This is an archive of past discussions with User:Snowmanradio. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In an effort to "sharpen the axe", I'm currently learning how to use the external processing feature, and after days tinkering with it, finally got it to cooperate with a perl script. I plan to write that section of the AWB manual once I get up to speed on it, to reduce the learning curve for others.
I'm curious what you've used that feature for. To run articles through an editor? To activate a perl script? To do what?
I noticed your messages in the archives about passing the %%title%% variable as an argument to a script. I find it works if you include it in quotes after the name of the script in the "Arguments/Parameters:" input field. The quotes are necessary to treat compound titles (i.e., titles with more than one word) as a single argument.
I'm interested in learning everything I can about AWB and its behavior and applications, including what scripts people are using the external processing feature for, what problems they've run into, how they solved them, etc. Especially what AWB does in what order and under various circumstances. Anything that will help me write some useful instructions for the manual, including tips and techniques.
By the way, have you figured out how to use plugins, modules, and the database scanner?
Please note that I am busy at this time, so I have not got much time for an detailed discussion here now. How much perl do you know? Of course, anyone who knows how to write perl will be able to write their own scripts and also know how to test them. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I plan to try passing the argument to the perl script in quotes when I have some spare time. I did quite a lot of testing on this, and came to the conclusion that this AWB function did not work, as least for passing the file name to the perl script. However, if it works, then hope to find this feature useful. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I have not used AWB modules or plugins, because the main knowledge of programming is only with perl. Can a plugin be in perl? Snowman (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Making use of the argument is easy. Just place it in quotes after the script name in the arguments field in the external processing box in AWB, and then in the script itself assign it to a variable like this:
my$subject=$ARGV[0];
I've tested it by replacing the entire article with it, and again by replacing the first occurrence of "the" with $subject$subject$subject$subject$subject. The changes show up in AWB's diffs display. Works fine.
I've started a library of Perl scripts, but so far there's only one script in it, provided by Rich Farmbrough. The more we share, the richer (in scripts and shared skill) we will all be.
I've also started the WikiProject Perl for a central location to discuss Perl coverage in this encyclopedia and more significantly to discuss and collaborate in the use of Perl to enhance Wikipedia. So far, I've copied Perl-related discussion threads to its talk page.
I'm fairly new to Perl, but have been using regular expressions for quite some time. I got tired of working manually, and decided it's time to take things to the next level. I'll be happy to share my know-how as I acquire it.
I have not used plugins or modules. That's why I asked you about them. :)
I'm also interested in the variety of tasks you have performed. Please consider sharing your scripts with the rest of the Perl community on Wikipedia.
It has been nice meeting you. Be sure to keep in touch.
I forgot to ask - I've nominated this at FAC, and forgot that you'd edited this quite a bit. Do you want to be a co-nominator (I guess do you feel yourself involved or invested enough to want to?) Am happy to add you if you do. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A cockatoo is any of the 21 species belonging to the bird family Cacatuidae. Along with the Psittacoidea (true parrots) and the Strigopoidea (large New Zealand parrots), they make up the parrot order Psittaciformes. Cockatoos are instantly recognisable by their showy crests and curved bills. Their plumage is generally less colourful than that of other parrots, being mainly white, grey, or black, and often with coloured features in the crest, cheeks, or tail. On average they are larger than other parrots. Cockatoos prefer to eat seeds, tubers, corms, fruit, flowers and insects. They often feed in large flocks, particularly when ground-feeding. Cockatoos are monogamous and nest in tree hollows. Some cockatoo species have been adversely affected by habitat loss, particularly from a shortage of suitable nesting hollows after large mature trees are cleared; conversely, some species have adapted well to human changes and are considered agricultural pests. Cockatoos are popular birds in aviculture, but their needs are difficult to cater for. The Cockatiel is the cockatoo species that is easiest to care for and is by far the most frequently kept in captivity. (more...)
