User talk:Reidgreg/Archive 1

Active discussions
     Archive 1    Archive 2 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  ... (up to 100)


These are the user's talk archives from 2016 to 2017.

Welcome

Hello, Reidgreg, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or   or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 14:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

 
Hello! Reidgreg, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 14:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Re:TWD edit

Hello! I'm sorry for not explaining my recent TWD s6 edit. As much as "A Larger World" was used as the season's mantra, I don't think this was necessary to be placed in the article itself. Using the tagline felt like 1) it didn't belong in an encyclopedia (unless it was referenced or explained in a section below, with valid sources), 2) it was a forced inclusion and was off with the rest of the article and 3) it was sort-of like a violation to WP:NOTADVERTISING. I hope I explained myself enough, and I apologize again for not stating my reasons for removing it. Jal11497 (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't feel it was forced but maybe more of an affectation, like the way many TWD editors use "walkers" when "zombies (fictional)" is more accessible. I'll keep an eye out if I come across anything that might say this was an official title for the second half of the season.Reidgreg (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Pages

Hi Reidgreg and welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to try to turn any WP:REDLINKs blue by creating content, discussion articles, etc. Note, redlinked pages are a good thing, and creating completely empty pages isn't very useful. The only pages I deleted had no content on them - if you want to discuss any of those articles, etc feel free to recreate the talk page and add some content. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 21:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shenyang Modern Tram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Century Building. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good note. (I know you're a bot, but still.) In fixing a typo in Building the link turned blue and I thought "good," but didn't check the link. The article intended to be linked is not on the disambiguation page, and the article links to many other articles which do not yet exist. It's likely the author(s) of the article purposefully misspelled Building so it would red link and indicate the article did not yet exist. I used {{red link|Century Building}} so it would show as a red link, and it still links to the disambiguation page (to help in selecting an appropriate title when someone does decide to write an article). I hope that's a decent solution for now.

KIS template

Regarding your teahouse question, a label for WikiProject Typo Team could be placed as a subpage of either your userspace, or the WP:Typo Team page, for its use. It could alternatively be moved to a subpage of WP:KIS with some other wikiproject templates. As userbox alternatives, they follow WP:UM, and are not supposed to be created in Template space, or if they are, are supposed to be migrated. The mainstream userboxes supposedly follow the same, but aren't migrated as much, and many are still created in template space. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. Sorry I was inactive when you asked the question. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 11:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your label code does appear to be correct. —PC-XT+ 11:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@PC-XT: thanks for the reply. And darn, I thought it was simple enough for me. I have it here: User:Reidgreg/KIS/WPTypo. It's on my userpage and it seems to work. Can you tell me what I've overlooked? (Template:User typo team is a regular userbox for the Typo Team, if that helps. I believe Typo Team is a Wikiproject, though they don't call themselves Wikiproject: Typo Team. Similarly with the Guild of Copy Editors, I assume "Team" and "Guild" supersede "Project".) Reidgreg (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my inactivity, again. I didn't mean to suggest you had overlooked anything. I have some of these as subpages of User:PC-XT/KIS, myself. Yours is probably in the best place. The project subpage is an option if the project wants to maintain it, rather than a particular user. I imagine a team could do the same. Not everyone uses the prefixes, partly due to the fact that categorization is not always straightforward. You could use W: (Wikipedia-related) if it fits better than WP: (WikiProject) though it's more like a project than an essay. The way you have it is probably fine. :) —PC-XT+ 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@PC-XT: No problem at all. And thanks for your work on the KIS project. Your documentation (on your userspace) was very good and helped me learn about templates, following your examples. Reidgreg (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad it was helpful. KIS helped me learn templates, and I'm happy to help continue that. Happy editing! —PC-XT+ 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Typo Team Barnstar
Dear Reidgreg,  
Thank you very much for your recent contributions to the Typo Team!
What a neat solution to such an obscure problem! I admire the care and determination you showed from beginning to end, and also the congenial way in which you worked with our fellow editor 117Avenue and with the Language reference desk to complete the task.
Thank you for all your other contributions to our encyclopedia, and good luck with all your Wikiprojects.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I wasn't sure I would get a response and certainly not so quickly! Thanks, Pdebee, that's my first Barnstar. I'm fairly new as an active editor, and working on this little task over the past 6 weeks accounts for almost a quarter of my total edits. Probably a lot of time for the number of typos, but it seemed like a nice little niche and it really helped to broaden my knowledge of the Wiki. I learned quite a bit about where and how to ask for help, the MOS, Wiki markup, templates, and of course a grand tour of articles. That's one side benefit to searching for typos: it'll take you to some interesting articles you might not have visited otherwise. I'll give it a little time to see if I get any reverts or other feedback, then check for related typos. Cheers! - Reidgreg (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Reidgreg,  
You're most welcome, and the award is richly deserved. The very first one is always special, and I am delighted to have been there to award it to you, because I think your inquisitive mind, coupled with your enthusiastic determination, will serve you well here at the Wiki. I daresay it takes certain attributes to become a productive editor on Wikipedia and it seems to me you have them in spades and that you are already an asset to the project.
I agree with you that being a member of the Typo Team offers great opportunities to combine good, useful work with the joys of constant discovery. It is also its own reward, a bit like doing the dishes is a way of restoring order from chaos.  
Have a great time here, and very best wishes of success with all your current and future projects.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heather Thatcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girls' School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, great! I'd been fixing links of [[girl's school]] to [[Single-sex education|girls' school]] while correcting typos of girl's → girls' but missed this one which should have been for [[Girls' School (film)]]. Thank-you, DPL bot! - Reidgreg (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 

Plip!

(I have self-Trouted for not previewing and making a third edit to fix this one simple typo. Audible sigh.)
Note to self: It is good habit to check related pages for context and verify that typos in names are actually typos. However, once you do, don't rush to correct the typo in the article in question, particularly with links. Make sure links go where they're supposed to and that the link is piped to display properly! And even if you feel it's a simple fix, preview! - Reidgreg (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Thank-you, SuggestBot, but rather than working on articles similar to those I've already edited, I've decided that I would gain more from editing on a broad range of articles. I'm also going to try working more with WikiProject groups. (For example, on the blitz below I edited articles on: a YA novel, a video game, a children's game, 2 sports biographies, an art genre and a town in Spain – which presented different sets of challenges.) - Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016 GOCE blitz award

  The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 15,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE October 2016 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice! It matches my other barnstar and I'm definitely "old school". Editors thanked me 8 times for copyediting on the blitz, so receiving lots of kindness. And I coincidentally made my 4,000th edit on the blitz. I've signed up for the November 2016 drive and look forward to gaining some more experience. - Reidgreg (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I would like to thank you very much for your work on The Doctor (Doctor Who). It is a large article as you noted in your comments, and I truly appreciate that you took the time to go through the article and copyedit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I did put in some time, scrutinizing it several times over. Hopefully it's a decent B class copyedit. I figure it'll take a few days for the article's editors to assess the changes & notes and offer some feedback, and I'll find out if I actually earned the barnstar. I did get a thanks from a well-respected editor at WikiProject:Doctor Who. It's good to know my effort is appreciated! Just have to find out if my work is any good (ha!). Reidgreg (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Reidgreg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: Revisit this before SUNDAY DEC 4 when there is more candidate discussion. Reidgreg (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)   Done before the polls closed.

