Open main menu

Editor of the WeekEdit

  Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Reidgreg to be Editor of the Week for being a tireless member of the black gang, who labours constantly to maintain a head of steam for this project we know as Wikipedia. Month in, month out Reidgreg puts in a tremendous shift at the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE), of which he has recently become lead coordinator. He rarely copy edits less than 100,000 words a month, often starting with material which is virtually incomprehensible. He will cheerfully tackle an article of 20,000 words on an obscure or technical subject. His up to date knowledge of the MoS is almost frightening. Many a FA, AC and GA would not have achieved that status without Reidgreg's skilled but unregarded attentions. I know that he does admin work for other projects, no doubt more than I am aware of. His new content is in contemporary, fast moving and difficult areas and is ridiculously thoroughly referenced. In addition to all this he somehow finds time to nurture newcomers. His insightful, detailed and prompt advice and friendly demeanour have retained more than one bashful newcomer. The type of editor it is easy to overlook, but whom the project would miss more than the most prolific content generator.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox|30 December 2018}}
 
 
 
Lead Copyeditor
Reidgreg
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning December 30, 2018
Lead coordinator at the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE). Steady copy editing pace often beginning with incomprehensible material on a obscure or technical subject. Up-to-date knowledge of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Skilled attention helps many a FA, AC and GA achieve that status. Does admin work for other projects and still finds time to nurture newcomers.
Recognized for
His insightful, detailed and prompt advice and friendly demeanour
Notable work(s)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and Wikipedia:Typo Team
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Buster7 and Gog the Mild: Wow, this is an unexpected surprise for the new year! And I just got precious last month. I'd say more but I'm in the midst of submitting a triple-hook DYK and need to get all my ducks in a row. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Well-deserved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Richly deserved and very hard earned. Happy New Year: may your keyboard never grow cool and may you never misplace a comma. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE tableEdit

Hi Reidgreg; thank you for adding the graph to the requests section of the annual report; presenting information visually is helpful. There's a copy of the GOCE REQ archive table at my sandbox; it may be a little out-of-date but it's merged and fully sortable for data collecting purposes; you need Javascript enabled to sort it though. Feel free to tweak the table as you wish; I'll copy-over the newest archives early next month. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: For the last two annual reports, I exported the archives to a spreadsheet in order to run calculations off of the dates – getting the difference to see the number of days to complete each request, getting mean/median/mode time for requests, and it also indicated how many requests were in the queue at the end of each day. I'll probably do that again when all the data is in. At the same time I can count up the number of GANs, DYKs, etc., and the top five request copy editors and submitters. I've got a spreadsheet with request data going back to maybe 2011, when there was a gap in the records.
I'm not sure if the graph I added is the best way of presenting the data, but it's something to play around with. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Reidgreg, (talk page stalker) ... I had done some summarizing earlier and thought Jonesey was doing the reports so contacted them. S/he has not remarked and I now realize that it's probably because s/he is not doing it anymore. If you are interested, there is a start at Google docs. I only did 2018. Different summaries are available at links across the bottom. Although I don't think it's visible via the link, it's done with pivot tables so really easy to change or add things. If it's not useful please let me know and I will delete. I do apologize if I overstepped. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 18:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: I picked up the 2016 and 2017 reports last year, and I'm pretty much ready to carry on when the last requests from 2018 are completed. I'm not really familiar with Google docs and I'm not sure I can properly access it (it says my browser isn't supported). – Reidgreg (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Reidgreg, okee doke. I will delete them. If there's anything I can help with please know I am available and willing. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 20:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
PopularOutcast: One thing that is always helpful is proofreading this year's Requests archive page for typos. A couple of the coordinators and I have done some proofreading already, but another set of eyes never hurts. You will often find an incorrect year, or a swapped month and day, in the date fields (or a completed date that is earlier than the request date). Make sure that something is truly an error before you fix it, of course. Sometimes that requires browsing the Requests page history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Jonesey95, will do. I had corrected a few when I first imported the data that were obviously wrong. I didn't do a close check and now will. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: That'd be helpful. Bad dates can give me errors or weird numbers (negative or extremely long days-to-complete requests) when I put them into my spreadsheet. Proofreading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2018 Annual Report‎ would also be useful, and you can use previous reports from 2017 and 2016 as examples. It's too early to worry about getting everything perfect, but we can look at different ways of presenting and summarizing data. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the outliers for the first half of the year. I should get the rest done by the end of today. I am considering a normal range to be between one and thirty-nine days. I am checking between thirty and forty if they stand alone (the backlog clearance tends to happen together in time). I had previously corrected the extreme outliers (there's currently nothing negative and nothing over 50 days). PopularOutcasttalk2me! 15:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Reidgreg, Jonesey95 All right, I went through and looked at outliers. I corrected about ten entries this time. I am done unless there is something else y'all like me to look at on the archives. I will now look at the report. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 21:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I also went through and did the outliers at the lower end, one to two days turnaround and fixed those.
There are probably mistakes in between but there's just too much to look at there. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 03:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
And I think I am done with checking. I looked at about 85 percent of the request dates and corrected them. If they were wrong, I checked the completion date. If they were missing, I checked to see if they weren't archived or if they were deleted by the requester. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 01:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, I saw that you added some tables for the top copy editors and requesters. I would be interested in the percentage of the total that these numbers represent. Do you think that others would be interest in that too? PopularOutcasttalk2me! 23:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: Sorry for the slow reply, am using borrowed wifi when I can. I don't mind if you want to try that. Better to have too much, then decide what works and pare it down. In the 2017 report, just before the top-fives, it states 49 editors completed the 571 requests so you can see from there the average was about 11 and those at the top were more than pulling their weight. I'll try to capture a lot of the data and work on it offline (as I may have a lot of offline time the next couple days). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, I was just thinking like in the 2017 example, TwoFingered Typist completed 236 of the 571 requests. That's 41 percent of the requests. Comparatively, Corinne completed 12 percent. But also, the top five in 2017 completed 75 percent of the requests. Percentages make more sense to me than the raw numbers. In the end, I will convert them to percentages in my head. I may be wrong but I think the impact will be greater with percentages than raw numbers. Still, I'd include both. What do you think? PopularOutcasttalk2me! 22:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: what you just wrote, that the top five completed 75 percent of requests, sounds like just the thing to include. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: Should I put together something like the drive leaderboards, but representing all of 2018? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, yeah, I think something like that would look good. What categories are you thinking of for the table?
I am not sure this would be easy to do but like it would be interesting to know both who copyedited the largest article and what article it was. We don't keep track of the size of the article for requests so it may not be worth the effort to find. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: It's fairly rare for a Request to top 10,000 words, as WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLITSIZE recommend that as the maximum article size, and Requests tend to be more compliant with those guidelines. There have been some, but it's quite rare, and I don't recall seeing any of the huge numbers that you sometimes get from tagged articles that are bloated with trivia. For an annual leaderboard, I think stick with what we have ready data for. Request numbers from the archives (no data on request word count except those from blitzes and drives, so won't report that), total word count claimed on blitzes and drives (which will include some but not all requests), total article count (I can merge and check for request and blitzes/drives, removing those that appear twice), largest blitz/drive articles, total 5k blitz/drive articles, and maybe total old articles from blitzes/drives. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, cool. I didn't know about WP:LENGTH. Those large articles impress (and scare) me. While thinking about the leaderboard table you proposed yesterday, I started to think about the differences between drives/blitzes and requests. I know that I participate more in the drives and blitzes because most of the articles on the requests page are headed for GAN or FAN or peer review; since less experienced copyeditors are not supposed to take those on, the only way to feel part of the group is to do the drives and blitzes. That's also a way to improve since a portion of articles completed are checked. In any case, some acknowledgment of those that show up mostly for the drives and blitzes might help with retention of new editors. (I am not looking for acknowledgment). Just thoughts of which I may totally be wrong on. :) PopularOutcasttalk2me! 16:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@PopularOutcast: FYI, I fleshed out the statistics for the report which is undergoing it final revisions now. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit helpEdit