In the WP:BIRD discussion you compared potential energy with energy output. That's why I said "no engine is 100% efficient"; most fuel-based engines have an efficiency below 25%. To make a valid comparison, you need to know the efficiency of your local energy supply. Even if an energy plant only is able to get e.g. 20% of the potential energy in the fuel (gas, coal, nuclear, etc) into the power grid, they still use 100% of the fuel. Only then is it possible to make the simple comparison of kWh. And this is only part of the picture: Getting the amount of e.g. coal that equals 1 kWh vs. getting the amount of jet fuel that equals 1 kWh doesn't make the same impact on the environment. Regardless, there can be no doubts typical computer use is well below a long-distance flight. But equally there are no doubts that anyone with heavy computer use, long periods on most days, is far from being green. The saying Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house comes to mind. I only used the clothes dryer as an example because it is one of the absolute highest kWh consumers in a normal home. Absence of a clothes dryer only places heavy computer use even higher on the overall kWh use in a modern home. Regarding google and green: Overall they may belong in the better half of big companies, but they're fooling themselves (or more likely, some readers of the article) if they claim they're really green. Taking the previous quote (underlining mine): "using sustainable resources for a proportion of their energy supply". It is certainly great that they invested almost 1 billion US$ on renewable energy projects, but they're a big company and that only equals 10% of their profit in 2011 alone. Even if a company was close to 100% in so-called sustainable resources, windmills and solar panels don't just magically appear. If placed correctly, they're certainly far better than e.g. a coal plant, but their production isn't impact free. 212.10.92.198 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Automation
Hi Snowman: Great to hear you're working on (at least the theoretical aspects of) some automation ideas. And none of us are worried about it maybe taking a while — I think all of us have real-life commitments which keep us from doing as much as quickly as we'd like to! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. MeegsC | Talk05:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
To make thinks easier for an automated script, I think the Wiki needs a datebase clean up. It can be difficult for an automated script to compare non-standard common English bird names on the Wiki and non-standard binomial Wiki names and with other websites and databases. Taxonomy differences between websites also make it difficult for an automated script. I think preparation with some manual editing is inevitable. Do you think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012) could be useful to update any Wiki pages? Snowman (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely useful. It'll probably take us a while to research these, and figure out how to treat the differences... MeegsC | Talk07:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Discrepancy report
Thanks for the bird name discrepancy report. Will be good to double check as I work through. Also, I thought of another abbreviation that you may want to run a report. Mt. versus Mount (I believe we are standardized on Mount)...Pvmoutside (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The short title is probably more suitable as some volumes in the series include Pakistan and the long title varies considerable. Also including a title link breaks the url tag of the citation template. So if you are having an AWB rule to replace Fauna of British India -> the long title, it would be much better without the link. Shyamal (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The url works if you click near the arrow. Looking at the Wiki page about the book is a quick way of finding out about the book. Snowman (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Snowmanradio: I saw you moved both Noisy and Rufous Scrubbirds. I attempted the same a while ago, but received pushback from the Aussies and they moved it back. I've been tagging the ones I've had pushback with with the IOC exception template. Not sure if that helps you......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
So it looks like someone has developed a useful template named onlyinclude which automatically sets the table of contents if a family gets removed or added due to taxonomic changes. Beats typing it in every time, or being frustrated if someone misses one!....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that, looks a little tighter, but to me the template is the more efficient way and a space saver on the edit page. Maybe soneone can monkey around with the template to make it appear more compact on the page. Which gets me tofurther thinking, too bad someone can't come up with a way to change genus and species pages, common names, etc. (and higher level taxononmy for that matter)(once there is consensus) so that it doesn't need to be done manually across all pages. Typing Setophaga over and over again for each page borders on the monotonous. Is there no way to automate that on an admin level so it doesn't get out of hand?....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
A kind Flickr photographer had licensed it with a Commons-friendly copyright. Flickr is a useful resource that anyone can use. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
IUCN links
The "/0" is not part of an Red List ID, and should not be in citations. Can you stop adding it and remove it from pages that have it? (You added it after I corrected the link at Chestnut Sparrow.) If the Red List changes its link structure, only the {{IUCN}} template should need to be edited to fix links. Thanks, —innotata15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, concerning the Red List: if the Red List is cited in the text body, it may be for information not in the current version. Can you check that the current version verifies all content cited to an old version before entirely removing citations to an old version? —innotata15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Snowman. May I draw your attention to this? I gather you have some bot prowess, and thus might be able to sort out this problem rapidly. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Snowman. The image you added to the Pelican article is a good illustration, but I suspect that the pelicans in it are Great Whites, not Dalmatians which do not occur in Africa. Cheers. Maias (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
With regard to the caption of the other photo you uploaded recently, of Brown Pelican chicks in a ground nest; this species prefers trees to nest in, though will nest on the ground if suitable trees are not available. Maias (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
