User talk:George Ponderevo/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, George Ponderevo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Crewe Alexandra F.C.. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jncraton (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is Crewe Alex something you're interested in? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Shire Head

Hi George - point taken about "Three Shire Head", "Three Shires Head", etc. I changed the article back for two reasons: (a) it seemed sensible that the spelling matched the title of the article and (b) your edit had left it with a mixture of spellings. Personally I prefer "Three Shires Head" - there are three "shires" so to my mind it should be plural. I checked a few of the links and they seem to be about evenly split between "Three Shire's Head" and "Three Shire Head". I've mentioned the alternatives in the article. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It was inconsistent before I touched it, as you can see here. What I couldn't do was to change the article's title. Seems strange to me that it has so many different names, and of the alternatives I find the "official" OS variant the least convincing. But at least it's consistent now. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like "Three Shire Head" is an old possessive plural, which in Old English wouldn't have had an 's' ending. Compare the adjectival usage in "she's a five foot tall woman." Esp. place names are conservative. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, thanks for your copyedit of Frédéric Alfred d'Erlanger. By the way, if you want the above-mentioned article to be moved, you can start a requested move (instructions are on that page). Just a friendly suggestion. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about that or anything else on Wikipedia. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've copied this conversation to Three Shire Head talk page for future reference; it's likely to come up again, I guess. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting

This Exceptional newcomer award is hereby given to George Ponderevo for careful and consistently excellent copy-edits to articles on the main page. Here's hoping it's the start of many more. -- Khazar (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, I've seen your excellent copyediting show up on a few of my DYK nominations now as well as those of others, and I just wanted to say thanks for what you're doing. If this is a continued area of interest for you, you might also check out the upcoming nominations at Template talk:Did you know; this would give you a chance to incorporate your suggestions before the articles even hit the main page. Whichever approach you find best, though, thanks for the edits, and keep up the good work. Feel free to drop by my talk page and say hi if you ever have any questions. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

PS Why not start off your User page with the award below?

Well, thank you very much. What a nice surprise! I guess hitting articles before they reach the main page is a good idea, so I'll check out that page. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I came by to say thanks for going over The Wolfgang Press too :-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

CE

Thank you for your copyedits on Excarpsus cummeani, most of which improved the article. However, there is no need to change ordinals from words to figures--I use words because I prefer that, and the relevant section in the MoS does not prefer one over the other: please see WP:ORDINAL. I don't know yet if I'm going to change them back or not, but I wanted you to know that a. our Manual doesn't always dictate a choice and b. possession is 9/10th of the law: if a format is used in a certain article, it's appropriate for other editors to stick with the format that's there. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anyway, while you're at it, and given your obvious penchant for church councils, have a look at Concilium Germanicum, which will be in the DYK section in a couple of days. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry about ruining your article, I thought I was just applying the Manual of Style. I hadn't yet come across that dusty corner called WP:ORDINAL, so thanks for pointing that out, and I'll try to be more careful in the future. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No worries, you didn't ruin anything. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your copyedit to Marimba Ani; I never knew we had a {{'"}} template, though I've often missed having one. Cheers, --JN466 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For swift, helpful copyedits to my DYK article Corydalis nobilis and to many others, judging from all the compliments on your talk page. Kudos for generosity and skill! Sharktopus talk 18:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I really appreciate your interest in theropod paleopathology, but I've had to undo your work on its citations because some of your removals have resulted in passages being cited to incorrect sources for the information. Abyssal (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I was going to pass along the copyeditors barnstar to you, but you already have one! :) Thanks so much for your copyediting contributions to Wikipedia, it improves everything you touch. Especially my Louise Nevelson re-write. Thank you again! SarahStierch (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I find it's a good way to learn about stuff I wouldn't normally come across. Nevelson is obviously an important topic, so thanks for writing it. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for copyediting my DYK article, coal ball! --Σ talkcontribs 05:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can haz copy edit?