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Reidgreg. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit done

I'm done with Nalini Prava Deka. Sorry about the edit conflict; if it's tagged for copyediting and there's no recent activity in the history by a drive participant, I assume it's up for grabs :-). All the best, Miniapolis 17:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: thanks for the advice. It makes sense to take off the maintenance template (at least temporarily) when starting.
Your copyedit is definitely better than mine, getting a nice, concise article. Even the layout looks better (I'd made Playwright, Poet, and Short Stories subheadings of Author, but you integrated them together which reads much better). I've added a little bit that I found: a couple links, a little for the infobox, a couple thin spaces where italics butted against non-italics, {{authority control}} for a biography, and one typo (3011 → 2011). (Would it be OK if I check your ce of this article as reviewed for the drive?)
One thing that surprised me was the elimination of the Bibliography. At the most I might have tagged it for someone to pare it down to notable examples. My own opinion, I felt it showed some of the breadth of her writing – from cookbooks and songbooks to biographies and memoirs to fiction and religious journals – though maybe that would be better conveyed in prose. On the other hand, I would have trimmed the inline lists: the people who reviewed her works, and the social activist groups she helped found. I tried to pick the most notable to mention, so the three people with articles, and three organisations with significantly higher numbers of hits on Google. Thoughts? Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to mark my copyedit as reviewed. I removed the bibliography as totally unreferenced OR; I do a lot of these puff pieces kinds of articles, and sometimes lose patience :-). All the best, Miniapolis 15:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 GOCE drive awards

Hi Reidgreg, thanks for your hard work this past month!

  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 November 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 50 articles during the GOCE November 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 80,000 total words during the GOCE November 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 6 long articles during the GOCE November 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 49 old articles during the GOCE November 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 13,100 words – during the GOCE November 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Great fun on the drive. Among my favourites:

Also, I got to try a broad-concept article with Sousa (surname), a legal case with United States v. Belmont, and page-moving procedures with Nicetown–Tioga, Philadelphia. The trickiest ones were translations, particularly translations with layout problems.

Inline citation tags

Regarding your edit to Divine Bradley, here's the set of {{Inline cleanup tags}}. It took me awhile to realize where they were and thought that might be helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 

Plip!

I don't think I'm ever as thankful as when an editor swiftly fixes one of my stupid mistakes. (In this case, using {{spelling}} instead of {{verify spelling}}.) Much thanks, CaroleHenson! I've really got to get better with the cleanup tags, there are so darned many of them WP:TC. I'll try to make use of the more-manageable inline list you linked. Reidgreg (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

  Done Reidgreg (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

GOCE December 2016 Blitz award

  The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE December 2016 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thanks! Ummm, I know I shouldn't solicit, but is the 10k award still on offer? (It seems I'm trying to collect one of each, and it's a rare bird.) Reidgreg (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you won't believe this, but I've never noticed that one before. Here you go!
I don't imagine they're awarded often: drives tend to give leaderboard stars, while blitzes have a tighter schedule and tend to focus on requests which often seek higher standards. I'll admit to jumping when I saw the blitz included a backlog month with this article. Reidgreg (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  The 10k Copy Edit Barnstar
This 10K Copy Editing Barnstar is hereby awarded to Reidgreg for copy-editing the 12,879-word article Jutsu (Naruto) during the GOCE December 2016 Copy Editing Blitz. Well done, and thanks for helping to clear out the oldest backlog month! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on both awards! Well done!  – Corinne (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Two barnstars to ce three articles, that's a boxing-day bargain! - Reidgreg (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The veteran copyeditors already know, but if someone else reads this, I feel this is actually a significant milestone and a fairly exclusive distinction. 10,000 words happens to be the maximum article length recommended by WP:LENGTH, based on average attention spans and reading comprehension. So just reading a 10k article is considered a challenge for the average person, and here you're copyediting: scrutinizing every comma and hyphen, a dozen different style issues, trying to recognize redundant material you might have read 20 paragraphs earlier. Longer articles often have more authors, which means a broader collection of individual styles, and more issues that can come up; this can make copyediting feel exponentially more difficult with increasing wordcount. 10k articles also tend to have more talkpage tension among editors, so you've got to be level-headed and explain your edits so you don't start a fight over serial commas. You can strain your patience working on these and the last thing you want to do is upset another editor into reverting you. The first 10k that I copyedited was 19,600 words, and it had my head swimming a bit. The only way I can really tackle them is by taking notes to: (1) track style issues of the overall article, which I can't keep in mind while doing the actual copyedit; (2) note any potentially controversies for discussion on the talk page; and (3) simply be able to carry on since a big copyedit can take me several sessions over a couple days. So, yeah, 10k. It isn't just a tragic character on a zombie show. Reidgreg (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

correcting a typo in a published title

@TransporterMan: thank-you for your detailed edit summary. I've probably done about 30 edits like that, hundreds if you count typographical changes, and yours was the first revert. I'm pretty sure they're okay, but I welcome discussion. This is regarding correcting a typo in the title of a citation, this diff from Charlene Richard. (Now that I re-read the article, it looks like I was wrong anyways, it should have been girl's rather than‎ girls'.)

The relevant guidelines I know are:

  • MOS:PMC states: trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment, unless the slip is textually important. Although, that's talking about quotations rather than titles of works, I feel it has some relevance.
  • MOS:ARTCON says of titles of works (books, films, etc.): Quote these as given in the source making an exception for typographic conformity.

I've also heard of a study (sorry, I can't reference it) that typos stand-out more in quotations, and have the effect of making readers doubtful of the source. So it seems that correcting such typos does a service both to the reader and the original writer.

If this was the title of a major work (a movie, book, album or song, painting, sculpture, etc.) or otherwise a proper name, I wouldn't change it. But this is one story title among dozens in a daily paper, so a fairly minor work.

