User talk:Corinne/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Sentence structure question

In the Caitlyn Jenner article, here', the following sentence structure seems just slightly off to me, and I wanted to check with you.

The original sentence says: ...Jenner was the second in a succession of athletes featured as spokespersons for the brand.

Should this be either:

...Jenner was second in a succession of athletes featured as spokespersons for the brand. or ...Jenner was the second in a succession of athletes to be (who were) featured as spokespersons for the brand. In this latter version, he was second ...featured? It should be 'second to be (who were) featured' I believe.

kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Natalie.Desautels and Corinne. Can you please keep me and Twofingered Typist in the loop on this? TFT just finished a meticulous and substantial WP:GOCE copy edit. There is always room for refinement, so keep up the good work. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Twofingered Typist {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Twofingered Typist: Hello Checkingfax, Yes, of course it will be my pleasure to keep you in the loop. I meant to ping you yesterday on this, but I must have performed a hundred edits or so on various articles along with translations as well, so fatigue did what it does I guess. Thanks for the good reminder. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 06:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "the" which I think solves it. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels I'm sorry I didn't reply promptly to your question. I've been kind of busy. I'm glad it seems to be sorted out now.  – Corinne (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Twofingered Typist: Thanks, Corinne. Yes, the little issue has been resolved. ...funny how these tiny things, like one misplaced word, prey ever so slightly on one's mind . kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

TAFI

Hi, if you want to, please take a look at my noms at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Laucke

On 7 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael Laucke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Michael Laucke's snooker winnings allowed him to finance 110 trips from Montreal to New York City to study the classical guitar with Franco-Spaniard Rolando Valdès–Blain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Laucke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Michael Laucke), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarawak

Checkingfax I was just looking at an edit mentioning Sarawak's recently closed peer review, and I wanted to see the discussion since I had copy-edited the article a few weeks ago, but I could not find the discussion anywhere. Can you find it and give me a link?  – Corinne (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. It looks like it was never reviewed formally, and has now been closed. Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarawak/archive1. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I notice several editors, including Cerevisae did over three dozen edits starting right after you pulled the GOCE in-use template. Cerevisae is the one that requested the peer review, and I do not think Cerevisae gave that enough time to fruit.

While I was checking it out, I made two MOS edits, but no real copy edits. That is a very long article. I am surprised your head did not explode. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi and I expanded and referenced this article. Can you take a look? Thank you: Amaro Rodríguez Felipe.--80.39.243.106 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Corsican Guard

Was wondering if you forgot about this one, since you accepted the request April 28 and haven't started it. All the best, Miniapolis 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis Thanks for the reminder. I hadn't really forgotten about it. It's just that I've been busy, and when I log in in the evening, I first go through my watchlist and notifications, and by the time I do that I'm usually to tired to start a new copy-edit, but I guess I should have worked on Coriscan Guard before doing the copy-edit for Gerda.  – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2016)

Gustaf Skarsgård Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Gustaf Skarsgård Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: À la carte • Fame (Irene Cara song) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Request for adminship (RfA) for Checkingfax

@Checkingfax:

Hi Corinne,

I suggested to Checkingfax that I would like to nominate him for an administrative position and was very pleased that he graciously accepted. I feel fortunate to have been able to avail myself of his great generosity and timely help, seemingly at every turn I've made, and I think other editors should be as lucky as I've been in. The procedure is called a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (RfA) under the category of 'nominating someone else'—one can also nominate oneself. I originally wanted to nominate him myself and then ask other cyber friends to comment. But then I was thinking that, if you are amenable, it would carry more authority if a senior editor like yourself did the submission, as I am just over the threshold of the 4000 edits needed. I think we would have a better chance of success this way. But of course I would be more than happy to submit the RfA myself if time is too short on your side, if the whole process seems too cumbersome or for any reason whatever.

The nomination button is here. Once we are rolling, I will invite Pdebee, and Sainsf and other 'nice' editors for that's the quality I require most . Seriousness aside, kindly let me know; I am eager to proceed with this as I know Checkingfax is highly deserving of adminship ...few are better suited to the task and he possesses all the characteristic traits needed to help Wikipedia attain it's goals. I beleive he would be an exceptionally contributive participant among the administrative group; I hope others agree. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 08:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Natalie.Desautels suggested I nominate you for adminship. I would be happy to do so. I just clicked on the nomination button and the first item says to check with the person to be sure s/he is interested in the job. I know Natalie said she had asked you and you had said yes, but I don't know where that is, so I thought I'd better ask you myself. So, are you interested in being considered for adminship? (What's the right term to use – "adminship" or "an administrative position"?)  – Corinne (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I was not seeking an adminship, but some things have popped up that having the admin tools would help me with. So, yes, I am interested, and I would use it on a broader level to be a good admin. You might want to look at other noms. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Hi, Corinne. Since Checkingfax gave his approval, albeit hesitatingly , to be nominated for adminship, I was wondering if you would like me to attend to the actual submission push if time is a bit short on your side. I feel it would have more weight coming from a more senior editor like yourself, but I imagine we can 'make do' either way, as you wish. (Is 'make do' a proper English expression?) Kindly advise. warm regards,65.93.227.24 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question