Hey there, new to Wikipedia and copyedit is an area I'd be interested in. The page said to go bother a coordinator, so here I am! I've added myself to the list but the Drive/Blitz bit and keeping track of it seems a tad complex - is that necessary or can I just muddle on without recording it? Also wondered if you could give me a hand on deciding what quality a page needs to get to? e.g. I saw that Fly_Jamaica_Airways_Flight_256 was flagged - is the rewrite of that page now sufficient for the flag to be removed? (Thought I'd start short and get the standard right before tackling anything larger!) Appreciate your help! Darren-M (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Responded on Darren-M's talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Next Drive / BlitzEdit

Hi :) When are we having the next copy-editing drive/blitz? Csgir (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The current drive runs until January 31. The next blitz will be for one week sometime in February. The best way to know when a drive or blitz is happening is to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Ombox on your watchlist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you :) Csgir (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A FAC queryEdit

Hi Reidgreg.

I note in passing the good work going on above. I have a query which I would be grateful if you could give a, non-attributable, opinion on. It is in regard of the FAC of Midland Railway War Memorial and whether a quote has to be in block quote format. I think that this diff sums up the situation, and the nominator's reply seems clear. I am inclined to say that the MoS is clear and that they have to lump it. What do you think?

Apologies for passing on the hard cases to you.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Before going into the details, the threshold set by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is 40 words (or was, last time I checked). Below 40 words, keep the quote in prose; above, put it in a block quote. That's just a rough guide though. I had some 40+ word quotes that I kept in prose in a GA, and two other editors agreed with that decision. I'll check the specifics now.
(continuing) (Feel free to copy and paste this over, in whole or in part, I give permission.) I certainly do understand that the MOS is a guideline – usually a very good guideline, but a guideline nonetheless – which can be ignored with good reason. I have an article with 49-word inline quote and a 33-word block quote. (Other editors agreed with my reasoning for these.) But that's some distance from 76 words. My feeling here is that a long quote like this can fade into the prose. The quote isn't in encyclopedic tone and we don't want it to be mistaken for Wikipedia's voice. I'm a bit cautious with an article on a memorial, which we don't want to sound like a memorial page. This is one of the benefits of a block quote which clearly separates a quote from the surrounding prose. In part, poems and song lyrics are often put into templates for this reason, because they're so far removed from Wikipedia's voice. So between the length, the tone, and the somewhat complex sentence structure (a long sentence followed by a sentence with a dash and a quote-within-a-quote), I would recommend a block quote (I use {{quote}}). These may seem like little nit-picky points, but As and FAs are supposed to be darned-near perfect, and that means addressing these points which might only confuse a tenth of one percent of readers. I would suggest to sandbox it and look at it a couple different ways: (1) as a long block quote and (2) edited down to about 40 words as an inline quote, possibly paraphrasing the rest outside of the quotation.
I'll also go ahead and say that it's quite true that not every article has to stick to the MOS. It's also true that not every article has to be an FA. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Just what I wanted to say, but couldn't articulate. I shall sleep on it, but I am inclined to cut and paste most or all of your comments as you are good enough to give permission, attribute them to you as a GOCE coordinator - if you could confirm that that is included in your permission - while stressing that this is a clearer expression of my views, that I personally stand by it and that any comments on it should be addressed to me.
Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Go ahead; I've edited the above a tiny bit. I give permission as there's some kind of rule about copying and pasting another user's work between talk pages. Or you can paraphrase; it doesn't bother me. Weirdly, I also gave some advice about long quotes on the drive talk page today.
BTW, I really liked the essay in your sandbox. The title immediately reminded me of the opening line of The Go-Between: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." I traipsed through Wikiquote and found Kerouac wrote "All of life is a foreign country", and in The Word an editorial by Harold W. Percival: "Those who go to a foreign country are of four classes: some go with the object of making it their home and spending the remainder of their days there; some go as traders; some as travelers on a tour of discovery and instruction; and some are sent with a special mission from their own country." The essay reminded me of my own transformative moments as a Wikipedian and the help I'd received from many editors, which I feel made it much easier to assume good faith for the most part, to pass along encouragement and approach things positively. I feel like I was quite lucky to be in the right place at the right time, and at the right period in my own Wikipedia journey, to have given you a little help and received all this praise in return. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. Done. I started to edit, but decided that it was best to provide your entire opinion. The editor in question is very experienced and seems a friendly and helpful sort, so I hope that they take this in the spirit in which it is intended. All part of my Wikipedia learning curve.
Which brings me to my essay. I didn't expect anyone to spot it, tucked away there. It is so good when one uses a literary allusion and it is understood  . I think that you are inverting the help to praise ratio involved, but that is typical of you. I am pleased that you like it; I nearly ran it past you, but decided to go with my own judgement. Which felt shaky; I tried it without the overtly personal bits, but decided that they added their words-length-worth to what I was trying to convey. Interesting that you were able to identify with my account, that reassures me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. It all seemed to go smoothly and with good temper. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation queryEdit