So I consider: (1) it is not a valid word, (2) there is no artistic intent behind it, (3) it may confuse the reader, (4) it casts doubt on the reliability of the author and the citation, (5) correcting it clarifies the meaning. And I weigh that against the integrety of the as-published article, which in this case I don't feel to be sacrosanct. I feel it's the sort of thing for which they don't bother to print a retraction, because they assume any interested editor will have the courtesy of correcting the obvious mistake.

Anyways, that's what led me to believe it's okay. Please let me know your thoughts. If you want, I can see about putting a template around the typo so it stays off my searches. P.S.: I'm in the middle of a drive with a WikiProject and may not reply quickly. - Reidgreg (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that ARTCON applies since it's really about stylistic consistency within an article, but I do think that you have a point by way of analogy with PMC. Let me make a pitch for why, however, I think that there's a difference and then I'll let you decide and not revert whatever change, if any, you care to make. The difference between minor corrections in a quote and in a citation is that a quote must always be supported by a citation whereas a citation is a guide for a reader to be able to verify material in an article. If the citation is not linked to an online source (as is the case here), having the exact spelling of the title could be, even if wrong, key to finding it in a search engine. Indeed, while some search engines (like ours) are pretty good about allowing for misspellings and offering up results which come close to the search term, others can be very strict. Thus, having the exact original spelling in a title in citations could be better than having them stylistically correct. That's my thoughts, now it is up to you and I'll gladly accept whatever decision you make (especially since I'm only 99.9% sure that "girls's" was the original title and not my typo; I think I still have that article around here somewhere, but FSM knows where...). Best regards and thanks for the reasoned approach, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. Verifiability is way up there in policy, compared to my guideline argument (read: obsession). I have seen a fair share of links expire; I should get a better appreciation of what's involved there and if I might be unwittingly sabotaging someone else's efforts. (I came across something similar when I found out a small group of editors were using curly quotes to spot copy&paste copyvio.) I think I need a couple days of wikivacation, get my head straight before deciding what's next. Ho, boy, this is coincidentally going to be my 5000th edit (which means it's time to clean-up my userpage) – Reidgreg (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC).
Congratulations on your 5,000th edit! Keep up the good work! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

GOCE January drive bling

  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 78 articles during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 186,666 total words during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 16 long articles during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 78 old articles during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:48, 3 February 2017 (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 – 19,000 words – during the GOCE January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:48, 3 February 2017 (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 January 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Got some big numbers, that was a busy month. Gave myself a little wiki-vacation, and returned to find that MOS:TVPLOT had updated and nearly 20 of the articles I did are no longer compliant. Oh, well. I guess it's a moving target. I suspect that'll be the first and last time I get three gold stars – will try to satisfy my Wikiholism with silvers next time. Reidgreg (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February Blitz barnstar

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 10,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE February 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thanks! Ummm, a little déjà vu here, something seems to be missing. (Hint: I copyedited one article totaling over 10,000 words.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  The 10k Copy Edit Barnstar
This 10K Copyedit Barnstar, which Jonesey95 always forgets about, is hereby awarded to Reidgreg for editing an article of over 10,000 words during the GOCE February 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Well done, and keep it coming! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bahahaha! Much appreciated. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March drive bling

  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 47 articles during the GOCE March 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 80,734 total words during the GOCE March 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 7 long articles during the GOCE March 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 47 old articles during the GOCE March 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:45, 3 April 2017 (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 – 18,000 words – during the GOCE March 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:45, 3 April 2017 (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 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Took it easier than last month and just barely managed three golds, sharing one with Twofingered Typist. Also passed the half-million word mark. (If I could only learn to report my articles correctly!) Reidgreg (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 
For your amazing fluff-trimming edit to Tere Mere Beech. It removed unnecessary plot details and compressed long passages in a truly awe-inspiring fashion, as well as fixing a slew of other problems. I believe you deserve at least a cookie, if not more. Noah Kastin (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors: April Blitz barnstar

  The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE April 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I ended up doing more cleanup than copyedit this week, so seems appropriate. Reidgreg (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy edits about volleyball articles