Hi C. I hope that you are well. I am wondering which version of this is the correct one. My dusty memory banks are muddled at the moment so if you or Rothorpe have a moment to straighten things out it would be appreciated. BTW it is always a joy to see the pics and paintings on your talk and user pages. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD First, I'm glad you enjoy the pictures. Second, thanks for asking me. I searched through Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and I'm pretty sure "peoples" is correct. I think some people are not accustomed to seeing "a people" as a singular noun, with the plural being "peoples", so they think it is wrong.  – Corinne (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look C. I had a feeling that was the situation (especially since there are three different indigenous peoples mentioned) but the more I looked at it the more I started questioning myself. One of the nice thing about the collaborative nature of WikiP is that there are fellow editors that will answer questions that I have. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) I agree that peoples is most likely what’s wanted, but I’d like to point out that it’s not a question of grammatical correctness, rather of appropriately expressing the intended meaning. I would use people to describe a collection of individuals who happened to be Ute, Arapaho and Cheyenne, but peoples for groups or settlements that were more or less representative of the corresponding cultures or that constitute a ‘homeland’.—Odysseus1479 21:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank for chiming in and for the clarification Odysseus1479. Every bit of knowledge that gets added is helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Thanks, Odysseus1479!  – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

When not to use templates

Checkingfax I remembered that you said I shouldn't use the templates for no-break space, en-dash, and em-dash inside a reference in the "cite ref" format, so I wanted to add that piece of information after my list of templates in my useful things at the top of this talk page, but I couldn't get the "no-break space" to show up. Also, I think "en-dash" and "em-dash" ought to stand out just a bit more. I wonder if you would mind looking at what I wrote (it's in the "Templates" section, above) and fix any formatting issues you see (and correct it if it is wrong). Thanks in advance,  – Corinne (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. OK, done. You can do a view or edit source to see what I did. Making the & sign show up in an example is tricky. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke article nominated for FA status

@Checkingfax: Hi Corinne...been a while; I trust you are well! I'm delighted that the GA article on Michael Laucke, is nominated for FA status. As you may know, Checkingfax, you and I are a few of the main contributors. If you'd like to share your viewpoint and help us advance, it's right here. Please feel free to leave comments as you please, if time permits. I just wanted to get a jump on things and leave you this message ...and, at the same same time, send my greetings of course. warm regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland

Hello, Corinne. I hope you are doing well. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:GAN, and if you have time, I would appreciate one of your careful copyedits for the article. Last year, your contributions helped prepare the Gary Cooper article for WP:GA, and later WP:FA and WP:TFA. Best regards, Bede735 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Bede735. I did not do any copy edits but I did do some MoS edits that should smooth things out for a later FA review. Let me know if you have any questions about my edits and I will explain each one to you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne. Bede735 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 As Checkingfax has explained, it was he who posted the comment just above and who made those edits. I am only now beginning to look at the article. I've gotten through the lead. I haven't made any edits yet, but I wanted to ask you what you thought about a few things I've seen:

1) Toward the end of the second paragraph of the lead, you have this sentence:

• In her later career, she was most successful in straight drama films, such as In This Our Life (1942) and Light in the Piazza (1962), and psychological dramas playing unglamorous roles in such films as The Dark Mirror (1946) and Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964).

I know you are using the phrase "straight drama" to distinguish between this type of film and the one just mentioned, "historical period dramas" and "romantic dramas". I also know the phrase may have a particular meaning to movie buffs and those involved in the film industry. However, to a non-expert, the phrase does not mean much and in fact could suggest a meaning that I know was not intended. I notice that the phrase is not linked. Unless it is linked to an article that would explain it, I think it might be worth searching for another word besides "straight". Just a thought: if you can't think of another phrase, would you consider removing all those other phrases (different types of drama) and just list all those movies under drama? You can explain the various types later in the article.

Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

2) The third paragraph begins with this sentence:

• In addition to her productive film career, de Havilland continued her work in the theatre, appearing three times on Broadway, in Romeo and Juliet (1951), Candida (1952), and A Gift of Time (1962) with Henry Fonda.

I paused at the word "productive". There is something rather prosaic, and kind of heavy and plodding, about this word. There is barely a suggestion of something special. I'm wondering if you would consider substituting another word such as "flourishing" or "active".

Yes, "active" is a better term. Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

3) The fourth paragraph begins with this sentence:

• After her romantic relationships with Howard Hughes, James Stewart, and film director John Huston, de Havilland married author Marcus Goodrich with whom she had a son, Benjamin.

I'm wondering whether the word "her" is needed at the beginning of the sentence. You haven't yet introduced these relationships, so to say "After her romantic relationships" is kind of a surprise to the reader, who may ask themselves, "What romantic relationships?" I think it will be clear enough that the relationships were between her and each of these men, because her name follows the list and begins the main clause of the sentence:

• After romantic relationships with Howard Hughes, James Stewart, and film director John Huston, de Havilland married author Marcus Goodrich, with whom she had a son, Benjamin.