	Good spelling makes Wikipe-tan happy
	Thanks for perusing DYK and giving a needed copy-edit nearly every day! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi. Thanks for your help with Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard. I restored the periods to the quotations because they appear in the original quotations. I believe that's the proper policy, unless I'm missing something. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you changed the quote format, you removed the attribution, so I returned that as well. -- James26 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've done it right this time, but the documentation for the {{cquote}} template quite clearly says: "NOTE: This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know. Thanks for informing me of that. -- James26 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Batticaloa massacre artice c/e

Thanks for the c/e. Kanatonian (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your copyedit on the Miro article. If you have an interest there then there is a Miro project .. Victuallers (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

James Clark

Hi George, absolutely fantastic work on the James Clark article. WP needs more editors of your calibre. And I see that others hold you in high regard, too. If I've got good quality articles ready for mainspace, would you be interested in getting a notification, or would you rather just browse and edit whatever you feel like? Schwede66 05:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's something you think I might be able to help with then I'll try and help. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just nominated a couple of articles: Aidanfield and Julie Hardaker. Nothing too substantial, but I'd certainly appreciate if you could have a look at those. Schwede66 12:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Aidanfield, and here are the changes I made. Looking at other similar articles I'd say that the lead really ought to be about twice its present length to do the article justice. There's quite about the controversy over the developer's application to demolish some of the listed buidings, for instance, but the lead doesn't mention that. It could also say just a little about the Mount Magdala Institute, and as a Catgory I heritage structure the St John of God Chapel is probably also worth mentioning. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the changes I've made to Julie Hardaker. I think my above point about the lead also applies to this article, but of course that's not a requirment for DYK, as you know. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous - thanks so much. My objective is to write to good articles, and DYK is just a side issue to this. So I'll expand the leads when I get round to it. Thanks for the feedback, which I will take on board. Schwede66 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the leads. Almost all my articles could probably do with longer leads, so I'll keep this useful suggestion of yours in mind. Schwede66 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think those are pretty significant improvements, giving the articles a bit more balance. Good luck if you ever decide to try them at GAN. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work on Peter Beck the other day. City Mall, Christchurch is about to hit the homepage - would be great if you had time to look at this. Schwede66 19:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with your main page appearance. Hopefully I haven't messed anything up to much. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's looking great. Thanks! Schwede66 19:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Wearstler

Hi George! I have seen that you have contributed to the article about designer Kelly Wearstler. I wanted to let you know that I have started a conversation about the use of the 2008 Domino magazine cover in the article. It was removed under non-free content criteria reason #8 (that it has no contextual significance) and perhaps you'd like to comment on the talk page. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of refs

Hi George. Thanks for your edits at the Angel Orensanz Center article. I believe that the article was better off with the refs you deleted. The problem is as follows -- the nature of wikipedia is that editors will make future edits. Sentences that you stripped a ref from may well end up being in a separate para from the succeeding sentence that had the ref. That will leave it without ref coverage. Also, there is of course no way to distinguish, when one has 2 succeeding sentences, and only the second one has a ref, that the second ref was in fact intended to cover both -- rather than just the sentence in which it appears. Thanks. (if you have any thoughts, you can comment here).--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are simply that citing every consecutive sentence with the same source is distracting and unnecessary; the established convention is that each citation covers everything that precedes it. And as a counter to your position, it is just as easy for someone to insert into one of your cited sentences a statement not covered by the source. But of course it's your article, so may do as you wish without any further interference from me. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it is cleaner not to have refs at the end of every sentence. Or any refs at all, for that matter. The problem here is verifiability. The problem with the "convention" that you point to is as I indicated above. Your point as to a further problem is a correct one -- that is a problem with multiple editors editing an article, as we do on wikipedia, that I do not have an answer to. It is one reason that wp is less reliable than other encyclopedias. But given the fact that there is a problem that you have identified, is not reason to not address the problem that I pointed out. Nor do I think it is a theoretical one -- I constantly see paras split, as they get longer. That is normal course here. And that then leaves us in a bind as to verifiability, which is a core focus of the Project. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Naturally you may adopt whichever convention you prefer. If you don't like any of my changes then I won't be in the least upset if you revert them George Ponderevo (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you do on copyediting articles that appear on the Main Page! HurricaneFan25 16:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Buying vs. Leasing: Which is the better option for my needs?

