Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 NewsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.

                 Current and upcoming events

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Drive and Blitz reports

June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated!

Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Keto diet" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Keto diet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Keto diet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope you can close Ser Amantio di NicolaoEdit

I hope you can/will close the redirect discussion for Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I think it would be silly to prolong the discussion. Others have lost interest because the needed clarification was achieved. Please close and allow us to "turn the page"! --Presearch (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've commented on the discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I just commented there too, asking a question of you, and also a question of the editor who opposed such a hatnote. --Presearch (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit


Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Cup FoodsEdit

A second old rfd tag needs to be on the talk page for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_13#Cup_Foods. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done, though you're welcome to do this sort of thing yourself in the future. N.b., since {{old RfD}} doesn't support multiple listings, I prefer to convert to {{old AfD multi}} and set |type=redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


people in education and music

Thank you for quality articles such as List of Liberty University people, Jack McAuliffe (brewer), Jeffrey Trammell and Pamela Fleming, for resurrecting articles and nurturing some in infancy, for guilded copy-editing and dealing with redirects for discussion, for willingness to arbitrate, - librarian, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2480 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --BDD (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the kind words. I'd like to think I'd be your #8 :), but have faith in your judgment and that of all voters in this election. Best of luck to all. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven't voted yet, and things may still change. As said, for me no candidate is "impossible" this time - which is a first. You probably know that I feel the case - "my" first and last - suffered from too wide a scope. I didn't know the ultimate guide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the context, Gerda Arendt. I may have missed something, because I don't see infobox-related edits from you recently at L'ange de Nisida. Was this several years ago? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for looking. No, recent editing. I didn't add an infobox because that's a featured article, and I wasn't sure about the author's stance. Did you check out #Donizetti on my talk? You could also look at Rita (opera), where I did add an infobox recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw #Donizetti, though I missed the past about the edit in 2016, so if this was the edit in question, I understand a bit more. It sounds like you are approaching this fine—there was the issue of the potentially misleading edit summary, which I'm sure was not done in bad faith, and you're adding infoboxes or not with sensitivity towards other editors. We can't ask for much more than that! --BDD (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you ;) - The question, though, was about infobox "squabbles" not being recent, and now we had this recent Rita (and others). It looks better now than yesterday, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, probably we'll always have to live with such disagreements, and can only hope that they'll be cordial and that everyone can accept that their view won't always carry the day. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I voted for you ;) - What do you think of Castor et Pollux? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Why thank you! I hope you won't regret it when I say I have very little opera knowledge, though as a Gemini I feel some affinity with the twins.
I do think the version with both infobox and navbox looked quite nice, though. This resembles a dilemma in the library world, specifically how to catalog and where to place a work. The article layout as it stands now is better for the reader who wants to learn about multiple Rameau operas; leading with the infobox is better for the reader specifically looking for Castor et Pollux. Both have some appeal, but the latter seems self-evidently the better approach, given than the article is about the specific opera. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and it it doesn't take any opera knowledge ;) - look again, and perhaps also at the bottom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Aha, I missed the navbox at the bottom. Having both that and the top-right navbox didn't make much sense, so I think Primefac was right to remove the latter. I think readers expect navboxes at the bottom, but I wish we had some reliable data on how they use navigational templates. I know infoboxes are helpful for structured data, e.g., Wikidata. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

An orchid for you!Edit

  Thank you
A lovely flower for a lovely user! –MJLTalk 01:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seth CummingEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Seth Cumming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Arb ElectionEdit

Good luck with the elections! SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

ArbCom candidate questionsEdit

I recently added two questions for you at:

I welcome your response.

You may find my comments here relevant: Too many questions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Answered there. Thanks for your patience, David Tornheim, and your willingness to pare down to two. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thank you for answering. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors NewsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.

                 Current and upcoming events

Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now.

Drive and Blitz reports

September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive.

October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz.

November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests.

Other news

Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above).

Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Article: List of Largest Empires, I found serious errors in the article.Edit

Hello I liked the wikipedia articles, however, I found very serious errors in the article: I spoke on the talk page and I was completely ignored, but the numbers are not in accordance with what is studied in college, I think that instead of looking for secondary sources of politicians, it should focus, what the documents say, written by people from the time of each empire, and of course there is a variety of old maps and land names, which say the conquests more accurately, what do you think of that? if it is not based on land conquest, what is it? The list starts off badly: "The size of the empire on this list is defined as the area of ​​dry land it controlled at the time, which may differ considerably from the area claimed. For example: in the year 1800, European powers collectively claimed about 20% of the Earth's land surface that they did not effectively control. [8] Where estimates vary, inputs are ranked by the lowest estimate." From the beginning, denying historical facts, the list meaning that all nations lied, but I read very good articles on wikipedia, but this list clearly needs a good correction, or a good justification, because it denies all the facts of the story, which diminishes the credibility of those who will read it, and then there is another one thing, they use the same source for all empires, which is even more serious, can you help or improve the list so that it becomes more reliable? Thanks. (2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00:81D0:786E:DDB7:AD26 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

I checked your comment on the article talk page too, but I'm not sure exactly what information in the article you think is wrong. It sounds like you're proposing original research, which could be very valuable, but Wikipedia is not the place to engage in it. However, if you've been taught something different in college, the sources your instructors use could be valuable in improving our article. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ranked choice voting RfDEdit