On 1 September, Coventry will play host to the first city-wide "Wikipedia Takes..." event in the UK. Attendees will take photos of monuments, structures (and almost anything else!) in the city. Anyone can attend regardless of photography ability or experience with Wikimedia projects. To find out more, register or ask any questions, please visit the event page. We hope you'll join us! Rock drumBa-dumCrash17:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd say that :-) Well done for answering my question before I'd even asked it. You are welcome to go ahead and do the unique name redirects (the largest section). Are you also able to add a comment to each target article to mention the alternative name and include the Cleere reference, or will that need to be done by hand? SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I can use a script to add the alternative common name and the reference to some of the target articles, if the first line of the article is in a standard format, but I am not going to do this today. There are some species pages with several common names redirecting to it. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I need help. I have drawn the following map for the article Innocence of Muslims movie. I have made an edit request on section 23, but no-one seems to care. Can you put the image into the article please. Thank you.----Camoka5 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have reformatted the map, and please do not change it back again. I do not know anything about this topic, so I decline. You can put the image on the page in a similar what to how you have shown the image on my talk page. I do not know anything about this topic, so I decline.
I am asking you again not to use "vunerable" in Wikipedia articles. There is no such word. Adding typographical errors to articles is not a constructive way of editing. Please use "vulnerable" instead. Thank you. Ground Zero | t10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I note that you have just corrected this typo on Myristica psilocarpa. I have never even edited this page. If your are referring to the typo on this page, may I suggest that you look at the edit history on pages before blaming editors for a "not a constructive way of editing". Snowman (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to this edit to the Royal Penguin article that was attributed to you and includes "vunerable". If you did not make this edit, I apologize, and wonder what is going wrong with the Wikipedia tracking system. Ground Zero | t22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed after you responded that I had not corrected your typo in the Royal Penguin article, so I did so after responding to your comment. Ground Zero | t02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
In this edit of Southern Lapwing, you de-bolded the species name. I support the change but just this is not a change based on consensus (see this discussion for example). I would cease changes of that, especially systematic ones using AWB. This is an issue that I think should be debated to consensus at some point and I think clear and sensible guidelines can be written describing when and when not to bold but it hasn't yet occurred. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been a more up-to-date discussion than the 2009 discussion that you have linked. The consensus is now for an un-emboldened binomial name in brackets. The current guidelines outline how to write the introduction of species pages and my modifications are consistent with this; see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Organisms. I would check up-to-date MoS before commenting on MoS on users talk pages. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
That's excellent. I was unaware of the change. Thanks for pointing it out. This lets me fix one of my longest standing pet peeves on Wikipedia, the bold on the scientific name in the blue whale article. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grey-fronted Quail-Dove, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grey-headed Quail-Dove (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for those, the unidentified bird is a Black-headed Gull. The duck shots are excellent, if you want to use either of them to illustrate the bird section instead of the existing BHG, that's fine. The Blakeney harbour picture isn't actually part of the reserve, but could be used for Recreation, although I think the seal pic is more appropriate. On my screen, the Peddars way image has quite a bit of white space below, would it be better at the left? Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you added a hatnote to that article, referring readers to the school, but are the two really ambiguous? Is anyone who searches for "caludon Castle" likely to be looking for the school? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spix's Macaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culmen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks! I'm hoping to add a bit more about territoriality and breeding, so perhaps I can fit it in at that point. And if not, at least it's at the commons link now. MeegsC (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Snowman. Another request, if you have time: there are two photos of Caribbean Martin (this one and the next photo in the set, of a flying bird) which have the correct licensing for Wikipedia. Currently, we don't have any photos at all of this species. Help appreciated! Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! About the Spix's Macaw GA. Sbalfour has not replied since a week. Anyway the article has various issues still. Perhaps this was not suitable for GAN. As you are a major contributor here since its GA review, I wished to have your second opinion about should the article be failed - for you see, I'm not pessimistic, but the article does have too many issues and the nominator long absent. What do you think? Sainsf<^>Talk all words13:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say on the GA review page that editing was initially at a good pace until about 27 November when you noticed that the progress slowed. Just in case anyone has become busy in real live, I would say you would close the review and not pass the article for GA status in 7 days time, if progress continues to be slow. This would give all the participants notice of your intention and chance to reply. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"The Broad-billed Parrot possessed a crest of feathers on its head. The 1601 Gelderland sketch depicts the crest as a tuft of feathers attached to the front of the head near to the base of the beak.[11] Ridges on the skull indicate that its crest was firmly attached, and that the bird, unlike members of the Cacatuinae subfamily of cockatoos, could not raise or lower it.[3]"
involves a lot of repetition. In sentence 1, the crest of feathers is on its head. In sentence 2, the crest is once again of feathers, and once again on its head, though now attached. In sentence 3, the crest is once again attached. Repeating information to add just a little more in this way can be very off-putting to readers, who can be made to feel that they are assumed to be stupid. In restoring the previous word order, I have tried to incorporate some useful changes you made, incluing cranium -> skull, show -> indicate, use of "tuft".