Hello George Ponderevo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Buying vs. Leasing: Which is the better option for my needs?, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read the criteria, and it seemed to me that the article was a very clear advertising piece for one particular leasing company. But anyway, which criteria did you feel was more appropriate, and why? George Ponderevo (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

copyedit

Thanks for the CE pn Rollin White!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I felt a bit sorry for him by the end of the article, constantly having to defend his patents. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Left Column

Thanks for your copy edits. The one from "banned" to "exiled" would be better with another word, just because the word "exile" is used in the article primarily to refer to people who voluntarily exiled themselves from Germany during the Nazi era. I think I used "banned" because I had seen it in one of the sources and the particular one I was using there said "banished" and I was doing my best to avoid using the identical word. I just think it's less confusing for the reader, especially the non-anglophone reader (and there are quite a few of them who visit this WP project). Thanks. Marrante (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's your article, but I'd say that "banned" isn't a synonym of "banished". There's no harm in using the same word as the source if it's the correct and best word. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for copy-editing Entre a Mi Mundo! I know it was a lot of trouble because of the awkward English, but here's a cookie for your hard work. Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice yesterday, but I see you're hoping to get this article through a GA review. So I've taken the liberty of copyediting the lead for you; see what you think. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for David Lewis copyediting

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

For helpful copyedits to my Main page FA article David Lewis (politician) Kudos for generosity and skill! You found some stuff that other editors and reviewers missed more than 18-months ago during its Feature Article review: they really did improve the readability. BTW, I did revert two edits, because the quotes really needed the ellipsis marks, due to being only partial quotes. Keep up the great work.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

All quotes are by definition partial, so the elipsis is unnecessary. But it's your article, so format it as you will. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just want to thank you for copy-editing the United States free speech exceptions article! I appreciate the help! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope you approve of the changes. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Giant tube worms?

Hi, I think there is an error of omission in the new Kuphus article and the associated DYK, just past. I am a physicist and know nothing of these matters, but I have posted what I think I discovered on the Kuphus talk page. Hope you can check it out, and make a correction if needed. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John Acland (politician)

Hello George, you copyedited one of my new articles the other day and did your usual superb job. Thank you! John Acland (politician) is the DYK lead hook to go live shortly after the blackout. Nobody else other than me has copyedited that article before, so if you have a spare moment, I'd much appreciate your help. And the lead is still to be written, but that will be post blackout. Schwede66 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

Thank you very much for having taken your time to improve Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I really appreciate it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I tend to pootle about the articles that are on the main page, just tidying up wherever I can. It's good to see articles on less well known and non-English or US-centric subjects, I hope you'll keep producing them. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pubs in Nazi Germany

You asked if they had pubs in Nazi Germany. I dunno. Did they have bars? I doubt it. I think it was more like a Kneipe, a Gasthaus or a Lokale, but of course, I was translating, so I picked an English word that felt right to me. Not just Brits have pubs and the word felt to me more like a small neighborhood place (in just three letters) than "bar" did. I felt I'd need to write "neighborhood bar" to get the same feel if I used the other word. But whatever. Have a good one. Marrante (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a very interesting article, but "pub" is almost certainly the wrong word. Pubs are a peculiarly English thing. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Australian pubs are pubs, but very different from the English pub. Neighbourhood bar would be the nearest equivalent. Marj (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but Australia and Britain are culturally pretty similar. I still find it hard to believe that there were pubs in Nazi Germany though. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

BWV 111

Thank you for continued diligent copy-editing. But please be careful when using "proper" dashes: the IMSLP urls don't use those, the link is broken with the proper one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry about that. Not sure how that happened as I don't normally alter the formatting of urls. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop editwarring.

