Hi, CoolieCoolster. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Aristophanes68(talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, CoolieCoolster -- I have accepted the assignment to copy-edit Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process. As you know, lists are generally discouraged in regular (non-list) articles. I glanced at the article just now, and I believe it will not be too difficult to change the items in the various lists to complete sentences organized in paragraphs. However, before I begin that process, I'd like to ask you about a few things:
1) I see a lot of capital letter groups that refer to organizations and agencies. The one that refers to the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process is "SCOPP", and it appears frequently throughout the article, which is to be expected. I'm wondering, was that group or agency actually called "SCOPP", or is that just the abbreviation used in written materials? If it wasn't actually called "SCOPP", I'm wondering if it would be a bit more elegant, and make the sentences flow more smoothly, if we could refer to it as "the Secretariat", or occasionally (where it is clear) as "the agency" or some other term such as "the group", "the bureau" – whichever term you feel is most accurate.
For the other organizations/agencies/groups that are referred to with capital letters, before I start, can you check to be sure they are all written out in full the first time they are mentioned, with the capital letters given after that in parentheses?
2) The next thing I'm going to say is something that may take a little time, if you want to do it. I'm concerned that, even if I put the items that are now in lists into complete sentences in paragraphs, it is still going to sound like a rather uninteresting list. The article would be much more interesting if you gave specific examples of some (if not all) of the items. One example per item would suffice for now; maybe later you could find a few more. If you think this is something you'd like to do, do you want to work on that now, before I change it into paragraphs, or later? It might be easier to work on it now, since it is easy to see the items. If you don't agree that it is needed, or don't want to work on that now, just let me know and I'll get started. – Corinne (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The thing I'm unsure about is how to rewrite the lists as paragraphs without simply writing a list in the form of a paragraph. Also, I think some of the lists may be too specific, and that the Policy Division section could be combined with the SCOPP Units sections to create a paragraph that isn't just a list. CoolieCoolster (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. First, it is an easy task to change the items to sentences and put them together to make a paragraph. You can do that, or, as I said, I'd be glad to do that. Second, to reply to the second concern in your second sentence, I'm not even sure what "Policy division" means. That list is introduced with the phrase, "General tasks of the SCOPP included", and it looks like these are general tasks, so perhaps "Policy division" is not the best heading. Regarding the next section, headed "SCOPP units", the word "units" does not appear anywhere in that section. The word "divisions" seems to be more pertinent. I assume these were actual administrative divisions, each assigned to a different type of work. I think, if we retain the material that is now in "Policy division", it should follow the introductory sentences now in "SCOPP units" (first general, then specific). The sub-divisions under "SCOPP units" expand on the introductory sentences; that's good. I wonder whether the items now under "Policy division" are not too general to have their own section. They're all a bit dry, making the eyes glaze over upon reading them. Can't some of them be placed in the right section under "SCOPP units"?
Going back to the sub-sections under "Scopp units", I think the article would be more interesting if you gave a few examples for at least some of the items. – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I turned it into prose. You'll have to read it through to be sure I did not introduce any factual errors. I have two questions for you:
1) You use the phrase "civil society" several times throughout the article. It is not clear to me what you mean by this phrase, especially since you also use the phrase "the general public". How are these different? Also, you use "the public and private sectors". I amended this (well, at least once) to "the public and private sectors of the economy". Otherwise, how is it different from, or how does it relate to, the other two phrases?
2) You have one acronym for which I don't see the full name written out: SLMM. Can you write it out in full at its first mention, with the acronym following it in parentheses?