(I've added a comma after "Goodrich", which I will soon add in the article.)

Made both changes. Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

4) In the last paragraph of the lead you have these sentences:

• De Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine are the only siblings to have won Academy Awards in a lead acting category. Over the course of their careers, several well-publicized incidents underscored a lifelong sibling rivalry between the two that resulted in their estrangement that lasted over three decades.

I noticed you have "siblings" and then "sibling". I don't think the second one is needed. I know by using "sibling rivalry" you wanted to distinguish between sibling rivalry and other kinds of rivalry, but here I don't think it is needed, and, if removed, will eliminate repetition:

• De Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine are the only siblings to have won Academy Awards in a lead acting category. Over the course of their careers, several well-publicized incidents underscored a lifelong rivalry between the two that resulted in their estrangement that lasted over three decades.

I'm sure that later in the article you explain the rivalry in more detail.

I also think you don't need to use the possessive adjective "their" before "estrangement". I think it would read better as "that resulted in an estrangement that lasted over three decades". I think it will be perfectly clear that the estrangement was between the two sisters.

• De Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine are the only siblings to have won Academy Awards in a lead acting category. Over the course of their careers, several well-publicized incidents underscored a lifelong rivalry between the two that resulted in an estrangement that lasted over three decades.  – Corinne (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in both cases. I've made the changes. Thank you. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I'm not finished yet, but it's late and I'm getting so tired I can't keep my eyes open, so I'm going to take a break and come back to this tomorrow. However, I can ask you about a few things, and you can think about them:

5) I prefer not to use a comma after "In year" or "In month year" unless what follows is a parenthetical phrase that must be enclosed in a pair of commas. Please see the discussion in the next section below this. I usually remove them when I copy-edit articles. For some reason some people think the commas are needed. I do not. So, before I remove them, I will let you decide whether you like the commas or not.

You can remove them. The Chicago Manual of Style 6.36 (15th) includes an example: Commas with introductory adverbial phrases: An introductory adverbial phrase is often set off by a comma but need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones. Examples: ... After 1956 such complaints about poor fidelity became far less common. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

6) I notice "Classical period", then "Classic period". I think these should be consistent, don't you?

"Classical Hollywood" is correct. I made the change. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

7) I see The New York Times several times, but the New York Herald once. Do you want these to be consistent, or is there a particular reason for this difference?  – Corinne (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Corinne. It's New York Herald, New York Herald Tribune, and The New York Times. That is their masthead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the The New York Times includes the article in its masthead. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I've done a little more, and I will continue tomorrow. (8) I wanted to ask you about one thing, though. I see you have spelled "ingénue" with an accent over the middle "e". However, earlier, I saw "protege" spelled with no accent, and I believe that I saw one other word of French origin (I'll have to look for it tomorrow) with no accent. Shouldn't there be consistency?  – Corinne (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (If you do decide to use accents in "protege", see the spellings for a male and a female a few lines from the beginning of Mentorship.)  – Corinne (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the sentence, I replaced it with one that excludes the word "protege" to improve the flow of the paragraph. Bede735 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I presume you have seen my last comment, just above, by now. I will do a little more work tonight, then resume tomorrow. (9) I want to ask you what you think about something. It's about two sentences in the fourth paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37. I'll copy the sentences here:

• Based on the popular novel by Hervey Allen, the film follows the adventures of an orphan raised by a Scottish merchant, whose pursuit of fortune separates him from the innocent peasant girl he loves, marries, and eventually loses. De Havilland plays the peasant girl Angela whose separation from her slave trader husband leads to her becoming opera star Mademoiselle Georges, the mistress of Napoleon.

This is a subtle style question. The two sentences each contain, and end with, an adjective clause beginning with "whose". I think it would be a good idea to avoid the similar sentence structure if possible. I'm wondering what you think about changing the second one so that it reads something like this:

• De Havilland plays the peasant girl Angela who, after being separated from her slave trader husband, later becomes opera star Mademoiselle Georges, the mistress of Napoleon.

or whatever wording you think is best (I haven't seen the movie).  – Corinne (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I like your wording. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(10) A few sentences below that is the following sentence:

• It also gave de Havilland good exposure and the opportunity to portray a character over a long period of time.

I assume that this character is Madamoiselle Georges, and that the phrase "over a long period of time" refers to the fact that the movie covers a substantial portion of Mlle. Georges' life. However, it is not completely clear that this is what is meant. It could also mean that the process of making the film took a long time. To make it clear that it is the former meaning that is meant, what do you think of changing it to something like this?