Discuss on the talkpage. You will wish to make yourself familiar with WP:ENGVAR. You will also need to provide actual evidence that 'an hereditary' is incorrect. Hint: there is no such evidence. → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? What about the New Oxford Dictionary of English (1999): "There is still some divergence of opinion over the form of the indefinite article to use preceding certain words beginning with h- when the first syllable is unstressed: ‘a historical document’ or ‘an historical document’; ‘a hotel’ or ‘an hotel’. The form depends on whether the initial h is sounded or not: an was common in the 18th and 19th centuries, because the initial h was commonly not pronounced for these words. In standard modern English the norm is for the h to be pronounced in words like hotel and historical, and therefore the indefinite article a is used; however, the older form, with the silent h and the indefinite article an, is still encountered, especially among older speakers."

So the question becomes, do you pronounce the initial "h" in "hereditary" or not? Well, do you? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

'Divergence of opinion' is not the same thing as 'definitively incorrect.' Since there is no evidence stating that it is definitively incorrect, you are wrong. Stop. Your reading comprehension also appears to be poor, as I was quite clear about 'discuss on the talkpage,' meaning the talkpage of the article. How I pronounce the word is irrelevant; the usage is perfectly correct and there is no evidence saying it is not. → ROUX ₪ 21:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have failed to answer my very simple question, and that therefore you persist in your misunderstanding of the correct usage of the indefinite article. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because your question is completely irrelevant. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why are you here, giving me the dubious benefit of your own opinion? If you persist with your bullying and abusive tactics then you will leave me with no choice other than to initiate a WP:WQA report on you. ~~

Blah, blah, blah. Evidence. Got any? No? Then shut up. → ROUX ₪ 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't post here again until you can regain your composure and communicate like a grown adult. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for copyediting the College of Arms! appreciate all the help, Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Presumably you've seen the bickering about "an hereditary" vs. "a hereditary"? Do you have a view on it? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He already had a go at me about it. Even before all arguments I knew that both were acceptable, if only 'a hereditary' was more common (and was the usage that I preferred). But I wasn't insistent because I didn't want to have an argument with him, but I am glad you did though. If he reverts back we can deal with him through the system, since the 3 revert rule has been broken. Sodacan (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Excellent New Page Patrolling, sir! Keep up the good work! Osarius Talk 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alice Delysia

Hi, i'm trying to work out why you deleted two references in the above article. The references IMO are WP:RELIABLE, so just curious as to your thinking. They have now been restored, so no need to revert. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because they're completely unnecessary in that they simply repeat the citation following. There seems to be a growing fashion for citing every sentence at DYK, but the usual convention is a citation supports everything preceding it. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

see WP:REF. a,b,c works that way. IMO it would be considered best practice to cite after four, maybe five periods as long as it was on the same subject, and most certainly not after every sentence, like you suggest. Any deviation from that subject would require a separate ref by itself. If that ref is also part of the same source, then the same inline citation will be required, never minding the space between each ref. The only time of course, one reference would be best suited to a large amount of text, would be for a quote. An esteemed collegue and I have had a conversation about this very subject here so you may want to eavesdrop. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to define best practice, simply to follow it. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. See User:Tim riley talkpage. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fauré and things

Hello, GP. May I say that your thoughtful comments are greatly appreciated, as are most (not, forgive me, quite all) of your copy edits of the Fauré piano music article? It is so pleasing when WP contributors engage in debate without rancour or tanks on the lawn. And please believe me when I say that I don't seek to pull rank, as I haven't got any. If my areas of WP interest overlap with yours I look forward to exchanging views in the future, and being of any help I can be, if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging comments, and let me assure you that even I don't believe I'm always right – just mostly right, most of the time. :D George Ponderevo (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ce

Thanks for your contributions to Monmouthpedia - all those "ce"s add up to much better articles Victuallers (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a pleasant surprise, as I didn't realise I'd done anything for the Monmouthpedia. Just shows how busy you guys must be, as pretty much all I do is niggle away at main page DYKs. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wyastone Leys

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)