Also, please could you use the talk page rather than edit summaries for things that may deserve threaded discussion? Your edit summaries at 22:27, 22:29 and 22:32 all deserve discussion, and it is very difficult to pick them up in that form. In reply to those:
22:27: it's not so much a question of what the sketch shows, as what the source states. I cannot access it, but FunkMonk would be able to.
22:29: I don't know about modern Dutch ships, but I don't think the Gelderland had a prefix. Prefixes are more recent than that, aren't they? (Also in England, the Mayflower and Golden Hind don't have prefixes.)
22:32: "If you want to use "cranium" then please name the bones of the cranium?" actually comes across as rather sarcastic, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Cranium is really quite a well-known word. Its use doesn't need to be justified by going into details that aren't needed in the article. However, I have retained "skull".
A reviewer had not started working on the FAC when I made the edits and I did not want to be the first to add a comment to the FA discussion after the nomination. Sometimes, I find it quicker to use edit summaries to improve an article, when I am working as a team with other editors. It this case, I was hoping that User FunkMonk would follow my suggestions in the edit summaries and edits and together the article would be improved by a combination of his edits and my edits and without prolonged series of time consuming comments on a talk page. The edits to which you are revering to were made late yesterday evening (UK time) and User FunkMonk went off-line. I am hoping that he consider my suggestions soon, but I was expecting him to follow more quickly. In the interim you picked up on some copy-editing. My first edit has an edit summary starting with "Suggestion"; see this edit in anticipation of User FunkMonk considering my edits and edit summaries. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I was confused by the "Suggestion" in that edit summary, as to whether it referred to the edit itself or to the discussion about the bifid tail in the edit summary. Copy editing is the only thing I do on an article like this. You may have noticed that I've left all your changes related to scientific questions untouched. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am a stickler with bones. Off course, cranium does have a precise meaning. I think that the anatomy of a bird's cranium in not well known to most readers. Do you know the extent of a birds cranium? I would have thought that the top of the bill would be the birds face and therefore not the cranium, but I am not certain. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know its extent, hence I deferred to you on "skull". My only comment was on the edit summary. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I did hesitate with clicking and sending the edit summary off, but in the back of my mind was a wish for precision with bones. Cranium (the flat bones of the skull) might be correct, but I suspect that a bill that big would be fixed to something stronger than a flat bone and I think that the bone near to the beak and under the tuft of feathers is likely to be something more substantial than a flat bone, but I am not certain. Using "cranium" seemed odd to me. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that my edit summary with regard "The 1601 Gelderland sketch depicts ..." is appropriate since the article only refers to a sketch and not any text, so the paragraph seems very confusing to me and I have no idea how you can see a bifid tail in the sketch. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not know what the text in the source says, but the text in the article implies that all those details about the feathers are seen in the drawing, but I looked at the drawing and I did not see a bifid tail or a hint of a bifid tail. I think that User FunkMunk may be able to clarify what is in the source and amend the Wiki article to say that some of the description is found in the text of the source and not in the drawing. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with making edits to an article when it is at FA. I have often made edits directly to the article to break out of fruitless cycles of discussions. Editors have different things to contribute to articles and one of my contributions is to consider inconsistencies and errors in an article rather than writing perfect English, which I tend to leave to others. I think that you have misunderstood my contributions to this article. In this can you have accepted some of my improvements. Snowman (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no problem editing FAs and FACs, whether the the review has started or not. I only wanted to draw your attention to it, just in case. I don't think I have misunderstood anything. I believe I have accepted all your changes except for the issue of repetition in that paragraph. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, it was an accident that happened while sorting out the repetition problem, not a challenge to the link, which is fine, obviously. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