• It also gave de Havilland good exposure and the opportunity to portray a character as she develops over time. - or

• It also gave de Havilland good exposure and the opportunity to portray a character through the character's lifetime.

or something else (too tired to think of more alternatives).  – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see the ambiguity. Your first option is fine. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(11) Bede735 At the beginning of the section Olivia de Havilland#War years, 1941–44 is the following sentence:

• Following her emergency surgery in Santa Fe, de Havilland began a long period of convalescence in a Los Angeles hospital during which time she rejected several scripts offered to her by Warner Bros., which initiated another suspension.

You'll notice that the word "which" appears twice. I think it would be good to eliminate one. I've been pondering the best way to word the sentence.

(a) Following her emergency surgery in Santa Fe, de Havilland began a long period of convalescence in a Los Angeles hospital, during which time she rejected several scripts offered to her by Warner Bros., initiating another suspension.

(b) Following her emergency surgery in Santa Fe, de Havilland began a long period of convalescence in a Los Angeles hospital, during which time she rejected several scripts offered to her by Warner Bros., leading to another suspension. (I prefer this one.)

I agree. Option B is better. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about something else: I noticed that you repeated the information about the emergency surgery in Santa Fe. I assume you did that because it was beginning a new section, and there is always the chance that a reader will read only this section. In that case, I would remove "her" before "emergency surgery", leaving "Following emergency surgery in Santa Fe,..." On the other hand, if someone has already read the section before this, then there is no need to repeat all the details. In that case, I think "in Santa Fe" can be left out, leaving "Following her emergency surgery,..." What do you think? (I can also understand if you want to leave it as it is.)

I think your latter option is fine. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(12) Near the beginning of the second paragraph in the War Years section is the following sentence:

• Flynn and de Havilland had a falling out the previous year during the making of Santa Fe Trail‍—‌mainly over the kinds of roles she was given‍—‌and she did not intend to work with him again.

I'm wondering what you think of changing "was given" to "was being given", or even "had been given":

• Flynn and de Havilland had a falling out the previous year during the making of Santa Fe Trail‍—‌mainly over the kinds of roles she was being given‍—‌and she did not intend to work with him again.

I like this version, because it implies a continuing state. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Flynn and de Havilland had a falling out the previous year during the making of Santa Fe Trail‍—‌mainly over the kinds of roles she had been given‍—‌and she did not intend to work with him again.

Also, I noticed that you have been using the "no-space-em-dash-no-space" template for em-dashes. Don't you think the template should be used here, too?  – Corinne (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

They should all be replaced with the template. I go through the article later to replace the rest. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(13) Bede735 In the fourth paragraph of the War Years section is the following sentence:

• Filmed in July and August 1942, the story is about a European princess visiting her diplomat uncle in Washington, D.C., who is trying to find her an American husband. Intent on marrying a man of her own choosing, she boards a plane heading west and ends up falling in love with an American pilot who is unaware of her true identity.

The wording of this sentence is all right, but only all right. It could be improved. It would be good to get the adjective clause "who is trying to find her an American husband" so that it directly follows the noun it is modifying ("her diplomat uncle"). That means moving "in Washington, D.C.", perhaps earlier in the sentence:

• Filmed in July and August 1942, the story is about a European princess in Washington, D.C., visiting her diplomat uncle, who is trying to find her an American husband. Intent on marrying a man of her own choosing, she boards a plane heading west and ends up falling in love with an American pilot who is unaware of her true identity.

But to make it grammatically correct, we have to add a comma after "European princess", since it becomes a shortened non-restrictive adjective clause: "..., [who is] in Washington, D.C., visiting..."

However, you'll also notice that the sentence has a lot of -ing forms, so you might consider changing "[who is] in Washington, D.C., visiting her diplomatic uncle" to "..., who comes to Washington, D.C., to visit her diplomat uncle, who tries to find her an American husband". So it would then read:

• Filmed in July and August 1942, the story is about a European princess who comes to Washington, D.C., to visit her diplomat uncle, who tries to find her an American husband. Intent on marrying a man of her own choosing, she boards a plane heading west and ends up falling in love with an American pilot who is unaware of her true identity.

