Open main menu

User talk:Reidgreg

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
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.


  • 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)


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.


--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)
Return to the user page of "Reidgreg".