I am visiting the fount (or, in some varients, the font) again. I am copy editing a request. The abbreviations SS (as in the article is about a German SS general) and NCO are used, without being given in full on first use. Both are, now, Wikilinked. My view is that it is not going help a reader to give Schutzstaffel (SS) on first mention, any more than I would write Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo). I am inclined also to leave NCO as it is, I doubt that anyone who doesn't understand it will be enlightened by non-commissioned officer (NCO). In fact, as it doesn't come up again, I wouldn't normally give the abbreviation at all. This is, of course, based on the premise that NCO is considerably more likely to be understandable to a reader than non-commissioned officer. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If this were an article I was editing, I would make sure to link the first instance of each abbreviation. That way, anyone who is confused about what "SS" means in this context can click through and find out. I agree with you that "Schutzstaffel" doesn't help, and that English-speaking readers would actually be more familiar with "SS" and with "Gestapo" (or KGB, to cite a non-Hitler-related example) than the full terms. I'm not sure about "NCO", though. I would definitely link it, and if it doesn't disrupt the flow too much, I would probably spell it out at first mention. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jonesey95. That's about what I thought. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild and Jonesey95: I was somewhat surprised to find that non-commissioned officer is not the primary redirect for NCO, and that NCO isn't one of the common abbreviations (which don't have to be expanded) listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia – despite specific NCO ratings like MSgt., SSgt. and TSgt. being listed. Weird.
I might have used {{Abbr|NCO|non-commissioned officer}} on first use as an alternative to linking or written out non-commissioned officer in full. I typically won't use an acronym only once in an article (unless the acronym is the common name, e.g. NATO, or in a table or caption where space is tight). I think you were right to use SS as the common name linked to the full name. It's a bit of a judgement call – like the principle of least astonishment.
BTW, Jonesey95 is one of the many editors who have given me invaluable help over the years, and I'm impressed that he has time to watch my talk page. Perhaps Jonesey is aware that I tend to disappear on weekends (I hope to get in some skiing this afternoon). – Reidgreg (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was a little surprised myself. It is not actually a big deal given its context in the article. But given my inability to find specific guidance I thought that it was an opportunity to further my Wiki-education. Which Jonesey helpfully did.
Skiing? My goodness! I'm jealous. Although given that I have recently returned from three weeks' holiday I shouldn't be. Enjoy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I managed to get out three times, and saw a deer once (lots of tracks). Did the stats for the report (above) just in time, as McArthur has pled guilty and I made a same-day nomination for In the news, while updating the article and fending off bad edits as the article drew more attention. (Page views are a double-edged sword.) The article received over 20,000 views that day (its highest yet), and nearly 50,000 views over three days. However, ITN wants to hold for sentencing.
Your name came up quite a bit in the annual report, thanks again for your consistent work through last year! Oh, and I heard you got a Four Award (among others), congrats! I didn't know you created many articles from scratch. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I am envious. We had a bit of snow here and I got a day's walking in the hills; 3+ inches on the tops, little or nothing in town. The stats are great. I really enjoyed going through them; fascinating stuff. Only five behind you in total drive and blitz articles! If I had realised I would have done five more in December. (And you should have done three more out of season articles.) Most of my stats are from my big pushes in January and March. Since becoming a content creator I have settled down to a lower, but probably more sustainable, level of activity.
I saw the guilty plea on BBC news and thought that it is certainly the piece of foreign news I have ever been best informed about. I checked the history and views and saw the surge in interest. Very impressive. I was puzzled why it wasn't on ITN, hopefully sentencing won't be long. I assume that this is aimed at FA? I was a little surprised to realise that it wasn't even GA.
I have only ever created four articles from scratch: all made A class; one is FA, the Four Award; another should be FA within a week, for another Four Award. There are not many topics in military history where one can usefully create a brand new article of substance - and I only bother if I feel there is enough material for at least a GA.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If I'd done 3 off-season requests, I would have made the requests leaderboard too. Some of them were very close at the bottom end of the rankings. Maybe next time I'll expand the table to a top-ten, if we get a lot of participation this year. LOL, yes, you can probably point out to the newscaster anything they got wrong! The impression I got was that ITN doesn't want it to appear at both conviction and sentencing, and they hold for sentencing, perhaps to give editors time to substantially update the article. However, I found that the article has appeared three times (without my knowledge) at Portal:Current events. I haven't paid much attention to the portal namespace, but it must have lower criteria for inclusion. There was no way I was taking a current events article to GA, though I'm glad someone reviewed it as B-class (probably around the DYK). Once it's stable I'd like to take it to GA – if nothing else, to qualify for a "deletion to quality" barstar (similarly Danzig to FA for a four award) – but for now I just want to make updates from court, summarize some of the parts which were necessarily long-winded as allegations, try to get the size down, and then open a content split discussion. The article is under a move discussion which I don't like, because it's over 11,000 words and needs to be split, and it doesn't make sense to move it then split it and move half back. This is why I'm an eventualist – it's not appropriate or efficient to have certain discussions and reviews yet.
Aside from some quickie biographies, I like to think that most of my articles are GA-worthy, but I waited so long for the first review I haven't bothered with another just yet. Oh, look at the bottom of the request page for my latest DYK. I needed to do something fun after the crime articles. Although even that article has a "controversy" section; I can't seem to get away from that. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A top ten sounds good.

Makes me glad that I write in an area where time is not a factor, and where to a large extent other editors leave you alone to work on an article. I hadn't even thought that of course you need to wait for it to be stable to nominate it for anything. As for the potential move, split, re-move malarkey - gah!

I had never heard of Portal:Current events. What does it do?

Looking at Danzig Street it seems FAC ready to me. (Although the lead may be a little long.)

Bang a GAN in and I'll review it. Having done 70 now I feel reasonably confident, which I didn't when D. St. went in.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Oh, yeesh, how did I overlook this? On the interweb, a "portal" is just a fancy word for a table of contents. Wikipedia portals are like little versions of the main page for different topics. They have their own namespace and their own rules, and were meant to be automatically updated with recent content, etc. But it didn't really take off; there's a shortage of volunteers and it gets a bit overlooked. I believe there was some recent discussion about overhauling the portal namespace. The current events portal is something like a pre-nomination for ITN, or for things which are current but unlikely to be listed at ITN, and it has next to no oversight. So not a huge distinction to get listed there (when you realize how it works).
At the very least, Danzig should probably have some more media in it before FAC.
Back to the serial killer article, I nominated it (a third time) for ITN minutes after his sentencing, and it was promoted a couple hours after that. It's been at the top of the main page (listed alphabetically by "Bruce") since Feb 8. In that time it's received over 100k page views, and over 200k since his guilty plea! (link) If I am quick about taking it to GA, I may qualify for a half-million award. It's being edited too heavily to rewrite the existing sections, so I am slowly working on some new sections for motives/methods and pathology, to better summarize the content. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Over 50,000 views in one day. Amazing. As is some of the more interesting drive by editing. You look to have your hands full there. If you read the criteria for the half-million award I suspect that you will be disappointed. And thank you for the education on portals - now I need to make it stick. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Ah, you may be right, calculated independently of Main Page appearances. It might still have a quarter-million, but not if only counting the background readership (i.e.: removing all spikes). I'm surprised it's still listed on In the news, but the Superbowl is still there and that was 10 days ago. I guess they keep them on a FIFO basis, so it all depends on how quickly (or slowly) new items are successfully nominated to replace it. Oh, it made the Wikipedia:5000 list of most-viewed articles for the week of Feb 3–9: Number 322 with 120,118 views that week (one slot above Trump's State of the Union address). This week should be high enough to also be listed. (P.S.: regarding Wikipedia portals, you will sometimes find links to them at the bottom of articles, on the heading line of navigation templates or in a little box in the See also section.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual ReportEdit