I agree with your wording, except I'm not sure about the "who tries to find her" phrase. I think "who is trying to find her" sounds better in context. I used your previous version. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought.  – Corinne (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, a peer review on the above article has opened and I understand you conducted "a thorough copy edit" on it prior to the PR. I assume good faith when I say that personally, I fail to see the benefits of the copy edit you conducted. I'm sorry to say that the article is currently in an awful state and it is a space age away from the nominator's desired destination of FAC. The sheer amount of shoddy prose, bloat, and copyright infringements are going to make this a particularly long process. You may wish to take part. Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto I'm surprised at your critical tone. My copy-edits were done between April 26 and 30. I left detailed concerns for Bede735 both above, in this section, and lower down on this page, at User talk:Corinne#Olivia de Havilland 2. I thought that, since Bede735 had already done a lot of work on the article, he might prefer to be involved in decisions about these issues rather than my going ahead and making the changes without consulting him. He addressed all those issues one by one. I thought I left the prose in pretty good shape, especially after Bede735 addressed the issues I raised. Many edits have been made since I copy-edited the article, some by Bede735 and some by other editors. I can't be responsible for the quality of the prose after all those edits. Also, I just work on the prose and to some extent on organization within paragraphs. I leave to others to advise on the finer points of what is needed for an article to be considered a featured article, especially in an article on a subject that is not one of my areas of interest. If you think a "thorough copy-edit" should include those things, too, fine, but I don't believe I was the one who thus characterized my work. You should really only look at the difference between what the article looked like before my edits and what it looked like after my edits. Also, you may wish to look on my user page and see the many barnstars I've received for my copy-editing work, and the fact that I have nearly 20,000 edits for only copy-editing, and my edits have rarely been reverted. I'm not interested in participating in the peer review, especially not now.  – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC) :Cassianto I don't think it's the job of a copy-editor to decide whether an article or section is too long. That's the job of the writer of the article and FAC reviewers. Also, you might be interested in the first and last lines in the "Comments" section at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/GA1.  – Corinne (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't critising you as an editor in general; in fact, I wasn't even criticising you at all. I merely pointed out that as the article was in such a poor condition, I couldn't quite believe that someone as good as you had been involved with it. I did point out that I came with good faith, but if you want want to assume otherwise then that's your problem. Cassianto^Talk 03:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You say: "I don't think it's the job of a copy-editor to decide whether an article or section is too long." no? Just so I'm up to date with things, what does a copy editor do? It was my impression that a copy editor was at their best when they could reduce a 30-word sentence into a 20-word sentence, no? I'm afraid that as a reviewer at the peer review, the nominator doesn't wish to listen to me in terms of cutting out uninteresting and bloated text and that they have cited you and your copy edits as justification not to do so. Cassianto^Talk 03:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Cassianto. Corinne is a hard core copy editor. She edits copy that is presented to her. She is very thoughtful about changing up an article. She does meticulous microcopyediting. That is her style. She does not delve into areas outside her job description such as copyright. What does copyright have to do with copyediting? That is the job of somebody else at a different stage. Fine tuning an article is a moving target and takes the collaboration of many editors. That is why Featured Article allows and requires unlimited reviewers, whereas Good Article only requires one. Peer review is like the wild west. Everybody brings their own perspective and skills to the table to move an article forward.

Despite your denial or failure to see it, the following three sentences contain three direct criticisms:

I assume good faith when I say that personally, I fail to see the benefits of the copy edit you conducted. I'm sorry to say that the article is currently in an awful state and it is a space age away from the nominator's desired destination of FAC. The sheer amount of shoddy prose, bloat, and copyright infringements are going to make this a particularly long process.

OdH was at 12K words or prose when Corinne copy edited it. After the copy edit, at a different venue, the submitter was asked to trim it to 9K (cut it down to a 50-minute read). It is currently at over 10K. When it gets to 9, it will be ready for another copy edit by somebody‍—‌maybe Corinne. Again, copy editing is a moving target.

Sometimes I wish Corinne would delve into more issues in an article, but that is not what she is tasked with, it is not her skillset, and she does not enjoy it yet.

What are the copyright issues you are raising? Have you blasted the GA reviewer for missing those? That is part of the GA toolbox.

Have you read this section yet: #Olivia de Havilland 2? Cheers! PS: Your two submissions above contain three spelling errors. Can you spot them? {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, as I said above, I don't doubt Corinne's ability to copy edit articles, and her frequent discussions to my good friend Rothorpe, I find very interesting. But when it was brought to my attention that Corinne had had some involvement with the de Havilland article as a copy editor, I thought it strange that the article could be in such a bad way. Dr. Blofeld carried out the GA review so I'm affraid you'll have to ask him about the images, I'm not here to comment about that. My concern is that when the article eventually goes to FAC, it will be lambasted for being over size and badly written. With regards to my spelling, you try spending a week writing numerous long posts on an iPhone in the sun. Maybe that was your excuse for making such mistakes as this one here. Cassianto^Talk 21:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2016)

Ozone-oxygen cycle in the ozone layer. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Ozone layer Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Gustaf Skarsgård • À la carte Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Raynald of Châtillon

Hi again, Corinne. You accepted this request on the 11th, but haven't yet begun. Do you still intend to copyedit it? All the best, Miniapolis 20:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis Yes.  – Corinne (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Floating image

Checkingfax I want to change the image of the flower that floats on the right side of my talk page, but I forget how to do that. I want to make the image smaller, change the image, or get rid of it, I haven't decided which. I couldn't even find it in the edit window.  – Corinne (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. It is here. Remember the oval version is an alternate. Cheers!{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Requiem (Reger)