In the section that you copy-edited, I note that you did not notice the mistake about cockatoos being a subfamiliy, which is old classification. I think that you did a good job on copy-editing the English language, and it is very likely that your copy-editing will be needed again as the article progresses. The Wiki needs editors good with grammar and pros, like yourself. I guess that you could probably go about your copy-editing tasks and explain what you have done with an edit summary and, off course, in most cases the edit itself would be self explanatory. I can see the improvement that you have made without you having to explain how bad my proses was here. Please bear in mind that it can be difficult to grapple with the facts and write it down holistically with perfect prose first time. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The phrase "the Cacatuinae subfamily of cockatoos" can imply that cockatoos are that subfamily or that they have such a subfamily, as if it were written as "the Cacatuinae subfamily of the Cacatuidae". This is really a matter of the science, not the copy editing. Unfortunately, there are very few specialist biologists doing copy editing on Wikipedia; biological FAs would seldom happen without lay copy editors. --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Cacatuinae is a subfamily only in modern usage and Cacatuidae is the up-to-date family name. Hence Cacatuinae is now a subset of Cacatuidae, so the modern usage of "the Cacatuinae subfamily of cockatoos" could only imply; "the Cacatuinae subset", which in incorrect according to the text on crests in the Wiki Cockatoo article, a FA. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have informed User FunkMonk of this discussion in the hope that him will gain something from it to improve the article. In case there was any doubt, I have also briefly explained the intention of my edits and edit summaries on the article to him and also that one of my aims was to minimise a protracted discussion about article content on a talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for notifying me of the discussion. I think the current version looks fine when it comes to wording and such, but as for the description of the Gelderland sketch, it seems I have forgot to add an important detail, which is what's creating confusion. The paper which mentions the "bifurcated tail" etc. does so based on a study of the pencil lines under the ink. I should of course had added this info from the beginning, so I will do this now. As for prefix for Gelderland, I haven't seen such in the sources. In any case, it would be in Dutch. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
For Dutch war ships the modern prefix is HNLMS; see Java class cruiser for examples. I have no idea what sort of ship the Gelderland was or if it would have a prefix in 1601. If it did have a Dutch prefix, then I presume that the English Wiki could use the Dutch prefix. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)===Image placement===
Sorry, the FAC review is already getting too much like a talk page. I merely wished to make you aware of this point. It's a MOS detail, so all the FAC regulars already know it. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me for being rather bold on the image rearrangement. I quite enjoy doing the artwork on articles usually with images I have uploaded to Commons or found on Commons. I have read User FunMunk edit summary about his rearrangement of the images. I think his version is probably as good as any and I am glad he considered my version. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I always think hard about image placement to get the images to fit what's said in adjacent text, and to not get one side cluttered, or white space. I like the right left alternation layout, instead of for example all images on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the FAC review is already getting too much like a talk page. I merely wished to make you aware of this point. It's a MOS detail, so all the FAC regulars already know it. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me for being rather bold on the image rearrangement. I quite enjoy doing the artwork on articles usually with images I have uploaded to Commons or found on Commons. I have read User FunMunk edit summary about his rearrangement of the images. I think his version is probably as good as any and I am glad he considered my version. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I always think hard about image placement to get the images to fit what's said in adjacent text, and to not get one side cluttered, or white space. I like the right left alternation layout, instead of for example all images on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging
Thanks for flagging those edits you thought might need copy editing. Actually, i check all edits on articles I've copy edited for FAC. Anyway, just to let you know I saw the latest one, and it doesn't need any changes. --Stfg (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