3) Instead of GOSL for "Government of Sri Lanka", I used "government" or "the government" to reduce the number of acronyms in the article. – Corinne (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you're aware of this thread, but please note that TT's is the lone voice. Stfg has been around forever and when he talks, I listen :-). We appreciate your help. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the January GOCE drive. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added a reference to this article and removed the speedy deletion tag. In the future, it may be wise to develop an article in the Draft space or in your Sandbox before publishing it in the regular article space. Let me know if you would like help with that process. For detailed advice, see Wikipedia:Your first article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops. I just saw a red wikilink and it seemed like an easy and short article to write. In the future i'll use my sandbox first before creating any articles. Thanks Jonesey. CoolieCoolster (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
What a great clean-up you did at Rostislav Krimer! And boy, did it need it! There's still more to do there, but it's transformed by what you've done. I've looked at it several times in the last year or so … and simply not known where to start. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is just to let you know of this page, which notes several differences in spelling between different varieties of English. Wikipedia likes articles associated with specific territories to use the spellings used in those territories. So in the article Scottish Gypsy and Traveller groups, I've restored the spelling travelled, which is the correct British English spelling, since it's an article about the UK.
Best wishes, --Stfg (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting 31 articles during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting 31 old articles during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
There was nothing "de-advertising" about this dif nor this. He was fired for cause and the cause was not disclosed. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, perhaps those edits were not entirely "de-advertising" edits, but I would still not call them "horrible" edits. In the edit at 12:12, I removed "However, questions of how to test drugs for radiation poisoning in humans, how to deal with the FDA, and who would buy the drug, were all unclear at that time." because it wasn't notable for him, and sounded like something he himself would write. That's why I called it a de-advertising edit. For the "Hollis was fired for cause by the company in 2009; the cause was not disclosed." sentence, I admit I should have left in the fact that it wasn't disclosed, however saying "fired for cause" doesn't make sense. It should be something like "Hollis was fired by the company in 2009, the reason for which was not disclosed." or "Hollis was fired by the company in 2009 for an undisclosed reason." For the edit at 12:22, I first removed unnecessary things from the info-box template to clean it up, merged two paragraphs that were related, and made the last paragraph sound less like an advertisement, which I continued with my later edits.
While neither of the edits were entirely "de-advertising", my edits were in no way "horrible". CoolieCoolster (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I wrote that and i am not him. As the CEO of a biotech company, questions of how you are going to get approval for your drug, and whether there is a market for your drug are absolutely essential business questions, and very relevant to the bio of a guy who is notable for being a biotech CEO. And the source cited explicitly talks about that.
Your edits did not remove anything promotional. In fact they removed content that was negative. Being fired "for cause" is a serious thing. People are fired for other reasons (not having to do with their performance -- i.e for cause -- all the time. The source cited for this,. also discusses this.
If you don't understand the content you are editing, please do not argue for your edits. or at least take the time to read the sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Zubair Torwali has received coverage as a notable by both Pakistani and International publications and Social Enterprise Foundations. The only way you could come up with the opinion that he is not notable is by ignoring the page reached through the link.RichardBond (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Would you happen to know why the article is not showing up in Google? It has been in existence for some time now but still does not show up when you search for it. A category I created at the same time for the area Bahrain, Pakistan is in is already up. ThanksRichardBond (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I don't know much about how Google calculates their search results, however their results don't update automatically, and maybe not enough people search for him and look at his Wikipedia page, meaning the Google algorithms wouldn't include it in the top results. CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE February 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for cleaning up some COI-affected articles recently. I just wanted to drop you a note because a few edit summaries you'd left make me think you're a little unsure of what notability means. Notability only applies to article subjects i.e. a person or company either is or is not notable based on the coverage they have or have not received in reliable sources. However article content is not notable or not notable. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant part of V which discusses how we should decide what information in sources should be included in an article and is the closest thing to notability in relation to article content. Article content is more commonly removed because it is promotional, unverifiable or lacks reliable sources. I hope that makes sense and clears things up. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