I am here because of this edit. Still can not find were MOS:FLAG says no flags for pro-sports. Thanks, --Osplace 23:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Osplace: It's my understanding that professional or commercial sports are operated by companies, and shouldn't have a flag icon any more than any other corporation. With sports, country flag icons should only be used for a team or sportsperson who directly represents that country at an international level. From what I can tell, the Philippine Super Liga and Premier Volleyball League operate domestically, so I'm puzzled why flag icons would be relevant if there are no international events. The Philippines women's national volleyball team at the Southeast Asian Games would be valid for a flag icon. I don't believe the four teams from that edit can be considered "national sports teams" appropriate for a flag of the Philippines.
There's a lot of misuse of flag icons, which is why appropriate and inappropriate use of them makes up the bulk of MOS:ICON. If I'm wrong about the nature of these teams, please let me know. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, PSL-F2 Logistics Manila, or as mentioned in that article, PSL Manila, served as host country for the 2016 FIVB Volleyball Women's Club World Championship. Another example, a player from Voléro Zürich, would play in one single season in the domestic league within Switzerland, but also will represent that country in the CEV Women's Champions League and the FIVB Volleyball Women's Club World Championship. Would icons then be relevant? International competitions among clubs are part of the season in a lot of them, and partipant clubs varies from year to year. Neither the letter nor the spirit of MOS:FLAG meant that point of view you have. I would agree, and even willing to make the proposal to integrate no icons for pro sports if club competitions would not exist.--Osplace 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Osplace: I appreciate this can seem a bit tricky, but look at the basics. MOS:FLAG says, as the first sentence under Appropriate Use, "the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." MOS:SPORTFLAGS stresses representative nationality. This is the difference between the FIVB Volleyball Women's Club World Championship and FIVB Volleyball Women's World Championship – only the second one has national teams which are permitted to have flag icons. (International competition may make it relevant to note the team's home country, but unless they are directly representing that country they should not have a flag icon.)
Consider how Philippine Super Liga All-Stars has a roster listing athletes with 8 different flag icons. Similarly, Voléro Zürich lists athletes with 10 different flags. How can a team be representative of one country while half of its athletes are simultaneously representing other countries? This wouldn't make sense, and the reason is because such professional sports teams do not directly represent their home countries. In my opinion, the athletes may retain a representative flag if they have directly represented their country at the international level. But the clubs should not have flags since they do not directly represent their home country. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Reidgreg, Tomcat313, Kante4, and HandsomeFella: It is not tricky, the club do represent the country of origin of the club. Athletes are representatives of this clubs when they are under contract. This is not difficult. International club competitions are among clubs representing different countries. If you are not sportfan or have the proper knowledge, then you should continue looking for help about this. --Osplace 23:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Osplace: at the risk of appearing patronizing, I'm going to ask you to look at the Wiktionary definition of wikt:represent. Given that MOS:FLAG is a broad guideline, we are not looking at the sports-specific definition. Rather, we are looking at definition 4, that the subject stands in the place of or acts on behalf of the nation. The political entity of The Phillipines cannot itself take part in a volleyball game, but it can send a national team to represent it. Thus, The Phillipines would be the team's representative nationality. These professional teams do not have a direct connection to the political entity identified by the flag. They are not sanctioned by the country and are not national sports teams. Period. I see you have some history in this (e.g., Talk:Áurea Cruz#Misuse of flag icons to designate sports clubs) and imagine you're fairly fixed in your opinion as well. I've read a lot of related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Results, MOS:ICON talk page archives 2, 3, 4, 13, 14#Representative nationality, including some RfCs. Probably the biggest thing to come out of all of this is that flag icons cause so much controversy and debate that having them is a waste of effort and detracts from actual productive work in The Project. I've come across a multitude of reasons for not having flags, and feel I have yet to read a substantive argument for their inclusion. In any case, I stand by my edit, though I am certainly not inclined to go out of my way to purge icons from pro-sports articles. Keep those articles clean of typos and copyedit tags, and I'll be unlikely to visit them. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
These professional teams do not have a direct connection to the political entity identified by the flag. They are not sanctioned by the country and are not national sports teams. Period. This article is about volleyball. Your point of view is wrong. The volleyball is regulated by the FIVB. FIVB have found coutries ties always, as you can see in this link from the top competition. Another one form the 2014 Asian Club Championship state: Eleven countries have already confirmed their participation in the top-flight Asian Club competition, read here. I have never said these are national teams, but they are club who represent countries in this international competitions. I do my best for keeping volleyball articles clean, as you have asked, and will try to work even harder. Hope we encounter again, but for cooperation, not arguments. --Osplace 01:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. FIVB and Wikipedia have different house style guides. On Wikipedia, we use the Manual of Style. FIVB releases can use flags wherever they want, that has no bearing on how Wikipedia uses flags. The press release did not make it clear what it meant by represent, i.e., how teams were selected to "represent" the country, whether that fits the relevant criteria. The flag identifies the country, and it is up to the country to say who represents it.
Setting aside what increasingly seems to be an argument for argument's sake, looking at the specific edit on Alyja Daphne Santiago, I would note that: (1) Philippines flags on every entry on a list (in any context) are redundant and provide no useful or distinguishing information, (2) the date ranges included on entries in the list suggest that the team's national representation (if there was any) covered the entire time range, which would be inaccurate (if true at any time), (3) the subject and context of the article already makes it clear that these are teams based in the Phillipines, (4) one of the teams has Phillipine in its name which likewise makes the flag redundant. The flags provide no useful information in the context of the article and can actually be misleading. Words should be primary to icons, and in this particular case the information is better and more plainly conveyed with words. Reidgreg (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Tanjung Pinang

Hi. I only just saw your note about the Tanjung Pinang page. Please feel free to make your edits! Matterington (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matterington: thanks! I've saved my changes and claimed half of the wordcount for this month's GOCE drive. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

GOCE May 2017 drive bling

  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 40 articles during the GOCE May 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 70,900 total words during the GOCE May 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 6 long articles during the GOCE May 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 13,100 words – during the GOCE May 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 16:55, 2 June 2017 (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 May 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 39 old articles during the GOCE May 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Miniapolis! And thanks for catching the errors. I was going to mention it, but my dial-up got flakey while I was checking the page histories. Reidgreg (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for your helpful copyedits to the article Disinformation, and your compliments about the improvements I've tried to make to the article over time. Sagecandor (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Affect/Effect

I wanted to thank you for pointing this out, I made this mistake on a couple of articles—actually, I had it confused with the constitutional law doctrine of "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, some of the cases say affect and others say effect but the courts have decided there is no difference in its meaning. I remembered this rule, but not where it had come from—I thought English was a safe bet, until you pointed it out. Seraphim System (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: thanks for dropping me a note! I've had to check on affect/effect enough that it stands out to me. I thought it was mentioned in the copyedit help files but didn't spot it. It does come up now and again at the Language reference desk (here, here, here, here, and also here).
I've only been copyediting for a few months, and I'm not the best at it. I was a bit desperate for someone to check my work when I started, and I try to pay that forward (especially when I notice someone with a lot of enthusiasm on a blitz or drive). Often a fresh set of eyes will notice things the first copyeditor missed, and I'd invite you to review the changes I made. I tend to simplify and remove flowery or redundant phrasing. Please don't be intimidated by all the Manual of Style minutia; just be aware of it and its main subpages, and refer to them as needed. I'll try to be available if you want any feedback. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 GOCE Blitz Barnstar

  The Barnstar of Diligence
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 30,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  The 10k Copy Edit Barnstar
This award is for copy-editing Economy of India, an 11,000-word article, during the June 2017 copy-editing blitz. Thanks for your edits! – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey! Time to set-up an awards page, methinks. Reidgreg (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Another barnstar

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For tackling the list of Haitians. You're a braver soul than I, cause I looked at it when I split out the list of Haitian artists and wussed right out. ♠PMC(talk) 21:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Premeditated Chaos! That list was in better shape than most that I've copyedited, but yes, it was a chore to alphabetize with a lot of double-barrelled names to check. I did it all manually except for the very long list of footballers, which I ported to a spreadsheet, sorted, ported back, then manually checked for the few that were out of place. Had to manually check them all anyways. Good list, though, and I will gladly accept a barnstar for that! I'll move this to my newly-created awards page at the beginning of next month.  Reidgreg (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I did the list of artists (since I split it out a while ago without fixing it) earlier today out of guilt when I saw you taking the main article, lol, and even that took like forty minutes. Yeesh. 00:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your valuable time given for reviewing my work and pointing out areas that can be improved. Thank you sir. :) Red Pen (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Vr parashar! (And here I was afraid of being bitey!) Thank-you very much for the barnstar! I get a fair amount of thanks but that's my first kindness barnstar – definitely one for the scrapbook. I'll try to return the favour and, if you can put in the time this week, help you finish that copy edit so you can get a barnstar for the GOCE drive. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes sir I will be working on it and soon ask for another review from you ;) cheers.. Red Pen (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Review Request

Sir I have done copy editing as per your suggestions. please review it once again whenever you get time. Thanks. :) Link to the page edited. Red Pen (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 GOCE drive bling