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report
 

Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress;
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • Membership news and results of elections;
  • Annual leaderboard;
  • Plans for 2019.
– Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

SPACEINITSEdit

This wasn't a "revert" of this, and you seem to have misunderstood WP:SPACEINITS. The non-breaking space is used to prevent unfortunate linebreaks where we want to keep things together despite having a space—but the "A. J." opens the sentence, and therefore cannot break. While not technically "incorrect", it does introduce noise into the sourcecode, which makes editing slower and more difficult—which would be fine if the non-breaking space were serving an practical or aesthetic purpose, but in this case, it cannot. It's best not to use non-breaking spaces early in a line, and to save them only for when they can improve the outputted text. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: In what way did I misunderstand: In article text, a space after an initial (or an initial and a full point) and before another initial should be a non-breaking space? You made an improvement and I completed that improvement. I used a revert so that you'd get a notification and could check that MOS guideline, for your future interest in making small MOS edits like that. The non-breaking space is important because (1) the handling of initials in biographical names is an exception to the guidelines for other initialisms and acronyms, and (2) you never know when someone might add text to the beginning of that paragraph, rephrase to put the name later in the sentence, or repeat the full name elsewhere. It's a good habit to use non-breaking spaces wherever you wouldn't want a potential line break. Also, it sets a good example. Most editors do not check the MOS and edit by what they see practised in articles, and the more often they see the guidelines applied properly, the more likely they are to reproduce it themselves. Having said this, though, it may not be the best use of our time to make MOS fixes in articles undergoing construction. I hope you find this useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but no, I don't actually find it useful at all, and you appear to be under the impression I'm new here and unfamiliar with the MoS. I tried to give you some practical advice. Brush it off if you will, but you're making a bad decision.
One last piece of advice: a ping doesn't work unless you re-sign your comment—you can't add a ping as an afterthought without replacing your sig & timestamp with a new "~~~~". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: thanks for the info about pinging. As for the rest, I'm choosing to follow Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
A prime example of BAITing. Just don't talk down your nose to established editors on areas of the MoS you have no interest in trying to understand. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

GOCE January drive bling!Edit

  The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 100,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 28 articles during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 67,857 total words during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 7 long articles during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 27 old articles during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 22,687 words – during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for giving out the awards this month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 Backlog elimination driveEdit

Hi there,

I participated in last month's backlog elimination drive.

I'm wondering whether my "page size" counting tool is working correctly or not, I downloaded/installed 'Dr pda/prosesize.js' especially for the drive.

When I click on "Page size" at Machine olfaction I get "Prose size (text only): 30 kB (18094 words) "readable prose size"". Based on this, I'm pretty sure I entered "18,094" on my section of the drive page but it now says 2,000.

Any idea what might be happening please?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

--Philologia 14:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This looks like it might be a bug in the Page size script. The actual number of prose words on that page is something like 1,700. Maybe the script is confused by the math formulas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Philologia Sæculārēs: Sorry for not leaving you a note about that. The prosesize script gave a highly inflated word count because of the <math> markup in that article. It's one of the few things that really throws off the script, but relatively few articles have that much math markup so I doubt it's been a priority to develop a fix for it. It's also a rare enough situation that we didn't specifically mention it in the drive rules. Generally, since the math formulas aren't being copy edited, we don't count them.
For articles like that, it's best to copy and paste into a word processor, cut out the code, then do a word count there. I believe that's what I did when I checked the article, rounding up to 2,000. I hope that isn't too much of a disappointment. If you're unhappy about it, let me know and I'll raise the matter with the other GOCE coordinators. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg & Jonesey95, Thanks very much for the explanations. I was a little disappointed, to be honest, though (1) I'm not surprised to hear that about the math code and (2) I try not to put too much stock in barnstars (though being only human I do have moments of weakness). I suppose after so many years of copyediting on Wikipedia to get a "minor" barnstar feels pretty damming-with-faint-praise-ish, but since I haven't been doing it in order to get a reward/star it's not really an issue. Thanks again for the explanations.--Philologia 00:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicidesEdit

 On 8 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ! I'm a dial-up user and tend to stay away from high-activity articles, so this was a particular challenge for me during the last week or so. I'm pleased with the results. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

2010-2017 Toronto serial homicidesEdit

Hi there Reidgreig. I noticed your edit summary here. I presume it was addressed to me. Just to be really clear, WP:BLPSOURCES prohibits using this sort of sourcing on articles on living people. WP:DAILYMAIL takes this further and deprecates using the Daily Mail on any article. If I see garbage sourcing like this again I will absolutely continue to remove it according to policy. I will specifically not consider leaving it in place with a tag. I hope this clarifies things for you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

Hi again Reidgreig. I saw your edit here. It really isn't clear to me what you are trying to do, either from your tortured edit summary or your attempts to explain yourself at article talk. I am here to point out that your edit makes the article poorer, and will now have to be reverted. I'll assume good faith that this is a mistake rather than deliberate vandalism, but in a way it doesn't matter. I'd ask you not to do any more edits like this please, lest your behaviour should have to be discussed more widely. Thanks a lot. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: Since that edit was (largely) a revert, I would appreciate it if you would follow WP:BRD and discuss on the article talk page. Reverting it would be WP:BRR and may be considered disruptive editing or edit warring. Although earlier today you stated on the article talk page that "there is nothing to discuss" (diff), I hope that you will reconsider as there really isn't any other way to reach a consensus. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
We're not really communicating at this point, so I won't try to talk to you here again, unless it's a mandatory notice if we have to go to AN/I. Suggesting I discuss it on the article talk page when we are already discussing it on the article talk page seems... calculatedly unhelpful. But let's leave it at that for now. See you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@MarchOrDie: Actually, per the diff above, you stated that discussion was over, thus my request for you to reconsider. Please reply there so that discussion is in one place and not fragmented. This will make it easier for anyone who has to follow up (e.g..: ANI, per your suggestion). It would also be helpful if you limited your comments to the merits of the edits. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit requestEdit