When I say "Not-notable", I am talking about information that is too specific or too promotional to be included in the article. Sometimes an article has too much detail on a minor subject, so I remove unecessary details for not being "notable" enough. Whenever I use the word "notable" in edit summaries, I am talking about unnecessary and overly specific or promotional details. CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes I understand what you mean by it, but that's not what the community means by notability which is only used when discussing whether or not a subject is worthy of inclusion or not. If you are removing information because you think it is too specific then say that in the edit summary, but make sure that this is a decision you have made based on reading of the available sources, rather than being based on your own opinion of what should or shouldn't be included in an article. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I will try to edit more carefully and write more descriptive edit descriptions in the future. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Taking this to your talk page, because I hate spamming the village pump with what is really a conversation between two editors: while there is no neutrality WikiProject there are quite a lot of editors who are actively working against promotional paid editing and spam. The subject is very complex though, and you to deal with various tensions within the the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, the policies and guidelines that we have, and the terms of use that the Wikimedia Foundation makes all users agree to in order to use the website.As I said at the Village Pump, right now the two main places that we deal with spam are WP:COIN and WP:NPP (and to some extent WP:SPI, when there are promotional sock farms). While I agree that we need to think of this in a more big picture setting, I'm not sure if restoring a former WikiProject is the best way to go about it: the functions are largely served by other places. We don't do it perfectly, but we are making a lot of headway in raising awareness of the issues around paid editing and promotion on Wikipedia. Each of currently active places that deal with these issues has regular editors who actively man the various discussion pages and we work pretty well together. If you are interested in working with new content, you could consider applying for the New Page Reviewer user right if you meet the requirements (see WP:NPP for more details). If you have questions about NPP, I'm pretty active there and can answer most questions you might have. Someone like Bri or Smallbones might be able to give you more information on how COIN works. Anyway, hope you have a great week and that it isn't too hot wherever you are. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your edit where you use the word "aftermath" in the section describing Chappelle-Nadal's call for Trump assassination. "Aftermath" is not used by any of the reliable sources. It implies that there was a legitimate reason for her comments. There is no legitimate reason for her comments and the reliable sources do not provide one. It is POV-pushing. No reliable source, no use. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page before you attempt to insert more controversial and questionable wording--not on my talk page, not your talk page, but the talk page of the article. The article is covered by Wikipedia discretionary sanctions because it falls within the topic of American politics. You must work with other editors to create a concensus.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Your edits to the article are biased. The reason why the word "aftermath" is used is because the tweet was in response to what happened in Charlottesville. I am not supporting her comments, I just believe that the article should be as accurate as possible. And the Holocaust tweet you added was not attacking the governor, the senator was implying with the tweet that having Trump has President would lead to something like the Holocaust, a message that I definitely do not agree with, but if you read the tweet you can clearly tell the senator was not attacking the governor. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
As I indicated above, your talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this. You want to discuss then you need to take it to talk page for that person. And you will need to follow the rules for a BLP and discretionary sanctions.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the titles of television shows and radio shows could go in italics rather than single quotes.
There is a missing period/full stop at the end of the first paragraph. (Be watchful at references, they often have punctuation or spacing issues.)
I think there's some overcapitalization of job titles. These should generally be lowercase unless attached directly to a person's name. In the infobox, anchor and producer should be lower-case; the first one gets sentence case. MOS:JOBTITLE
There's an odd sentence about Charles Spencer. Immediately following, it reads He branched out and it's unclear if this is talking about the subject or Spencer.
There are a few "also"s in the prose which aren't needed.
In 1995 Tavaré wrote and starred in a series of short, silent films for BBC2 titled Jim Tavaré Pictures Presents – there's an unnecessary comma and two places with commas missing. Alternatively, it could be rephrased.
Compound modifiers get a hyphen to draw terms together rather than a comma which separates them. Commas are used for separation of clauses, hierarchical division (eg: mdy dates or place names), and inline lists (like this one). Be wary of clarity issues when placing a hyphen in a compound modifier.
the second occurrence of "Last Comic Standing" needs italics.
I think that "In 2008" and "In September 2013" could use commas, following.
I'd appreciate it if you could address those issues. Please keep up the good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll address the issues you mentioned. I just finished a fourth one, if you want to see if there are issues with that one as well. Thanks for the feedback! CoolieCoolster (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: I fixed the issues that you mentioned for the three articles. Let me know if there is anything else I should fix. CoolieCoolster (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! I'll mark those three as reviewed. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The date range in the lead should have an en-dash. Remember: hyphens associate, dashes separate. You should almost always use en-dashes where numbers are concerned.
Some people capitalize the French Resistance. I feel if you have the it's talking about a specific and thus proper noun. (same as the Internet)
I feel the first paragraph in Biography is long and could broken into two (or possibly three).