Could you go over the article Requiem (Reger) once more? - Failed FAC after a month, and a delegate mentioned prose issues as a typical cause. I requested at GOCE, but waiting for a month would be waiting too long, - centenary of premiere is 16 July. Say no if you have no time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I've done the best I could. I changed the formatting of lines in German from quotation marks around Roman (regular) font to italics. I thought all foreign language words and sentences (except Latin and languages that do not use the Latin script) were to be in italics. However, I realize that there may be a special text formatting style for music, so if you want me to change them back, I will. Just let me know.  – Corinne (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you! Re the formatting: for Bach's works we don't do that. Once it's established in the lead that the text is in German, we simply quote and use italics only for books etc. - Centenary of Reger's death 11 May, getting ready ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Have you been waiting for me to undo those text formatting changes I made? If so, I apologize. I've been kind of busy, and then got distracted by other articles, and now I don't remember exactly what I was supposed to change back. Do you still want me to do that? If so, I'll study what I did and make the changes. Also, I was just skimming the article. I don't think "Isle of the Dead" should be in italics. I think the English translation should just be in regular font.  – Corinne (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't expect anything, sorry if that wasn't clear, - just would like to have it clarified. If a phrase is just a translation it should not be italic, (Isle of the dead), but if it's a title in English (seems so), then italics and cap, Isle of the Dead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt O.K. I understand regarding Isle of the Dead. But regarding the other formatting issue, you wrote (above):

Re the formatting: for Bach's works we don't do that. Once it's established in the lead that the text is in German, we simply quote and use italics only for books etc.

and I had offered to undo my changes (changing quotation marks to italics). Now I see that many edits have been made to the article, so it would be a little difficult for me to figure out what to change back. Can you do that, or do you still want me to do it?  – Corinne (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to do it, - it's nothing I care much about ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, - encouraged, I try again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2016)

A small whirlpool in a pond Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Whirlpool Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Ozone layer • Gustaf Skarsgård Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Norodom Sihanouk

Submitted - I was initially hesitant to submit a request, as I had submitted requests to the CE guild, and had been overlooked thrice in the past. It's not so much about the specific editor that I am concerned with, but rather the issue of catching the attention of a willing editor. This article had been sent to Peer Review twice, and I failed to procure any meaningful responses to improve the article. On my side, I'm currently looking through Casliber's suggestions, which takes time. It"ll definitely be very great and nice if you can give a special consideration to take a look at this article.. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Old Pine Church

Hi Corinne! I know it has been a very long time due to my continue absence from Wikipedia. I've only been working on promoting one article at a time, and I've currently been working on revising Old Pine Church, which has been nominated for Featured Article candidacy at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Pine Church/archive1. I was wondering if, time permitting, you could take a look at the architectural section of the article. There are only so many ways to re-state architectural descriptions. I've tried to make the content in the article as different as possible from the original source, but some descriptors will inevitably be similar to accurately convey the architecture. Could you please take a look when you have a chance and see if you can find any places that could be described more eloquently or in a different manner? Thank you so much for your continued stellar contributions to Wikipedia! --West Virginian (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, thank you so much for your thoughtful edits to Old Pine Church. The prose certainly reads a lot more smoothly now. You work wonders! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

West Virginian I forgot to mention how glad I was to see you return to editing on WP. I'm happy to help you with any article. By the way, I noticed that you pinged me at the beginning of your comment just above. It isn't necessary to ping an editor on his/her own talk page because we automatically get a notice for each new comment that is added to the talk page. But thank you just the same. Thank you also for your kind words just above. I know I tend to cut out as much as possible; I hope my prose doesn't sound too "bare-bones". I was just looking at the article (I didn't read it all the way through, but I will if you want me to), and I noticed a few things. Rather than making changes myself, I thought I'd ask you about them here. It is these sentences in the "Brethren affiliation" section:

• Old Pine Church and its predecessor structures were probably utilized by members of the Beaver Run congregation because the distance was too considerable to traverse between the northern region of the Mill Creek valley and the church on Beaver Run.[18] Thus, Old Pine Church began as a mission of the Beaver Run congregation.[21][22] Because of its location in the vicinity of the Hardy County boundary line, Old Pine Church congregation's district spanned both counties.

Regarding the second half of the first sentence:

• Old Pine Church and its predecessor structures were probably utilized by members of the Beaver Run congregation because the distance was too considerable to traverse between the northern region of the Mill Creek valley and the church on Beaver Run.

I'd like to suggest a re-arrangement:

• ...because the distance between the northern region of the Mill Creek valley and the church on Beaver Run was too great to traverse easily.

Regarding the other two sentences:

• Thus, Old Pine Church began as a mission of the Beaver Run congregation. Because of its the church's location in the vicinity of near the Hardy County boundary line, the district of the Old Pine Church congregation district spanned both counties.

