User_talk:Michael

User talk:Michael Devore

Contents

1 Archives

2 Talk To Me

3 Thanks you

4 Sri Lankan Tamil people

5 Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

6 Félix Trinidad

7 Thanks...

8 Proposed deletion of Víctor E Reviglio

9 Hard Justice

10 Thank you

11 Another thank you

12 Vithoba

13 Thanks!

14 Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

15 Thanks!

16 River Irwell

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)Template:WP Ships USS instances and USS Samoa (CB-6)Template:WP Ships USS instances. 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)

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)