Extra work (optional):
The sources have some non-standard quotes and hyphens in numeric ranges (don't change the ISBNs!)
The article was translated from fr:Lucien Scheler. This can (and should) be attributed on the talk page with {{translated|fr|Lucien Scheler}}. If you want to be really thorough, you can check the page histories and link to the specific versions of the pages.
There's a bit of commonality with what I mentioned in the first three articles. Try to get in a habit of making a final-polish pass of the copy edit, checking hyphen/dashes, capitalization, punctuation, italics, and quotes. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the main problems you mentioned. I don't know how to fix the sources, so I'll just add a tag. The talk page already has a translate tag on it. I'll try to copyedit the next article better. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, you're right! It uses the large form of the translate template which, ironically, doesn't stand out against the banners like the default which is one-quarter the size. I noticed you trimmed a lot of content from Hokky Situngkir. Were the sources no good? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the content in the beginning was for the most part just repeated later in the article, so I thought it would just make more sense to combine all relevent information into the beginning so that it would be better organized. Most of the awards didn't seem notable, so I just moved the notable award to the infobox. CoolieCoolster (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand. It's a good call to remove puffery and lists of trivia, it was just a surprise to see what looked like a start-class article reduced to a stub. I also noticed that about half of the citations were removed along with that text – though I didn't check them for reliability. If you think they were no good I'll try not to second-guess you. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
One of the paragraphs in the article was solely sourced with references to a music app he had made, which was not what the paragraph was about. There were several details that seemed like they were written by someone connected to the subject, so by the time I have removed details that did not describe notable things he had done, the article was for the most part simply a copy of the beginning. I'll look over what I removed again to see if there is anything I should add back in, but I definitely do not think there is enough information to need sections. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Keira1996 07:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi CoolieCoolster, the request you made at the Guild of Copy Editors Request page for the above article has been declined. You can review the discussion that led to the decline here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I imagine that you're working to put the rest of the lists into the table; please continue to do so. If necessary, use footnotes (placed immediately after the table or at the end of the article) where further explanation is warranted (such as a company merged into another company owned by Amazon). I usually use {{efn}} to place footnotes then gather them with {{notelist}} (similar to a reflist). These companies have their own articles where a more thorough treatment can be given, so we shouldn't try to duplicate too much information in this list article.
Watch for overcapitalization. Some editors will use title case for table headers (which I don't particularly care for) but the items in the table shouldn't have more than sentence case. So E-Commerce → E-commerce, Financial Services → Financial services. All lower case is alright, too, but be consistent for each column.
I would get rid of the flag icons. I know a lot of similar articles use them, but MOS:FLAG recommends against them unless there is a strong national tie and that simply isn't the case here. The icons give too much emphasis to that column. Also, the template used gives a lot of overlinking (eg: United States should only be linked on first use in the table, the rest should be unlinked).
The Value column could be stated as Value (million USD) and then give the numbers below in millions, getting rid of a lot of those zeroes. Alternatively, it is also acceptable to use abbreviations like $55M and $9bn, unspaced, to save room in tables and infoboxes (MOS:NUMERAL).
Consider incorporating the Divestitutes table into the main table, perhaps with a light pink text background to distinguish its row and a footnote. I just feel that that one divestiture makes more sense in the context of the acquisitions than isolated on its own.
Please ping me if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Watch for overcapitalization, particularly in section headers and infobox.
Watch for commas. There was a missing comma after a province (MOS:GEOCOMMA) and extra commas in a single-passenger, three-wheeled, battery electric vehicle. Wikipedia doesn't use commas between compound modifiers; with the hyphens tying the related modifiers together, there is no need for commas to separate the non-related ones (which we shouldn't do in any case).