I changed "its" to "the church's" because "its" could refer to either "Old Pine Church" or "congregation", creating ambiguity. I think "Old Pine Church's congregation district" is awkward, so I put "district" before "Old Pine Church". For the latter part of the sentence, would you consider:

• ...the district served by the church spanned both counties. ?  – Corinne (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Corinne, thank you so much again for your peer review and copyedit of Old Pine Church! I just noticed your notes above, and made your suggested changes in the prose of the article. With your phenomenal edits, I am sure the article is much closer to being promoted to a Featured Article! I've only had time to work on one article at a time, unfortunately. I have such a long to-do-list for articles that I hope to return to Wikipedia more regularly soon to catch up! You always inspire me, and it's editors like you who keep me coming back! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Judiciary

Rothorpe and Checkingfax Just out of curiosity as I was going through my watch list, I looked at an edit to Wikipedia:Requested moves. It was actually the first time I had looked at that page that I recall. About three-quarters of the way down the page is a group of requests to move "Judicial system of [country]" to "Judiciary of [country]". I almost left a comment there, but before I do, I thought I'd ask you [and any talk page stalker] for your opinions. I wondered who categories are made for. If they are for the average Wikipedia reader, I think "Judicial system of [country]" is more understandable and accessible than "Judiciary of [country]". Now, I suppose "judicial system" and "judiciary" can be seen as synonyms, but to me, there is a slight difference. To me, the judiciary is the actual branch of government of a particular country, including perhaps even the names of specific positions and the people currently holding them, while the judicial system is a broader term, including a detailed explanation of how the judicial branch of government is organized and how it functions, but also the various positions, and whether the positions are elected or appointed. (It also could be seen as a narrower term if it is limited to how the branch of government functions.) Of course I don't have any legal background, so these are non-expert opinions. Do you see any difference between the terms "judicial system" and "judiciary"? If so, what are they, and do they represent a big enough difference that it would make a difference which term is used? If not, which term do you think is better for the category name?  – Corinne (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think of a judiciary as judges and lawyers, people mainly, while a judicial system is, as it says, a system, a set of procedures. But there is a mania for standardisation. If it ain't broke... Rothorpe (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corrine. Judiciary is the judges themselves whereas the judicial system is the courts that the judges preside in. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thanks, Checkingfax! (Don't you mean "judicial system"?)  – Corinne (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It was one of my last edits of the evening. Good catch Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I was about to leave a comment (opposing the move) but saw the latest comment at Talk:Judicial system of Finland#Requested move 26 April 2016. I agree that all the move requests for separate articles should be consolidated into one discussion, so I'm going to wait.  – Corinne (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello (2)

Hello, I think the Cristóbal Bencomo y Rodríguez needs a group of references. But I do not can you help me? Thank you.--83.59.138.183 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I'm not the best person to ask about references anyway. Perhaps Checkingfax can help you.  – Corinne (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I Corinne. I believe .183 wanted to reuse references. Meant: ...but I do not know how. Can you help me?

As you can see in this Diff, the same reference was used in full over and over. By naming three refs, I was able to just recylce the name and reduce the number of listed refs in the Reference section by the sum of 20. Now, the repeats show up in the References section as letters instead of numbers. Check it out. Here is the before Permalink, and here is the after Permalink. IPs cannot be pinged, so I am answering here. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)@Checkingfax: I can't quite understand what problem you're trying to resolve. Are you saying you don't want the letters A through L on that ref? What is the desired outcome? For one thing, you have at least one paragraph where every sentence is cited to the same ref ("The historical significance..."). Don't need all those cites. Just delete all and put one on the last sentence of that paragraph. It looks, to be quite honest, a little weak when that happens, and raises concerns of copyvio or wp:close paraphrase, but if done correctly it is still perfectly legal.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke FAC

Hi, Corinne. Can you or any (talk page stalker) reading this please go to the Featured Article review for the article on Michael Laucke and fix anything remaining that Sainsf is asking for? Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I just read all of Sainsf's comments and the replies (saying "Done", etc.). I couldn't figure out what you felt still needed work.  – Corinne (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Any bullet points that are not marked done still need to be addressed and if done then should be then marked as such. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Can you or any (talk page stalker) please help out with the logical quotes and serial comma (Harvard comma) issues raised by Jerome Kohl? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2016)

A photodetector salvaged from a CD-ROM. The photodetector contains 3 photodiodes visible in the photo (in center). Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Photodetector Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Whirlpool • Ozone layer Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Hauteville family

Checkingfax I was just reading the article on the Hauteville family. In the section Hauteville family#Mezzogiorno there is an external PDF file. Can you fix this?  – Corinne (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I went to a few minutes of trouble to build and dress a nice citation to encapsulate the .pdf link in, but the .pdf link turned out to be a redirect spam link when I went to fetch the title, author, date, etc., so I removed the link completely. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Constance of Antioch

Thank you for your tireless work to improve articles. Have a nice week! :) Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk 2