  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 July 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 77 articles during the GOCE July 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 102,800 total words during the GOCE July 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting seven long articles during the GOCE July 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 77 old articles during the GOCE July 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 16,000 words – during the GOCE July 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving out the rest of the barnstars! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! It felt like Christmas in July, giving those out. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Danzig Street shooting has been accepted

Danzig Street shooting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: thanks! I had some concerns about categories, which I haven't done before. I noticed that eight categories are listed twice at the end of the article. That might be my fault if I overcategorized to begin with, or because I'd listed them alphabetically. Shall I trim those, the blank lines between them, and does the order matter? (I suppose they should be listed in the order they appear at the bottom of the article, though I couldn't tell that with a draft.) P.S.: I'll fill-in the blank See also section as I link other articles to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the categories, the order is of no consequence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blitz copy edit reviewed

See my edits to Ramya for suggestions on how to polish your copy editing. Nice work! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95! I only get about 1 in 100 of my copy edits reviewed, so I really appreciate that! The flow is definitely better. I'd cut some material from that article but I guess I needed to cut a little more and attend to additional clarity issues. (I'll take another look at the other articles on my list.) I thought I could help out with reviewing since the coords are pretty busy. I know I'm not the most qualified but I thought I could help them pass.
The reviewing I've been doing is pretty basic, but I thought I could help those starting out. For Pratim from Lakhuria, I gave him some pretty detailed notes and was pushing for him to follow the same advice on his/her subsequent articles. I finished one for an example, a second article I gave specific notes of things to improve, and for the third I just pointed back to the advice already given. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't do much reviewing, but you seem to have a good attitude about it, so I thought I'd check one of yours. I always figure that as long as an edit improves WP, I shouldn't give anyone a hard time about it. And for short articles, I usually prefer to do the minor cleanup and then point to a diff as a constructive teaching tool. Everybody has their own style, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, Jonesey95, I do appreciate the check. I've had concerns of getting into a pot–kettle situation, and typed a couple messages to request a check but never posted them. (It looked there wasn't going to be an August blitz which had me thinking everyone was busy.) You're right, even a small improvement is still an improvement. A few times I did "stealth checking" by doing additional copyedit/cleanup following a blitz or drive, but it occurred to me that it might be more useful to give editors advice while a blitz or drive is still running.
On the next drive, I'm going to aim for some big numbers to close-out my first year working with the Guild. (Meaningless milestone that it is.) After that, I'd like to shift my focus and help with the maintenance side of the Guild. I figure that's a better use of resources, and will give the talented copy editors more time for actual copy editing work. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

GOCE August 2017 Blitz Bling

  The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Keira1996 07:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Danzig Street shooting


Hello, Reidgreg! I have finished copy-editing Danzig Street shooting. Very nice article! Just a few items:

1) You'll see that I wrote out "Street" in "Danzig Street" each time. I felt that it looked better written out in full.

I agree, and will do similarly for an Ave and Blvd elsewhere in the article. Similarly with the numerals.

2) You'll see that I re-worded several sentences that you had written with the "There is/are/was/were" construction to avoid using it as often as you did. I think a few instances are all right, but not so many.

3) I took the liberty of adding a few words to make some sentences clearer; hope you approve.

4) In the section Danzig Street shooting#Block party, the first two sentences are as follows:

  • The 16 July 2012 blocko was organized by resident Shannon Longshaw, a 28-year-old mother of two, as an afternoon children's barbecue. However, from 7 July the Twitter account @2ToneShorty, linked to 19-year-old Nahom Tsegazab, a Galloway Boys member known as "Gifted", had been promoting the gathering as a "HennessyBlock Party".

I'm wondering, if it would be accurate to say it, if it would make sense to add, "unbeknownst to Longshaw" after "However". It would then read:

  • The 16 July 2012 blocko was organized by resident Shannon Longshaw, a 28-year-old mother of two, as an afternoon children's barbecue. However, unbeknownst to Longshaw, from 7 July the Twitter account @2ToneShorty, linked to 19-year-old Nahom Tsegazab, a Galloway Boys member known as "Gifted", had been promoting the gathering as a "HennessyBlock Party".

By the way, are you sure there should be no space between "Hennessy" and "Block" in "HennessyBlock Party"?

Thanks for checking with me. Unfortunately, my sources don't support that (nor do they contradict it). It seems that word had gotten around the complex, and I expect Longshaw knew there would be an evening party following the barbeque, but I seriously doubt she was in on the planning or was asked for permission. It seems these were separate events that followed each other. I was leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions from what was reported.
Second thought: to give a better sense of two events, maybe I should change "the gathering" to "a gathering at the same location and date"? Though it's not like it was a coincidence. The gang clearly wanted to feed off of the kid's party and encourage underage youth to attend the evening party, since those are the people the gang would recruit from in the future.
My sources show "HennessyBlock Party", "Hennessy-Blocko", #hennessyparty and #hennessyblockparty. I thought I should try to keep it verbatim.
Hello, Reidgreg – I'm going to try something I learned from another editor and put my comments in another color so they stand out. I understand your reasoning about not wanting to add "unbeknownst to Longshaw", so we'll leave that alone. I just re-read the beginning of the section Danzig Street shooting#Block party, and I paused at the word "However" at the beginning of the second sentence. "However" is used to signal a contrast, and Nahom Tsegazab's plans and invitations are not really a contrast. More logical would be to indicate that Tsegazab was planning and advertising his party at the same time. Perhaps it would be good to substitute a time phrase for "However", either "At the same time" or "Meanwhile". The first sentence of the paragraph starts, "The 16 July 2012 blocko was organized by resident Shannon Longshaw". I may be wrong, and certainly correct me if I am, but I thought descriptions of events in the body of an article should be written as if it were the first time they were being mentioned, kind of as if the lede were not there. If that is true, then the 16 July blocko should not use "The". The blocko should be introduced as if it had not already been mentioned, something like "A blocko was organized for residents of the housing complex for 16 July 2012 by resident Shannon Longshaw......Meanwhile,...."
Yes! A meanwhile or "at the same time" would be great there. That's also a very good point about the "The". I like your wording, maybe a slight change to "organized at the Danzig Street housing complex" to work in the where (and the barbecue wasn't exclusive to residents, others from the neighbourhood dropped by).

5) Early in the article, in Danzig Street shooting#Shooting, you mention "Chester Le Side". In Danzig Street shooting#Investigation and later arrests, you twice mention "Chester Le Blvd", which I guess is a real street. In the third paragraph in Danzig Street shooting#Convictions, you have this phrase: "in the 2 September Chester Le shooting". I suppose "Chester Le" refers to "Chester Le Blvd.", but some readers may not make this connection, or may wonder whether it refers to the street or to Owusu's nickname. I'm wondering if you feel like clarifying this phrase.

