to quickly look over one article, but I am not done there. I'll post comments on issues I found there to the talk page later. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So yeah, basically I'll wait until I get the go-ahead from you and nom it. ResMar 15:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thank you thank you thank you!! ResMar 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's a idea for the script linkage thing. You could tell it to ignore bits starting in "[[" and end the 'ignore' command at the "]]" The reason it looks so weird is because the article has been converted to the recommended Hawaiian MoS.

[1] :) ResMar 23:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes

Hi Michael. Can you please check the article "4 Minutes (Madonna song)" for any error which I did while enhancing it? I believe there are plenty thats why I am asking for your help. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeee. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can squeeze in the next two or three days. Do you want it checked only for misspellings and basic grammar, or more detailed than that? -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Misspellings and grammar will do. Thanks. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had time for a quick pass on it, and may have time in the next day to scan it a second time for basic stuff. If you're going to GA, the article contains sentences that need work on their wording and structure. -- Michael Devore (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed most (maybe all) of the misspelled words and some grammar problems. There are still awkward or questionable sentences in the article, so I'd recommend you have a detailed pass on those issues before going to GA. Good luck with the submission. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Springs State Park

	<font=3> Thanks again for your peer review and copyedits - Cherry Springs State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on another FA. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My revert on food chain

I apologized to the user. I thought he was vandalizing the article by changing a letter in "means", because I must've been tired and could not see the difference. It was a mistake. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, it looked like a minor mistake, but there's been a lot of vandalism on the article and I thought maybe I was missing something. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Survey: Your Opinion is Requested

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Loihi

Trying again. ResMar 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkup

Hi Michael. I have come to ask your help again shamelessly. Please can you copyedit Hung Up and The Fame (album) articles? Will really appreaciate it as both are GA quality. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still quite busy with work, but time is slowly starting to free up. I'll try to look them over in the next one, two or three days, at least checking for misspellings and basic grammar problems. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well "4 Minutes (Madonna song)", thanks to your help, recently passed its GA. I wish for the article to go to FA but before that Ive applied for peer review. Will you review the article with your inputs please? I specificaly want inputs on the prose and the sentence construction. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Will try to take a look this week, currently trying to get something out the door. FA can be harsh plus pass/fails can be influenced by factors beyond the article content, so good luck and don't take it too hard if you need to make more than one submission to pass it. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible move of Nazi plunder

I have started a discussion on possibly moving Nazi plunder. As you are currently a reasonably active editor, as well as a past contributor to the article, I hope you can find some time to make comments at renaming Nazi plunder. Unschool 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1984 Mannar massacre

Shamelessly looking for your help in copy editing, when and if you have time. Many thanks as usual. Taprobanus (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can in the time I have. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt

Thank you for your copy edits to this article. It is now at featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hullo copy-editor extraordinaire. I'm hoping to put this one up for FA soon. (It's a different oen by the way) Delldot's peer-reviewed it and highlighted my dodgy grammar and convoluted sentences. I'd love you to give it the once over if you have the time. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I made three or four minor copy edits. I will try to look it over more closely later on. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Swaminarayan/archive1

Would you please peer review the article for FA criteria, like you once did for FA Vithoba? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Your largely unsung efforts to catch typos and misspellings, most recently on by hehalf in Nansen's Fram expedition, are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Second. You showed a keen eye at Thalaba the Destroyer. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kanhopatra/archive1

Please comment about Kanhopatra, in in consideration FA criteria. Your comments about Vithoba (now FA) were very useful. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

I have done a pretty involved copy edit of Jay Pritzker Pavilion and have lost my critical distance for seeing typos and the like. If you are able and have the inclination, could you please spell check it? (Any other copy edits would also be welcome). Thanks as always, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did what jumped out at me in a single pass, you can reverse anything you don't like. Honestly, I can't say I'm terribly happy with how the article flows in places, and I think it goes into too much detail on occasion, but I've seen FAC articles pass where I felt the same way, so it's probably just a matter of taste and style. I assume you're planning to take it to FAC, and wish you luck there. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always - I have an idea where there might be too much detail too, but will wait several days and reread it with hopefully fresher eyes. TonyTheTiger has other articles he wants to send to FAC first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Qwest

Thanks for grabbing those type-os at Qwest Field!Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)