Hi Corrine, it was nice for you to take this article up for CE. Just to let you know first, I suggest you skip the sections "Early life and first reign" and "Premiership (1955–60)" for now, as I am expanding / modifying the content as per FAC's request (target time to finish - next Tuesday). I encourage you to review the prose from the section "Initial years as Head of State (1960–65)" onwards, which I would highly likely keep the content in its current state. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corrine, just to inform you, I have completed major content modifications to the above sections. Thank you for the copyedits that you have made so far, and I encourage you to make more fixes, if there are any. See you around! Mr Tan (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Tan I'm about three-quarters of the way done. I just noticed today the template at the beginning of the article (visible in Edit mode) that specifies American English is to be used, so I changed "travelled" to "traveled". I was about to change all the "ised" (as in "recognised", "criticised", and "organised") to "ized", when I realized that all the dates are in British English order (day-month-year). So basically I would be changing not only dates but all of these words to American spelling. Before I do that, I wanted to ask whether you added the template (it was added in May 2016) and, if so, whether you want me to proceed with changing the date format to American (month-day-year) and the spelling of the words to American spelling. It doesn't matter to me which English variant is used. I just thought I would check with you.  – Corinne (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Tan When I copy-edit an article, I go through the article once, making corrections and changes. Then I usually go back to the beginning and read it through again, making any further corrections and changes. When I remove the "GOCE in use" template, it does not necessarily mean that I am finished copy-editing the article. When I am finished, I will let you know. Of course, when the "GOCE in use" template is not there, anyone, including yourself, is free to edit the article. However, since you requested that I copy-edit the article, I think it would be a good idea if you didn't copy-edit the article until I'm all finished (except the sections you told me you were still working on). I noticed you copy-edited at least one section that I had already copy-edited (first reading), including here. I am now in the process of reading through the article a second time, but I'll be finished soon.  – Corinne (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Tan (Please also read my previous comments just above this.) I just realized that you started a new section also headed "Norodom Sihanouk". In the future, it would be best to continue in the same section (or use a different heading; I just added a "2" to make this heading different from the first one). I was also surprised to see you had placed a request at the GOCE Requests page. If I had seen that, I would not have copy-edited Norodom Sihanouk until after I completed another copy-editing assignment I had accepted. The copy-edit is basically finished. There is only the issue of which variety of English you want to use, American or British. The template at the beginning of the article says "American English", but most (but not all) of the spelling and date formats are in British English. Once you decide, and tell me, I will go back to the article and make them consistent.  – Corinne (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne and Mr Tan. One of the two FA bosses noted the lack of consensus and archived Norodom Sihanouk suggesting it go to Peer Review. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Prince Romerson

Could you please help do a quick, preliminary copy-editing Prince Romerson? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2016)

The Hilton Athens is part of the Hilton Hotels & Resorts hotel chain. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Hilton Hotels & Resorts Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Photodetector • Whirlpool Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

GOCE Coodinator elections

Hi Corinne, I'm thinking of nominating you for a position of GOCE coordinator at the upcoming election because I think you're a mature, dedicated Wikipedia editor and you've been around the Guild long enough to know how things work. Please let me know whether you accept my proposal; nominations close on 15 June, and feel free to ask me things. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 Wow, thank you for your kind words and your confidence in me. Yes, I would be interested in the position. I think I know a few things that the coordinator does:

• Move completed nominations to the archives
• Issue reminders to editors who have accepted an assignment but who either haven't started yet or are taking too long to complete it
• Make the final determination (normally after some discussion) as to whether an article is ready for copy-editing
• Compile a report once a year (?) regarding how many articles were copy-edited, the average time it took for copy-edits to be completed, etc.

Do I have these right? Are there any other responsibilities? Regarding the last two of these, I would need some guidance. For example, other than that the prose of the article is in too bad shape or that the article is still being actively edited (ie., too much in flux), are there any other reasons why an article might be deemed not ready for a copy-edit?

Thank you, again, Baffle gab1978.  – Corinne (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries; I'm stepping back for a while and we need fresh victims some new blood :-D Regarding the last two tasks, if a coordinator thinks the copy-edit wouldn't stick, or would be wiped out by edit wars, edit conflicts or rapid article development, or if it's confusing or incomprehensible (say machine-translated from a foreign language), s/he can place the request on hold, which advises other copy-editors of possible problems. The coordinator should then open a discussion on Requests talk explaning her/his reasons for the on hold notice. The process if fairly organic; if other coords disagree the request is usually taken off-hold.

Yearly reports (2015; I find these enjoyable to compile) are more than a summary of articles copy-edited; they're a great chance to communicate with Guild members, let them know what we've been doing behind the scenes and thank them for their help. Behind-the-scenes work includes setting up drive/blitz pages and updating them daily; watching our talk pages and responding to messages; tidying archived talk pages and doing general housekeeping tasks. You can handle as much or as little work as you are able, and we're hoping to have other new coordinators so the work will be evenly distibuted.

Thanks for your quick response; feel free to poke around the Guild's pages (inc. talk) to see what other random tasks we deal with. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

With your permission then, I shall post a nomination in about 24 hours or after your reply, unless you'd like to self-nominate. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 Thank you. I apologize for not responding sooner. I've been kind of busy in real life the last few days.  – Corinne (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries; I've been busy too. I've just nominated you here; please feel free to correct any inaccuracies or daft mistakes on my part, or to amend if you're not happy with the nomination text. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 Thank you for nominating me and for the complimentary comments. They were fine. Thank you again.  – Corinne (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)