There's a TCHC complex at Chester Le Boulevard where Owusu lived. From a source: The judge said Owusu knew he, as a Chester “Le Side” gang member. So Owusu was part of a gang named for that street or territory/turf, the "home gang" of that complex. Another source called them the "Le Side Crew". The "Chester Le shooting" refers to when Naod shot Owusu at (or near) that complex. The gang name might be a bit sketchy, I don't know if the police consider it a gang (due to small size/territory/activity) and there isn't a whole lot about it in the sources I gathered. I'll try to take a comprehensive look at that through the article. I wanted to be cautious and follow sources when saying someone was affiliated with a gang, so used the same phrasing as the judge.
I don't know what Owusu's nickname was, though apparently it is in the court records regarding Naod's identification of him.
I must have been tired when I wrote this; I thought the first sentence in Danzig Street shooting#Shooting was giving Owusu's nickname; upon re-reading it I see that it was only giving the name of his gang. But it is interesting that in that sentence, "Le Side" is in quotation marks, suggesting that "Le" goes with "Side", not "Chester". So I'm still puzzled why in the third paragraph in Danzig Street shooting#Convictions, it says "Chester Le", with no "Side" following it.
Yeah, I don't quite understand the gang naming convention myself. Maybe the gang likes to call themselves "Le Side" as an allusion to "east side" or "west side", or just as a local abbreviation of the Chester Le neighbourhood (which includes a street, park and school with that name). The street the complex is on is Chester Le Blvd, so the media reported the shooting at that location as the Chester Le shooting (it's named for the location, not the gang). I included the 2 September date with that shooting for clarity.
Chester Le (Blvd) is the location, (Chester) Le Side (Crew) is the gang.
The double quotes do look weird, and something like [Chester] Le Side wouldn't be any better. What if a Chester "Le Side" gang member is changed to "a Le Side Crew gang member from the Chester Le neighbourhood"? (I don't want to have to define the Chester Le neighbourhood.)

6) In the last paragraph in Danzig Street shooting#Block party, you have this sentence:

  • An hour later there were Jaguars and Hummers parked around the block, marijuana smoke in the air, and more than 200 people packing the complex's internal laneway.

I had never heard or seen the word "laneway" before. Is that a common word in Canada? I'm wondering whether you would consider using a more common word such as "drive", "lane", or "roadway".

I suppose it is a Canadian word. Multiple sources (local and national newspapers) refer to it as a laneway (one a "narrow internal laneway"). It may originate from a police report. I would say it's a diminutive of a lane, intended for occasional vehicle access (at very low speed) but not for traffic or parking. I suppose it's equivalent to an alleyway, but with an idyllic town-and-country spin.
If "laneway" is exclusively Canadian English, then few readers other than Canadian readers will know what it is; they will have to guess. I still suggest a more common word such as "drive" or "lane".
Fair enough. I already put in "narrow internal" to compensate for removing the "-way".

7) In the last paragraph in Danzig Street shooting#Convictions, you say Owusu was sentenced to life in prison. The last two sentences of the paragraph are:

  • In May 2017 Owusu was sentenced to four years for the criminal negligence convictions, to be served concurrently. With time served, he is eligible for parole in 2019.

I have two questions:

(a) Were these four years in addition to his life sentence or instead of the life sentence? I think this should be made clear.

(b) If he was really sentenced to life in prison for a crime that occurred in 2012, he couldn't have served very much of his life sentence, so why is he eligible for parole in 2019?

(a) Additionally – in the sense that if one sentence were commuted he would still have to serve the second – but served at the same time. With sentencing, multiple sentences are to be served either consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (at the same time; simultaneously). This is standard language for the subject. The four years are served at the same time as the life sentence – he would have already served all or most of those four years in jail while waiting for trial and sentencing. (The perpetrator of the Aurora shooting was sentenced consecutively, to 12 life sentences without parole plus 3,318 years.)
I'd be more tempted to cut mention of the criminal negligence charges/convictions, which don't add to his sentence, than to expand by explaining what 'concurrent' means. (I had that in to be thorough, but perhaps it is distracting.)
(b) The absolute earliest eligibility for parole is after serving one-third of the sentence. So he must have received 20 years (I'd thought a life sentence was 25, but perhaps that's for first degree murder and second-degree is 20). Given the nature of the crime, even if he continues being a model prisoner, I don't see him getting parole after only seven years.
I must have been tired last night; I don't think I expressed myself clearly. Now, after reading your comments and re-reading the paragraph with fresh eyes, I see something that still puzzles me. (I know what "to be served concurrently" means, but I'm not even sure whether I saw that last night or not, but read on...) I'm going to copy the entire paragraph here, minus the reference numbers:
*Found guilty, Owusu was sentenced as an adult to life in prison on 7 December 2016. None of the bullets Owusu fired had killed anyone, but his actions had initiated the gunfire that killed two and injured twenty-two bystanders. In May 2017 Owusu was sentenced to four years for the criminal negligence convictions, to be served concurrently. With time served, he is eligible for parole in 2019.
I'd like to draw your attention to the second-to-last sentence:
*In May 2017 Owusu was sentenced to four years for the criminal negligence convictions, to be served concurrently.
I think that yesterday I understood "to be served concurrently" to be referring to both these criminal negligence convictions and the attempted murder and second-degree murder convictions mentioned earlier in the section. Also, in my mind, a life sentence is a sentence for life, not 20 or 25 years, so since the crimes occurred in 2012, and it says he was eligible for parole in 2019, I figured that was for the life sentence, not the negligence convictions, and since it's only 2017 now, he couldn't have served more than five years of the life sentence. I still don't see how he would be eligible for parole after seven years of a life sentence, but that's all right; it's not important. But today, upon re-reading the sentence beginning "In May 2017", I see that because "convictions" is plural, it could be interpreted that "to be served concurrently" refers only to those convictions. If you want "to be served concurrently" to refer to both the murder convictions and the negligence convictions, I think you need to add "with the murder convictions" after "to be served concurrently".
Good point. How about "to be served concurrently with the life sentence."?
BTW, the early 2019 parole seems weird to me, too, but that was reported. Reading from other articles, life sentences in Canada usually have an automatic ineligibility for parole during the first 15 or 20 years. There might have been an age exception, despite being sentenced as an adult.