Hello, I am Anant. Here I request you to copy-edit Manilal Dwivedi, a Gujarati author. User:Gog the Mild has done its copy-editing, but still, I feel that some sentences are very close to its original sources. I am not a native speaker of English, and hence not so good in paraphrasing. Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazal world: I've done one pass on Manilal Dwivedi.
  • MOS:SURNAME says that we should use a person's full name on first use in lead and body, and after that to use the surname. There are exceptions where the person is best known by a stage name or pen name. So with this person, is the surname Dwivedi or Manilal? Or is Manilal a common name by which the person is best known? It might be best to clarify this in the lead, so that another editor doesn't come along and change all the Manilals to Dwivedi.
  • The part about widow-marriage, could that all be in one section? It seems like it's more relevant to the controversy than as a writing in and of itself, and it would save a bit of space to describe it all in one place.
  • Would the section "Assessment" be better titled as Influence or Reception?
  • I didn't see much paraphrasing on Earwig. Is there a specific area you're concerned about?
I hope this has been of help. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to write me here. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Thanks for your help. 'Dwivedi' is a surname and author's first name is 'Manilal'. He is commonly referred as 'Manilal' in Gujarati literature instead of his surname. For the case of 'widow-marriage', please go as you suggested. You are right, we can rename the "Assessment" section to "Reception". I want these sections paraphrased: 'Social reformer', 'Religious and philosophical writings' and 'Controversies' (and 2nd paragraph of 'Literary works' section). Can you also add some content in lead from the article (if necessary)? Thanks for all your help. -Gazal world (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I did a little more and set up a dab page at Manilal (disambiguation). – Reidgreg (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. -Gazal world (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done

Mentor?Edit

Hello Reidgreg! When I approached Gog the Mild about helping out with copy editing, they pointed me to you, and suggested I might ask you to mentor me. So here I am... I own a copy of the 2017 Chicago MOS, have a relatively good grasp of the Wikipedia MOS, and am a native speaker of English. Some of my contributions are listed here, and I have undertaken several GA reviews Please let me know what you think, and happy editing! Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I'm not the best writer around but I'm fairly familiar with the MOS and the types of copy-editing issues one might encounter, and hopefully I make more good edits than bad edits. I do not have a curriculum to train copy editors, but I'd be happy to help you out with any problems you encounter. I would strongly encourage you to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to where there are a lot of resources for copy editing on Wikipedia. Make use of them all. I found Tony1's tutorials very helpful when I started copy editing.
For some general advice, try to write for clarity, conciseness and encyclopedic tone. If you make a style edit, try to have an understanding for the reasons behind it so that you're not making an arbitrary change. (Quite often there's more than one acceptable style choice.) Be prepared to discuss your edits with other editors.
Another great way to learn is by checking the diffs of articles other editors have copy edited. You lucked in on a great example: Two sections down mentions an article I expanded which was copy edited in sequence by three different copy editors. Looking at the diffs, you can see what each editor changed (Fluffernutter, Twofingered Typist, Baffle gab). Think about which changes you would have made and what you would have done differently.
If you've done GA reviewing, you're aware of copy editing for high-quality articles which are well-sourced and thorough treatments of the subject. Such copy edits are like a final polish, and the nominators tend to watchlist the article and defend it from vandalism and unsourced revisions, so the article has a better chance of staying in good shape following a copy edit.
On the other end of the spectrum are unassessed articles which require serious work. They may be machine translations or written by non-native English speakers. They may not be well sourced, or may have been abandoned halfway through construction. They may be very new (as with many DYK nominations). It may be inappropriate to get the prose perfect when such articles have to go through a lot of changes, but we may still be asked to copy edit them for tone and neutrality issues, for close paraphrasing, or simply to make them intelligible. Although a copy edit is less likely to "stick" with such articles, they can be a great training ground for editors because of all the different issues they may have.
Okay, so I will try to check out those links. BTW, I am a dial-up user and do a lot of editing offline. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(back) I went through your contribs but didn't see a lot of copy edits to comment on. I did notice that a couple years back we were both in the WIR World Contest! You wrote 11 more biographies than me and finished 13th; I was at 16th overall. (You were 1st for North America and I was 3rd.) I gotta say, that WIR World barnstar with laurels is a nice one. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I really enjoyed that contest! I've never been quite as able to reach that level of women-biography activity since, though I have created ones here and there when the mood strikes me.
I haven't done too much copyediting -- one of the reasons that I reached out before embarking on my own. The closest I've come is probably the comments I make in GA reviews like this, and I think I've done stuff in some peer reviews but I don't really remember them specifically.
I'll certainly get to the guidlines &c that you pointed out -- probably tomorrow but I'm awfully busy, regulated to the barest minimum of editing. Thanks for your helpfulness, and as somebody often likes to say, may your keyboard never grow cool! Eddie891 Talk Work 18:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Take your time with that material, if you want to really absorb it. There's really too much to remember so you may find it helpful to keep some personal notes on MOS, templates, etc. I reviewed that GA and left some notes at Talk:Arthur Blackburn § Some copy edit notes. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't me, guv'norEdit

Looking at the two posts above I note that I am creating work for you inadvertently as well as advertently. I suspect that I shall also get the blame when you are unable to fit your head through the door after reading how I described you to Eddie. Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Had some connection issues for a couple days. Ha, that's the one message from 2018 I didn't archive. (Whoops, I thought you meant the Eddy award committee, not Eddie891.) I don't mind those two above. We give and get help. I must have earned some karma points as three different copy editors each took a crack at my ce request (below). Not everyone who posts to my talk page is as pleasant, though, and I rather needed to hear something nice and to have another venue for productive editing and discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I have been observing some of the, umm, "discussions" around your McArthur article. Some astonishingly dickish behaviour from editors who really, really ought to know better.
C/E - it's the title. I am surprised that it is only three. Four now?   I am racing to finsh my blitz article before the witching hour, or I would take a look at it myself.  
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: It's a strange state of affairs when an article you'd expect to have some controversy over victims or allegations instead ends up having deadlocked disputes over style and spelling. When a discussion goes that badly I tend to fret over how I might have handled it better, but I'm honestly not sure. I'm hoping a little cool-down time for reflection may be the best thing. I certainly have enough other stuff to work on, if I can get my mind back to editing. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, it is odd. So far as I can see, a number of experienced editors seem bound and determined to make public dicks of themselves. Does it not seem churlish not to oblige them. More seriously, I have no idea why they may want to do that either.
Is bad of me to take childish glee from editors with a shaky grasp of the MOS attempting to argue from authority at you. One of them nearly caused me to snort coffee down my nose. As you say, the karma you are accumulating must be impressive by now. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Particulars aside, finding humour must be healthy and essential to the psyche. And perhaps contagious, I must admit, and for which I offer my heartfelt thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Young People FuckingEdit

@Baffle gab1978: Thanks! Three copy-edits for the price of one! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

YPFEdit

Hi Reidgreg: First, thank you for the cookie dough. I'm still smiling over the film tie-in. This is probably the first time the GOCE has edited the same article three times in two days!