Hi BDD, I just wanted to offer some comments about the RfD on Ranked choice voting. I'm certainly fine with the outcome, as it was my original proposal, but I do find it odd that you determined no consensus but nevertheless went ahead and retargeted anyway, and worry others may as well, or even consider it out of bounds. I agree with you that it was not the forum for reassessing consensus on whether ranked-choice voting is a synonym for instant-runoff voting, I meant to present a simple question: should this redirect target where the hyphenated version does? I only brought it to RfD because there was past debate about its target (though I suppose that reopened the content discussion). I understand why the other redirects were added to the discussion, but that really changed or at least broadened the question of the RfD, from keep/retarget to where to target. I think there really was a rough consensus to retarget, even though some of the !votes and comments were a little confusing, leaving the larger question for another time and place, as you argue. The real problem is ranked-choice voting in the United States represents RCV as comprising both IRV and a separate method, single transferable vote, but as you say, that is best handled at a discussion at Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States. In retrospect, perhaps I should have BOLDly retargeted then started a discussion about the larger issue (which I intend to bring up shortly), but with this redirect's particular history I erred on the side of RfD. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone does raise an objection here. I know small details can sometimes really make a difference, but I don't think that that's the case here; regardless of your position on how to treat the term, there's no logical case for treating its capitalization and punctuation variants differently. I think you would've been fine to BOLDly retarget the one, but can't fault your decision to defer to a discussion. It looks like participants didn't really get into the issue of the variants per se, instead commenting on the underlying content question. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


The assembling of the stuffy new arbs. Natureium (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe I'm second from the right. As usual in pictures, I've blinked! --BDD (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration CommitteeEdit

Congratulations on your success in the election and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

  • the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
  • if you wish to assigned CheckUser and/or Oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45), and your name must be listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, if you want CheckUser or Oversight permissions during your term, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations, BDD...and good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration CommitteeEdit

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:
    Oversight: Joe Roe
  • Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
  • DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee
*Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me (and that goes for the other new people also).  We may overlap on one case. and if there's one think I like, it's giving advice. . Especially when I'm safely out of the war zone.  DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG! You may have seen my userpage hatnote, so I'm tickled to succeed you on the ArbCom chart. I will very likely take you up on that offer for advice. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, BDD - we're looking forward to great things from you and our other new arbs!! Try not to feel pressured despite having WP's world on your shoulders.   You'll have plenty of support, praise and more than your share of criticism. What more could an arb want?   And Happy Holidays to you! Drink plenty of eggnog with lots of rum...or better yet, forget the eggnog!   Atsme 💬 📧 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I messed upEdit

So, I was thinking back to that discussion about redirecting the List of Asexual, Non-binary, and Pansexual characters in television and radio page to the List of LGBT characters in television and radio page. I know I said that "pansexual, non-binary, and asexual characters are not on that page." However, looking back, I realized that statement was incorrect, because I was actually thinking about the List of feature films with LGBT characters page, and I somehow confused that with the List of LGBT characters in television and radio in my mind. Oops. As such, I support the ultimate decision to redirect the page to theList of LGBT characters in television and radio page. That's all I had to say. Oh and happy end of year and a new year to come! --Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Case acceptanceEdit

I am pretty sure that was unnecessary since the case is already well under way? –MJLTalk 23:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes! Sorry, got my wires crossed. Good thing I didn't say decline! --BDD (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

1980 vs. 1988Edit

BDD, I'd like to ask you what disruption you think will be allowed if the DS for AP2 covers 1980-present versus 1988-present. I would like to hear your reasoning, considering that there have been no editors sanctioned in the last four years for violations of the DS in the years 1980-1988. I'm sure that you have reasons that may well involve events that ArbCom is required to keep out of public view. If the latter is the case, please just say so. I am not asking for a peek behind the curtain and I recognize there are good reasons for lack of transparency. If this is the case, I think the discussion I posted may be slightly misleading and would like to at least acknowledge that. Thank you and best wishes for the New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not considering anything non-public. I may well endorse a 1988 cutoff, but share the concerns of others that excluding Reagan might be going too far. I do appreciate the work you put into your analysis. Let's see how things play out. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I personally haven't seen much Reagan-era disruption, which was part of the reason I started looking into the logs. I will wait on the rest of the committee's input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Copy of the deleted article Oliver M. W. SpragueEdit

Hey there, I found you on the list of admins willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I am currently writing bios of notable economists and am planning to do Oliver M. W. Sprague next, but noticed that the article about him has been deleted a couple of years ago according to WP:G5, "Creations by banned or blocked users". Would you mind providing me of a copy of the article to (hopefully) save me some work? Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Caius G.. Yes, I'm willing to do so. Would you like it restored to mainspace, draft space, or a user subpage? It's not obviously unsuited for mainspace, but you may want to check external links and otherwise tidy up first. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi BDD, thanks for your quick reply. Having it restored as a user subpage under User:Caius G./Oliver M. W. Sprague would be best! Thanks a lot! Best, Caius G. (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done --BDD (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Flying WindowsEdit

Did You Just Delete The Page Flying Windows On 22:10 PM December 16 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I did delete it in 2016, yes. You should be able to see a link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary. Since that was a while ago, I wouldn’t necessarily object to a new article or redirect at that title. —BDD (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit


Your feedback is requested at Talk:Batman on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)