8) Regarding time, I wondered whether expressions of time such as 9 pm should be written 9:00 pm. You might want to look at some other articles that describe events chronologically and see how the time is written. (I'm too tired to do that now.) I think "9:00 pm" looks a little better than "9 pm".

I feel that 9:00 pm would give a false sense of precision. If I used 9:00 pm, I feel I'd also have to use "approximately" and that would make it look worse. I took a look at September 11 attacks#Attacks, and yes, if I had multiple precise times I think I'd give the full time like that. But here, even the 10:40 pm time of the shooting is approximate (a minority of sources give 10:30 pm).
O.K. I defer to you since it's your article, but I don't see how "9:00 pm" conveys more precision than "9 pm".
I think of it like the difference between saying a trip was 9 miles or 9.00 miles. It's the same number, but the second figure carries more precision and might be expected to be more accurate.

9) In the first paragraph of the lede you have a sentence that begins:

  • Three gunmen from rival gangs opened fire in a crowd of 200 people...

In the third paragraph of the lede you have a sentence that begins:

  • The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting...

Readers who took note of "three gunmen" might be puzzled when they get to "the four young men". I don't know how you might clarify this, but you might give it some thought. Also, it's a little odd that you mention the names of the two who were youths at the time and don't mention the names of the two who were adults at the time.

I might have been relying on the point-form notes in the infobox to provide that information. I wanted to mention the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the lede, so mentioned the two youngest there (particularly as their names are absent from many of the sources, if the reader may have been trying to learn about this elsewhere). But you're right, it is weird. More discussion of the lede below.

10) I'm curious about two things; if you don't feel like spending the time to answer, I'll understand.

(a) Did no one, during that whole time that the crowds were growing at the block party, call the police?

(b) I don't understand why Nahom Tsezagab received only fourteen years while Owusu received life in prison. Their actions don't seem that different to me.

Police did receive several noise complaints and dispatched bicycle patrols, but from the looks of it those police didn't really do anything except get the music turned down (while they were there). I expect the noise complaints were made by homeowners adjacent to the complex. Residents of the complex may have been fearful of retaliation, and the police may have not wanted to be seen as "the bad guys" and so let the party continue. Being preventable is what makes it a tragedy.
Owusu is the only one who went to trial. Everyone else plead guilty for reduced sentences. The person who fired the Uzi and arguably did the most damage is still unknown, though quite possibly serving time on other charges from the crackdown.

Well, that's all for now. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: thanks so much for the copy edit and thorough notes! You caught a lot of stuff I should have, and quite a few things I know I wouldn't have. I agree with pretty much all of your changes (I guess I go a bit overboard with commas and hyphens). Some replies among your notes above.

A couple of my own notes:

11) In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies. They are held by neighbours and outreach workers, particularly during Toronto's warm, humid summers. You added the bold part. The source is almost entirely talking about Toronto, though I don't think blockos are specific to Toronto. Do you think it'd be alright to move the "In Toronto" down to the beginning of the second sentence and then remove the second "Toronto"? I don't want to have redundant "Toronto"s in the article, which ought to be assumed in most cases.

I don't think that would read right. I see what you mean about having "Toronto" twice in close proximity. If you leave "In Toronto" where it is, then I would change "particularly during Toronto's warm, humid summers" to "particularly during the city's warm, humid summers". If you think "In Toronto" is not right because blockos are held in other cities in Canada besides Toronto, then you could write, "In Toronto and some other cities in Canada", "In Toronto and some other Canadian cities", "In some Canadian cities", or "In some areas of Canada", or something like that. But saying "In Toronto" does not really mean that the word is not used in other cities. It is just explaining what the word means in Toronto. I had never even heard the word "blocko" before. I don't think it's used in the U.S. If you use one of those phrases, then I would leave the instance of Toronto in the second sentence the way it is.
I wanted to define "blocko" fairly early in the article for that reason. I think maybe it'd be more like "Among West Indian communities" [blockos are...] but I don't have sources to back that up. Hearing you out, I agree with you on this one, and maybe change the second "Toronto" to "the city".

12) I noticed that you changed some   → {{nbsp}}, and some {{snd}}. Was there a reason for this? It was my understanding that templates caused a marginally higher server load (but only 1.3% when I tested in preview), so I've been using markup. Is there an advantage to the templates?

I didn't know about the server load, and even if I knew about it I wouldn't understand the implications very well. I started using the templates about two years ago when Checkingfax introduced me to them. I actually find them easier to use than the HTML codes. I also think that in edit mode, which is the way I read the articles I am copy-editing, the templates stand out from the surrounding text more than the HTML codes, so I can ignore them when I'm reading. It just seems to me that the HTML codes, when right up next to text, kind of blend in with the text, so it is harder to see where the codes leave off and the text begins. I have just done a search in my archives for discussions about "No break space" and I see that I tried to get an answer to the same question you asked me, and I never got clear answer, so I just keep using them. I will keep searching for something on this. If you want me to change the back to HTML, I will.
I found two things:
1) I was looking for something in the MoS about time words, and I saw the the no-break space templates used in the examples! See MOS:TIME.
2) I found something in my archives: User talk:Corinne/Archive 16#En-dash and em-dash.
3) The technical expert I consult whenever I have a technical question or problem is Redrose64. Redrose64, can you answer Reidgreg's question, and I'd kind of like to know, too, whether there is an advantage or disadvantage to using templates over HTML codes for no-break spaces, en-dashes, and em-dashes?  – Corinne (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

13) The party was filling-in when. I had that hyphen to associate those terms as a phrase, as otherwise I expect a connection to the word following "in". (Similarly with "shoot-up the party", "tracked-down Owusu", "gunned-down in the parking lot", "gunned-down against a fence".) Perhaps I should rephrase these?

This I can answer. When a two- (or three-) word verb (that is, a verb plus a preposition, or a verb plus two prepositions) is used as a verb, it normally does not have a hyphen. It has a hyphen if it is used as a noun or an adjective. Here, "filling in" is a verb. By the way, I paused at that when I saw it because, while I could figure out what it meant, it is not a phrase I was familiar with. I might say, "The crowd was filling in", "The crowd was growing", or "The park was filling up", but "The party was filling in" is a new one to me. Maybe it's Canadian English.
You're right, "crowd" would be better. (I probably had that somewhere else where there were other instances of "crowd" and changed it to "party" to avoid repetition.)

14) Was there a particular reason to give D'Mitre Barnaby's full name following the list of shootings? I usually try for surname-only after first mention.

Well, you're right, and I do that, too, but in this case I thought that some readers might just skim the list, and in that case miss the name entirely, so the beginning of the next sentence after the list would be the first mention. But I can understand if you want to use only the last name. Feel free to change it.