I had an additional thought re. the CR section. Here I've removed almost all the reviews from reviewers/publications which do not have their own WP articles. This shortens the section considerably but IMO doesn't omit anything of significance. I just had to leave "pseudo mumblecore", however, as this is the one and only time I've come across the phrase! Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ooops, I realize you'll have to edit this to actually see the text mark-up. Duh!

@Twofingered Typist: You're welcome! I like to give appropriate or thematic wikilove when I can, plus it was too funny not to. I'd never heard of mumblecore either; it sounded a little derogatory but apparently is not. With those changes, the article is still 1,000 characters above what DYK needed for a 5× expansion, so looks good! BTW, do you think there's any sense making a little side table with Template:Rating to summarize the star-ratings it received from each publication? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: I did a quick check of this year's Oscar nominees for Best Picture and none of them have a table. I don't think I'd bother. I'm not sure why it hasn't (apparently) been used in movie articles. It seems to be employed in every article I've ever edited on albums. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Critical responseEdit

Film review aggregating website Metacritic rated Young People Fucking 39/100 based on five reviews.[1] Another review aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes, reported that 35% of 20 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating was 5.3/10. Among the site's "top critics", all the favourable reviews came from Canadian publications;[2] the film generally received a better reception in its home country. Liam Lacey of The Globe and Mail rated it 2.5/4 stars, describing it as well-paced, showing "an emotionally vulnerable and funny side" of sex, but with uneven characters. Lacey said it was appropriate for an American cable TV series.[3] The Toronto Star's Peter Howell rated it 3/4 stars, calling it "very funny and insightful".[4] Now Magazine rated it 4/5, noting that switching between the segments "gives the film the momentum of a door-slamming bedroom farce".[5] Ashley Carter of Exclaim! called it a "thoughtfully hilarious psychosexual study" with consistently solid performances.[6] Ken Eisner of The Georgia Straight found the film worked well and had some insights but did not probe deeply into the subject matter.[7] Septième art's François Petitclerc said the film's structure punctuated its fluid and convincing writing, and that the actors commanded their roles.[8] Brian Johnson of Maclean's wrote that the film is well-shot with some good performances but found it suffered from "squeaky-clean mediocrity" and unbelievable situations.[9][10] Shaun Lang of Hollywood North rated it 5.5/10, finding it complicated, inconsistent and lacking a meaningful message.[11]

Justin Chang of Variety wrote, "Neither as extreme nor ... as interesting as its troublesome title, Young People Fucking delivers what it promises", though he found the characters lacking and the dialogue repetitive.[12] Screen Daily's Leonard Klady wrote, "Neither documentary nor hardcore, it's an ingeniously constructed pastiche of sexual encounters presented affectionately and with humour".[13] Carrie Rickey of The Philadelphia Inquirer rated it 2.5/4 and called it "pleasant rather than pleasurable".[14] The New York Sun's Martin Tsai found it "humorous and provocative" but said it might have worked better as a play.[15]

Film Threat stated that Young People Fucking "shoots Judd Apatow-styled raunch into previously uncharted stratospheres of frank sexual humor" but that the cast were too attractive to be believable.[16] Felix Vasquez of Cinema-crazed.com hated the "pseudo mumblecore" whining of beautiful people but appreciated the turnarounds in the second half and its message about love's fragility.[17] Stephen Garrett of Time Out rated it 2/5, saying it is full of "jarring skips" that reduced the film into uninvolved sketches.[18] Rob Hunter of Film School Rejects gave the DVD a C+ rating, finding the film entertaining but uneven and erratic.[19]

Howell and Lou Lumernick of New York Post likened Young People Fucking to a raunchy reboot of 1970s TV series Love, American Style, saying the two texts share a format of characters working through their romantic issues.[4][20] Exclaim!'s Mark Carpenter said the quality is "remarkably consistent for an omnibus film"[21] while several other reviewers found the film uneven – though they frequently disagreed on which segments and actors they found better than the others.[22][3][19][11] Jim Slotek said the film stood out over time; he included it among his recommended Canadian films for St. Valentine's Day 2018.[23]

reflist

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Meta was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rotten was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference LaceyRelax was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference HowellYoung was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference NOWreview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference CarterReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference EisnerReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference PetitclercReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference JohnsonCounfounding was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference McCannMacleans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference LangReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference ChangYoung was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference KladyYoung was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference RickeySubject was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference TsaiOpeining was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference ThreatReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference VasquezCrazed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference GarrettTime was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference HunterReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference LumenickTitillation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference CarpenterReview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference PeikertStraus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference SlotekValentine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

February blitz blingEdit

  The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And thanks for giving out the rest of the barnstars. All the best, Miniapolis 02:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name?Edit

Actually, no, I don't think I did chime in on the drug's name, but since you brought it up, I think I should point out that it is very important to distinguish between Amyl nitrite and Amyl nitrate, for as any chemist can tell you, these are two different substances. The former is used, among other things, as a recreational drug, while the latter is used, among other things, as a diesel fuel additive. See the linked articles. I'm for using "[sic]" in cases where a reporter has used the latter. Kelisi (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3O at Talk:One Madison#3O section break - what do you suggest?Edit

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response at Talk:One Madison. I'm not sure what the best next step is here. I think maybe going to the WikiProjects would be helpful, but I don't see how anyone is going to be able to make an argument that will change his mind. It doesn't make any sense. What do you think would be the best approach at this point? - PaulT+/C 09:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: I was offline for a couple days. If this was a new editor, I would probably try to be even more patient. If there was more than one editor in disagreement or unclear or conflicting guidelines, I would seek more opinions for a broader consensus. As a deadlocked dispute, we might have taken it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. But here, I feel like maybe someone is gaming the system or being disruptive to try to prove a point, and I don't want to spend time addressing it as an editing dispute when it may be more of a behavioural problem. If you take a look at Beyond My Ken's block log this isn't the first time the editor has acted this way. The volunteers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring have more experience with this and the ways to deal with it, should the problem escalate to that level. With three of us we can take turns keeping the capitals in the infobox, and if there are persistent reversions by a single editor then that editor will hit the 3 revert rule or otherwise can be called for edit warring if it comes to that. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