I liked the prose work, which made it more cohesive. Keep it up! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! It's been a while since I have done any copy-editing, and there are some things I still need to get better at. I will analyze the other articles I copy-edited to see if I made any of those mistakes on those. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Jonesey95's comment about taking it to the article talk page was directed to VPL Strathcona and not you. Unfortunately, sometimes ownership issues pop up; when they do, I tag the talk page with {{GOCEreviewed}} and "edit warring" for the "issues" parameter. I'll drop a line on VPL Strathcona's talk page. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. My goal is to improve as many articles as I can, so I removed the article from my list of copy edited articles for the drive, and will focus on copy editing other articles for now. CoolieCoolster (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You appear to have tagged both Glasflügel H-30 GFK and Onyx (hip hop group) with GOCE "in use" templates. Both templates were added about an hour and a half ago, with no subsequent copy edits since then. Maybe this was an error; we all make mistakes. Please tag only one article at a time, i.e. the article you are actively working on. Thanks.
Also, I have clarified the documentation for the {{GOCEinuse}} template to suggest that the template should be used on only one article at a time by a given editor. I am surprised that this situation has not arisen before, at least in my memory. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I will follow that procedure from now on. CoolieCoolster (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
No apology necessary. The normal practice was not documented. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting 43 articles during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting 46,363 total words during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 4th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting 1 long article during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting 24 old articles during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 6,673 words – during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi CoolieCoolster; thank you for helping out with the progress updates during the May drive; you beat me to it a few times! :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why you changed my things back? Without explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jicco123 Your edits removed the lead section of the article, so I undid the edits to restore the text. Why did you remove it? CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jicco123 Sorry; it was another user who removed the lead section and I had to undo your edits to undo that one. After I had done those edits though, I subsequently re-added the most of the changes that you had made (Date -> Acquired on and Refs -> References), though I kept the image that you had removed from the lead section. CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
My English is very bad I have to say that I got in other discussions page a announcement I hope you understand my English. Acquired on and References are back again, and I have deleted the Business column. Why? Business is pointless: nobody needs that information.
Example: A user find the article: He isn't interested in "which business the company operates"; he is interested in "How many acquisitions already existed?", "What's the name of the company?", "When acquired?", and (maybe) "Which country?" (although that is also pointless). Hope you understand all sentences. Jicco123 (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2019
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Carnegie United Kingdom Trust Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello CoolieCoolster! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk 17:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi there. I know it's not your intention, but when you're putting <sup>2</sup> inside conversion templates you're actually breaking the templates. It doesn't recognise that as a valid conversion unit and the convertor no longer works. Please stop trying to change 1234 square kilometers (or miles) into a sup number with the conversion template. Also your edit summary is incorrect as you're not correcting typos. Converting "square kilometers" or miles to a sup is a preference, not a typo change. Additionally when you make an edit you should Preview it before saving it in order to check you haven't broken anything. Can you please go back through your recent edits and correct those broken templates. Thanks. Canterbury Tailtalk 01:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies; I didn't think to make an exception for the conversion template. I'll fix the edits I've made and avoid making the same mistake in the future. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed that you have been changing "cm³" to "cm3". This is good and in line with the MOS. But an even better change would to to "cc". This avoids superscripts altogether, making it easier to read for sighted readers, readers with sight issues and those who use screen readers. It also aligns better with the {{convert}} and {{cvt}} conversion templates and general practice recommended by WP:CARUNITS (acknowledging that many articles still do not follow recommended practice). Stepho talk 00:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
While the covert templates work well, especially in cleaning up an article's wikitext of excessive numbers, they unfortunately seem to use cu for cubic for US customary volume units and 3 for cubic for metric volume units, creating an unnecessary inconsistency. I'll focus on solving other formatting errors for now, but aside from c3 likely being more readily understood than cc, its use results in inconsistency when used alongside other metric volume units, as cubic meters have to m3 to avoid the confusion of cm. CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
100 cubic metres (3,500 cu ft)
100 m3 (3,500 cu ft)
100 cubic centimetres (6.1 in3)
100 cm3 (6.1 in3)
100 cubic centimetres (6.1 cu in)
100 cc (6.1 cu in)
Ah, I think I see what's happening. Using the templates with |m3= , |cm3= or |in3= will indeed display superscripts. But WP:CARUNITS recommends using |L= , |cc= and |cuin= for engine capacity. And of course I am only recommending this for car articles. Either way, I appreciate your work. Stepho talk 02:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to CoolieCoolster for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion - Regarding your edit to 10TP, might I suggest you use the preview button before you save your edits in the future; this helps you find any errors you have made, like in this edit to 10TP, which left the infobox looking like this. Don't worry, I've fixed it.
