User talk:Twofingered Typist/Archives/2017/November

Archives

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award[edit]

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Twofingered Typist for expansion and cleanup of 8 articles during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Banker[edit]

Would you like to collaborate for improvement? Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

	The Texan Barnstar
	Hi, Twofingered Typist. Not sure what's the best way to thank you, but I'm very happy I got you as a copyeditor for my Texan murder article. I looked at your barnstars and saw you didn't have something like this, so I figured you would appreciate a new look. Thanks for everything! MX (✉ • ✎) 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MX: Thank you very much —most appreciated. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

		CopyEditor's BarnStar
		I award you this CopyEditor's BarnStar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. Thank ypu so much for copyediting Fawad Khan-Amirk94391 (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fawad Khan[edit]

Hi, you removed OR tag from the Fawad Khan page and noted in the edit summary that page contains no original research and is properly cited with reputable sources. However at a quick glance, I can still see article contains OR. For instance, there is no source which verifies Khan was born 1981. --Saqib (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib If you check again you'll see that Kahn's DOB is cited in a sentence in the Early Life section. It does not have to be cited in the lede. What else do you consider OR? Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source no 2 which cited next to DOB in the early section doesn't confirm 1981 year. --Saqib (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib The date of the article written on his birthday confirms the DOB when you do the math. I've added an additional citation that specifically mentions the date. That should be sufficient. Why would you not simply do this yourself, I wonder? Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative effort.Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

The Video game Barnstar

Thank you for you excellent copyedits on Super Mario World. I really appreciate this! JAGUAR 22:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Awesome. Finally someone with a fine editing flair taking some interest in the Jayne Mansfield article. All that stands between the article and an FA nomination is the sloppy copy. Can you take a harder look at the article some time? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Thanks for the coffee. Still working on the article. I have a long way to go. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie to go with the cuppa. That's some real nimble footed edit work. In the last peer review there have been a number of edit suggestions. I have addressed many of them over time. See if there is anything that helps you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya I'll have a look at it once I've finished my first pass through the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the fish, edits and advises. I will probably have one or two questions sometime when addressing the advises. Until then, have a very nice time and very good health. :D Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on the Oppression article[edit]

I very much appreciated your recent edits on the Oppression article because 1) They improved the article; 2) I do not like being a Lone Ranger trying to improve an article that needs an engine overhaul--teamwork is much more fun; and 3) I learned two important Wikipedia conventions ("quotes" not <code> tags for non-English words; and "quotes" not italics for titles and terms) and saw why they make sense; and 4) I learned another lesson in writing clear, comprehensible, and concise sentences. Sometimes my ~~logophilia~~ love of words leads me astray, e.g., "Daedalian". ;o)

If you would be so kind, let me know if you have any ideas regarding a general term for "oppression" when not referring to the authoritarian type of oppression. I have used "social oppression" thus far, and perhaps it is the best term, but I'm not sure.

By the way, I stumbled across a superb book while doing some background reading for the article:

Marin, Mara (2017). Connected by Commitment: Oppression and Our Responsibility to Undermine It. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780190498627, doi:10.1093/oso/9780190498627.001.0001. I have read the Introduction and first chapter and am very impressed and even inspired by Professor Marin's compelling theory. I found the book searching the Oxford Scholarship Online database, having recently received a courtesy account arranged by the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. What a great program!

All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Markworthen: Thanks for this. As a member of the GOCE I'm happy to make my small contribution to the article. I have thought about a better term for "non-authoritarian oppression" but terms like "harassment" or "persecution" just don't convey the underlying meaning that "social oppression" does. Cheers. Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Mansfield again[edit]

I can't find any story on what was the result of the lawsuits, and I can't find a source to support what her height was found in the autopsy. Shall I remove the information as unsourced or unclear? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: The lawsuits were filed and there is a citation to support this so you could leave it in and perhaps add a sentence to the effect that the outcome of the suits is unknown. Her height at autopsy probably should be removed. For some unknown reason an editor removed, without explanation, the famous photo of Sophia Loren looking at Mansfield's breasts from the Publicity Stunt section. I've put it back. All the best. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address all the issues you observed. Take a look when you can. If you find other issues, please, ping. I'll try to address them as much I can. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: These changes look fine except I notice that you have used the Daily Mail as a source for one citation. According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources it is unreliable. Perhaps you can find a different source?Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Is Ciné Télé Revue acceptable? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: I'm sorry, I've never heard of them. I suggest that you leave it in and wait to see if anyone doesn't approve of using them as a source. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict on Dafna Kaffeman[edit]

We were editing at the same time. I chose to wipe out your edits and will redo them. Sorry about the inconvenience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, your edits were more extensive than I thought. I'll let you continue and then take a look when you are done. Can you put a note here when you are done, please? Thanks. You are welcome to use the date and dash and bullet fixes from my edits if you like. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Sorry for the confusion over this. I haven't done a final run-through, and can't until later. I'll let you know when I'm done. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Except for a few items I could not cite, I'm done with this article now. There really needs to be a better way to avoid edit conflicts. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I re-added my formatting, which was mostly easy find-and-replace stuff. Re the edit conflicts, I had the page open for over an hour while doing other stuff, and it was one of the last few pages left from March 2017, so I was not surprised to see the edit conflict. I almost always edit and save quickly or in small sections, unless I know I'm in a backwater. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of File:Sophia and jayne.jpg[edit]

Greetings! Twice now [1][2] you've added this image to the Jayne Mansfield article. I've removed it twice as well under terms of WP:NFC#UUI #6. In cases such as this where an iconic photograph has an article specifically about that photo, we do not use the photo anywhere else. Instead, we link to the article where the image is discussed and used. Since this image has a specific article about it at Jayne Mansfield-Sophia Loren photo, using the photo elsewhere is not generally allowed. I hope this explains the matter. If you have questions let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Thanks for the explanation. You did not indicate this when your first removed the picture. While I agree with most of the points in this section, it seems silly to make people use a link to another article to see an image that is germane to article they are reading. Oh well. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both times that I removed it, I linked to the guideline under which I removed the image [3][4]. I know it seems silly. We already have the image here, so why can't we use it where it's needed? The reason descends from our purpose; to create a free encyclopedia. The more we encumber any article with non-free content, the less free it becomes. Thus, if we have an article dedicated to the image we link to it instead. This is one of the compromises we have for permitting non-free content on the project. There are some language wikipedias that don't allow non-free content at all! So, yeah, it might be a pain, but it's the compromise. Great username by the way :) All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]