My first TFAEdit

Hi. I was forcibly reminded of the nonsense you have been putting up with over 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides recently. I had my (first) TFA on 2 March. 45,000 views on the day, and 15,000 in the two days since; up from just under 100 a day. And the edits! Because it is shorter and more obscure/specialist than yours I think that I have much the easier job. I received this advice and am trying to stick to it. Once the view rate has died down I will do some gardening. Not up to the views nor the irritation quotient of your article, but it seems to have attracted 90 page watchers. I find this a bit perturbing, and am baffled as to why they would wish to keep an eye on such an obscure, 700-year-old event. I just checked my talk page - 30 watchers. Just as puzzling. At most there are two conversations open; I have no ides why the other 28 are watching it. Has the furore over TSH died down? (A glance at your talk page suggests not.) I note it still clocking very respectable numbers of views. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Good advice. Sometimes best to take a little voluntary vacation from a certain area; it's probably a good way to keep from being possessive over an article. Calling attention to an article can get you a lot of help, though some people's help can seem a tad unhelpful. One wonders where some of these editors were during the FA review.
For TSH, that little dispute was deadlocked 2–2 so I called an RfC for more opinions. The general feeling so far is that it's okay to treat it as a trivial typo (with an explanatory footnote). That's fine with me; I don't mind being corrected, so long as the matter can be discussed and there isn't disruption. RfCs tend to run for about a month so it'll still be a while before getting back to it. I was about a third of the way through re-reading all the sources before this month's drive started.
I see your next TFA is for 1 April, so hopefully we can share the page that day (though you'll have considerably more column-inches).
Ground will be frozen here for another couple months. The only 'gardening' I've done lately is trying to keep rabbits from eating the shrubbery. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Drive totalsEdit

I know the bookkeeping is a PITA, but would you not round off your totals? My concern is that if new copyeditors see someone else doing it (especially a coordinator) they will too, and it can be abused by folks who lose sight of the forest for the trees :-). Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 00:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I suppose it doesn't look good to have an arbitrary figure on the leaderboard. I stripped some of the glossary formatting and ran prose size in preview, getting 16,875. My pre-copyedit word processor count was something over 17,000. Those figures seem too large and I'm not sure I could reproduce them exactly, but if it looks better. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding; as I said, I don't like the drive/blitz bookkeeping any more than anyone else :-). It's just that we've seen the occasional editor try to game the system for a leaderboard award or barnstar, and I wouldn't like to see folks rounding up excessively; it would make the word counts meaningless. All the best, Miniapolis 20:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Treasure Hunt" copyeditEdit

I wish to offer so much gratitude to you for giving the article on Treasure Hunt (U.S. game show) a well deserved copyedit. That article was a disaster and looks so much better now. Regards, 98.220.44.26 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  You're welcome! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

3OEdit

Thanks for offering an opinion at Talk:Quotient rule; I really do appreciate your taking the time to sift through it and the level-headedness (especially in such a heated discussion). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: You're welcome! I've been there myself. I know editors are working on good faith but somehow can become trapped in an argument. There's one article I worked on where I'd expect there to be some serious controversy, but the only real editing disputes with it were over: (1) the use of a hyphen, and (2) whether a word should be spelled with an a or an i. It's weird, but these either/or situations can become polarizing very quickly. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wilhelmina (Mina) AlexanderEdit

Hi Reidgreg, I am contacting you as you awarded me a Maple Leaf a few month ago, so I am going straight to the top:) I was working Wilhelmina (Mina) Alexander. Specifically, I created a redirect from Wilhelmina Alexander (artist). It occurred to me that perhaps I should have moved the page to "Wilhelmina Alexander (artist)" rather than create a redirect. I ask you as a copy editor and a women's biographies specialist what you think. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: I'm not an expert, but I know a thing or two so let's see if we can figure this out. WP:NICKNAME (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) § Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens) recommends using such names for article titles if this is how the person is commonly known in sources, such as "Weird Al" Yankovic (note that the quotation marks are used as part of his stage name, and are frequently reproduced by sources). You're more familiar with sources, so you'll have to gauge whether she is better known as Mina or Wilhelmina. In either case, I don't feel we should use parenthesis unless this is particularly important to the styling of her name (when signing artworks, for example). We usually reserve parenthesis in article titles for disambiguation, which would be the (artist) part, if needed.
My gut instinct is that you're right, and the article should be at Wilhelmina Alexander (artist), or alternatively at Mina Alexander. Either way, I feel the lead sentence should be styled Wilhelmina "Mina" Alexander.
Another consideration is which article should be the "primary" at Wilhelmina Alexander. The article presently there struck me as a bit odd, as the person is only notable as the subject of the poem, and has me wondering why this information isn't with an article on the poem. A pageview analysis shows that this article is getting more views than the artist, but it's also been around longer. Sometimes in a case like this, both articles will be placed at disambiguators and the primary made into a dab page, so that unprejudiced page views can be counted to determine which should be primary.
If you want to swap Wilhelmina (Mina) AlexanderWilhelmina Alexander (artist), that's a technical move (a move over a redirect). I should be able to handle that if you'd like, and set up a dab page and some hatnotes. If you think more discussion is warranted, want other opinions, or want to check which article should be primary, then this should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The folks there are the real experts at this, and I've received valuable advice there in the past.
Let me know what you think, and I'd be happy to help you moving forward. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Reidgreg:, Thanks for your most helpful comments! You and I are thinking along the same lines. In response to your ideas, my opinion is that both the poetic Wilhelmina and the artistic Wilhelmina are equally minor in the history of the universe (excepting the fact that the artistic Wilhelmina is Canadian). Assuming equality, poetic Wilhelmina should stay where she is as the primary. I don't see the Artistic Canadian Wilhelmina referred to as Mina anywhere but in parenthasis so she would would be most accurately titled Wilhelmina Alexander (artist). I also think that it won't cause an incident if we make a change without running it through "Requested moves".
It would be great if you would be so kind as to do the technical move/swap of Wilhelmina (Mina) AlexanderWilhelmina Alexander (artist). And if you have time, create the dab page. I can do the hatnotes.
I await your response. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@WomenArtistUpdates: I went ahead with the move; I just like to make sure we get it right the first time because multiple page moves can get a little complicated. The move went through easily since the redirect was so new (it didn't end up being a technical move). I updated the link at List of Canadian women artists, created redirects at Mina Alexander, Wilhelmina Towers Alexander and S. H. Alexander, and set up a dab page at Wilhelmina Alexander (disambiguation). The dab page isn't really needed but it's nice to have it in place. Since there are only two articles, the hatnotes you place (probably {{about}} or {{for}}) can point to the other article rather than the dab page.
I think that's it. Please let me know if there's anything else. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Reidgreg:, Thanks for getting the titles sorted out. All is right with the world now. I really appreciate it! Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter
 

Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles.