It is strongly recommended that you use Show preview before saving. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk) 13:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for tidying up our articles. Please bear in mind that, per WP:COSMETICBOT, some editors may take exception to large numbers of edits like this one which do not affect the displayed text, even if done manually. Thanks again, Certes (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello friend. Please be careful of WP:COSMETICBOT. Your edits popped up on my watchlist a coupletimes today. In general, it may not be a good idea to use automated tools to mass add/delete one invisible space, due to the watchlist spam. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I concur with the others. It's best to bypass cleanups that involve only the removal of extra spaces or other very cosmetic changes on their own. Think of the situation where many are doing such edits and how they could clutter editors' watchlists, thus disrupting their ongoing work. Thanks for your consideration. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk 00:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Didn't realize there was an AWB watchlist; I'll make sure to integrate such edits into more significant edit runs rather than dedicate an edit run to just spacing fixes from now on. CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This edit to the article for Short Hills, New Jersey, seems to do nothing more than remove extra spaces after a period for circumstances that are already handled when a page is rendered. Was there any purpose to this edit beyond removing spaces? Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies; my main goal was to replace the article's Unicode superscripts with sup tag superscripts, which was unfortunately missed by the automatic typo filter. Having manually removed the superscripts from the article now, I've also made adjustments to my secondary replacement filters to ensure that no article with faulty superscripts should be missed from now on. CoolieCoolster (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
something JWB generally does, or is this a personal addition by you? The reason I'm asking is that since |} is supposed to be at the start of a line, this change is causing linter errors like this:
Rainbow Warrior (2011)
missing-end-tag
div
Output not from a single template
Rainbow Warrior (2011)
deletable-table-tag
table
Output not from a single template
Rainbow Warrior (2011)
stripped-tag
div
Output not from a single template
and it would be wild if a bunch of well-meaning people went around making this change, followed by other well-meaning people changing it back. 🙂
Gamapamani (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, made that change myself, didn't realize it was an error. Won't do that again. CoolieCoolster (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No problem, I was just worried this was going to start happening all over, since an automated tool was baing used. Gamapamani (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. It's good to find things to clean up, but I'm guessing you're not aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, which tells us that It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. My watchlist is full of Juventus F.C. → Juventus FC "fixes" which, apart from the very few if any where Juventus F.C. actually appears in the visible text, were actually unnecessary changes that we shouldn't be making. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll limit further ones to ones where Juventus F.C. appears in the text. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. My watchlist is also full of the changes Struway2 brought up. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
A number of pages that you've edited are resulting in broken images
Apologies; I had set the replacement rules to avoid common file formats, but I've now added additional ones. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Any issues didn't persist for long because there's a small, but dedicated group of editors that watch that category. Almost as soon as I posted the message here, I noticed that it had pretty much been cleared up. Dawnseeker2000 23:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The edit you made to Mercury (element) inserted a non-breaking space into the middle of a DOI identifier which broke the link to a reference. I fixed it, but I'm worried this might be happening on other pages too. Reconrabbit 18:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake; I had set my script to avoid replacing replacing test in the, url, title, and archive-url fields but hadn't taken the doi field into account. I've added it to the script and I'll check for other citation fields that should also be included. I also did a search for doi fields with nbsp tags added to them and didn't find any, so the ones you fixed should be the only ones the error occurred on. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks very much. Reconrabbit 11:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "comprised of" in general, but this edit was comprised of a change to the use of "comprised of" in a direct quotation, which is even more counterproductive than edits to change uses of "comprised of". Alansohn (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for changing the wording of the quotation in that case. In my more recent batch of edits over the past couple of days I implemented additional checks to ensure that only non-quoted instances of comprised of would be caught by the filter. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Apologies; I've adjusted my filter that prevented adjustments to instances preceded by '[[Category' to those preceded by 'Category:' so that such scenarios will also be accounted for. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. Entopos (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