March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. 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.

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Young People FuckingEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Young People Fucking at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion of your hook at WP:ERRORS#Next DYK. Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I note your struggle to get YPF through DYK nomination and now actually onto the front page. You do seem to get way more than your fair share of Wiki-nonsense. I am happy to report that our articles will be sharing the front page tomorrow, although I suspect that yours will garner far more clicks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I honestly wouldn't mind except that the nomination has been up for 3 months and it isn't until the last few hours that it needs this attention. I normally don't go online much on Sundays. And a water main broke outside my home today. So, fun! There were so many April 1 DYKs that they're going in two 12-hour shifts, so mine has the midnight-noon shift, which is evening to early morning in North America. Not sure how that will affect page views (or even how you count views over 12 hours). Will be offline for a while; hopefully it all works out. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear. I hope that your water main gets sorted out soon. DYK, strictly, works on views per hour; so you shouldn't be effected. A pity that the DYK isn't getting a full day, but the 1 April DYK is a bit of a plum. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I did say you'd get the extra scrutiny just because it contained a swear word and you conducted yourself very well during all the nonsense. I wasn't going to let anyone deprive you of such a good hook but it is such a shame that late last night the No-Fun Police came in and tampered with it to lessen the impact but I'm still glad you got it through because it is a very good hook and upholds Wikipedia's NOTCENSORED policy standards. Well done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E and Gog the Mild: Thanks! I should have had more ALTs available on the nom page in anticipation of last-minute objections. And I am glad that it made it on the main page at all, even if the hook used wasn't very funny (certainly not as funny as the film it represents). Perhaps also it might have been less limiting as a single-article hook. It's weird to me that the objections came from the use of beaver. I have to be careful not to take offence that people are taking offence at 'beaver' when it's a national symbol up here, which may account for my measured politeness. I do hold having an April Fool's hook as one of my prouder accomplishments as a Wikipedian, and getting an admin to put the f-word on the main page in bold italics is no small feat either. So I shall consider myself suitably distinguished, and will hope the click bait beats my last DYK for page views. (P.S.: services restored same-day with no great inconvenience, though the road is a bit of a mess.) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You should feel proud because you did indeed get distinguished by the article having enough views to make it onto WP:DYKSTATS. Any hook that has the F word in it is almost guaranteed to get up there so well done again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: I was initially a little underwhelmed by the numbers, but comparing with the others and so many great hooks in the set, it's pretty good. By the hour it just beats my previous DYK. (Too bad they can't double it for the 15k list.) I was looking at the others (set 1 set 2), is it okay if I add the other 5k hooks to the stats page? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds a good idea to me. Go ahead. I'm in the same boat, my FBI hook was only on there for 3 hours before the No-Fun police yanked it off and the fact it got that many views in such a short time makes me wonder what might have been if it had only been left alone or at least reworded. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: Done. That's a shame, I noticed the three-hour comment when I edited the stats page. 13 of the 19 hooks made it onto the 5k page, so pretty impressive all-around. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Young People FuckingEdit

 On 1 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Young People Fucking, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Genie and three Beavers recognized Young People Fucking? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Young People Fucking. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Young People Fucking), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I don't have any hard feelings about the concerns raised at WP:ERRORS. I think you were probably right, that pushing any further in the direction of an already controversial name could look like a deliberate attempt to offend. When I nominated this in December, I wasn't sure that it was suitable for the Main Page at all, so I'm happy that it was promoted and doubly happy that it was on 1 April. BTW, I was curious since you sent these notices, did you have a specific role for the main page that day? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: thanks, and I didn't mean any offence to you personally for the nomination. I just think that in general the April Fools thing has gone too far at the moment, not just with this hook. So congratulations on the DYK and I'm glad you got to enjoy the article being on the main page. Regarding my role, my name has been signed on the notice above because I was the admin who promoted the DYK set from the prep area to the queue, and marked it as approved. I didn't personally send that message, the bot sent it on my behalf, and I usually forget this process is even happening  . It seems slightly odd actually because others play a larger role in the process of reviewing DYK hooks than that, but there we go...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Well, it takes a village. I thought that might have been the case. It seems essential to have an admin at arm's length from the rest of the process for final approval (or denial), to act as the conscience of the community, while the nominators and reviewers may at times be a little too invested. Thanks, and thanks for being brave enough to say no. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for 29th Genie AwardsEdit

 On 1 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 29th Genie Awards, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Genie and three Beavers recognized Young People Fucking? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 29th Genie Awards), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for 10th Canadian Comedy AwardsEdit

 On 1 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 10th Canadian Comedy Awards, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Genie and three Beavers recognized Young People Fucking? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 10th Canadian Comedy Awards), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

  The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for guiding me through three drives (#1, #2, and #3) and two blitzes (#1 and #2) and overall, giving me feedback on my copy edits. Thanks for the help, and good editing! – Ben79487 18:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: You're welcome! I'm not sure that I gave you a whole lot of guidance lately... I did a quick check on Donald Scott (triple jumper) (diff). Feel free to give me a holler if you have a question or want another opinion about anything. It looks like you're up for another five leaderboard awards, which is no small feat! Great work, and thanks for the barnstar! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Yeah, I still suffer from Overlink syndrome.   Ben79487 17:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

GOCE barnstar scriptEdit

Hi, Reidgreg. I'm trying to run the barnstar script, but it's hanging up on you for some reason and for the life of me I can't see why. Would you take a look at your wikitext and see if you can find anything? The wikilinks are all good, so the problem (if any) would be in the word counts or *O. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 01:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I didn't spot any invisible control characters or anything obviously wrong with my section (no * zero instead of O). I simplified the formatting a bit (though that shouldn't have been a problem). If it still hangs on my section, skip it and it can be done manually. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that the line including "Treasure Hunt" was the problem. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a computer than can run the script. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonesey. That may or may not have been an issue (note the past tense :-)), but I had two input files floating around on my computer (what I thought was a click-'n-drag move turned out to be copypasta) and the script was pulling data from the one in the wrong directory until I found and deleted it. Don't think the script likes piped links, though, which is why I now keep my section as simple as possible (no italics :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 18:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
And BTW, your troubleshooting variation of Torchiest's instructions is a godsend :-). All the best, Miniapolis 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

March drive goodiesEdit

  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 26 articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 52,566 total words during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 5 long articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 26 old articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 16,875 words – during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 100,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for giving out the other barnstars! All the best, Miniapolis 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

April blitz blingEdit

  The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 15,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  The Copy Editor's 10K Star
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy-editing at least one individual article of more than 10,000 words during the most recent Guild of Copy Editors' Drive or Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Reidgreg".