15) The threshold for using block quotes is 40 words (MOS:BQ). For the two Rob Ford quotes, the first is a few words over and the second is just under. I'm thinking of trimming the last sentence of the first quote (to bring the wordcount under 40 without losing any real meaning), and put both quotes back into the paragraph. There are a lot of short words and I feel it'd be alright. What do you think? (Might similarly take the first six words off the Fletcher quote as well.)

Well, I had probably seen that threshold mentioned in the MoS but had forgotten all about it. I just like the look of blockquotes if the quote is fairly long. If you want to put the quotes back into the paragraph, I can understand. I wouldn't try to shorten them, though.
I will get to the other points (below) in a little while.  – Corinne (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It might be an "Idontlikeit" situation, but in this case I didn't want the quotes drawing too much attention or the repeated change of format breaking up the flow. I appreciate the effort, though, and being able to see the two versions side-by-side.

15) Issues with the lede: I may have tried to cram too much in there, or relied on the infobox to provide information which should have been in the prose. The first paragraph establishes the what-when-where and notability. The second was intended to give a context of the high-profile gun violence that summer. The third I tried to summarize and give an overall sense of the crime and perceptions of it without going into details. With the fourth paragraph I tried to cover what I thought was the most important part of the legacy of the incident, the change in police procedures which led to reduced crime through better community relations.

What's confusing or out of place:

  • three shooters vs four convictions
  • naming the minors but not the others
  • retaliatory shootings

What if I move the retaliatory shootings to the end of the first paragraph, and change the last sentence of the third paragraph from

The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting; the names of Folorunso Owusu and Naod Tsegazab were withheld under the Youth Criminal Justice Act until they were sentenced as adults.

to

The four young men convicted – two shooters and two others – were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting; the names of the youngest two were withheld under the Youth Criminal Justice Act until they were sentenced as adults.

What do you think? – Reidgreg (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: What question do you want me to answer? The layout of this section (I hesitate to call it a thread) is horrendous: from the point of view of trying to work out what has gone on so far; from the point of trying to establish who wrote what (this is a major concern right now at WT:TPG#Guidance against interleaving replies; from the point of view of accessibility - varied ways of indenting, blank lines between colon-indented paragraphs, contrary to WP:INDENTGAP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64 Oh. I didn't know interleaving replies was discouraged, and I didn't know leaving a blank line between colon-indented paragraphs was discouraged. I'll avoid doing those things in the future. See Reidgreg's question in item 12, above, and my reply. The basic question is, for the no-break space, the spaced en-dash, and the unspaced em-dash, are there any advantages to using the templates over the HTML codes, and if so, what are they? Are there any disadvantages to using the templates, and, if so, what are they?  – Corinne (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Haven't we discussed this before? For example, User talk:Corinne/Archive 22#Spaced and un-spaced en-dashes; User talk:Corinne/Archive 28#MoS; User talk:Corinne/Archive 29#Nbsp. But as far as non-breaking spaces go, MOS:NBSP allows both the   and {{nbsp}} forms. Personally, I use the former because that what I was using for ten years before I came to Wikipedia. Some prefer the former on the grounds that it's (slightly) faster, because no template expansion is involved - however, WP:DWAP. MOS:DASH also seems flexible. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Colon-indented paragraphs are a kind of list, and leaving a blank line will "break" the list (as with a bulleted list or a numbered list). It's probably good to get in the habit of not breaking lists, because this makes it tiresome for those using screen readers to navigate a page. It's not a personal issue for me, so I don't mind you doing whatever you feel is easier on my talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Danzig Street shooting, continued – Arbitrary section break

You wrote just above, regarding your conception of the organization of the lede, "The second was intended to give a context of the high-profile gun violence that summer." I thought retaliatory shootings following just hours after the Danzig Street incident would be part of that "high-profile gun violence". I'm not sure why you feel it is out of place. It is chronological. If you move it to the end of the first paragraph, a problem arises in that the phrase "The incident" at the beginning of the second paragraph becomes ambiguous. The way it is now, "The incident" follows a paragraph discussing only the Danzig Street shooting, and follows directly upon "the worst mass shooting in Toronto", which is the Danzig Street shooting. If you put a sentence about retaliatory shootings between this and "The incident", it becomes less clear to what "The incident" refers. You could, of course, change "The incident" to "The Danzig Street shooting". That might work.

Regarding your suggested re-wording of the sentence about the four young men who were convicted, it's kind of an improvement, but, besides preferring to avoid using parenthetical phrases between en-dashes (or em-dashes) in the lede (because it suggests an afterthought, so less-than-precise thinking), I think the way you have it worded puts more emphasis on names being withheld than on the fact that four young men were convicted, which you haven't said yet. I would just say, directly, that four young men were convicted, two adults and two minors; the minors' names were withheld.... (you can leave the fact that two were shooters and two were not to the body of the article). That's what I think.  – Corinne (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you added hyphens to "Two and a half hours". The hyphens are not needed. We use hyphens when the phrase is used as an adjective: a two-and-a-half-hour talk, but when we are just giving an amount of time, we don't use hyphens: two and a half hours.  – Corinne (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne: a few small replies above, mostly to agree with you. I tried to explain a bit more on point 5, Chester Le.
You're right about placement of the retaliatory shootings. It keeps the subject matter together and balances the paragraphs. (I'm not really sure where I was going there.)
Also in that second paragraph, do you think there's any problem with "within three days" when the previous sentence ends with "on 2 September."? I'd be willing to remove "and another on 2 September" to avoid any confusion with the chronology.
In the third paragraph, I'd wanted to keep "15 to 19", although the paragraph already has "teenagers" twice. Ah, I was ready to go with your wording, but the reader might infer two were minors at the time of their convictions; they were each at least 18 at the time of their convictions. How about the first part of mine and the second part of yours: The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting. Two were minors and their names were withheld under the Youth Criminal Justice Act until they were sentenced as adults.
Good catch. I thought mixed numbers got hyphens, but it's just the fraction part (one line above MOS:FRAC is the example "one and one-half doses"). However "a half" isn't considered a fraction – and "two and one-half hours" sounds stilted. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Took me a while to get around to it, but I tidied up and made those changes:
  • replaced Owusu & Naod's names in the lead to "two minors"
  • describing blockos, changed the second Toronto to "the city"
  • block party: rephrased for first mention in body and changed however to meanwhile
  • changed laneway to simpler "lane"
  • changed party to "crowd" filling in
  • used "Le Side Crew" and "Chester Le Boulevard shooting" consistently to avoid confusion.
  • removed the hyphens from the mixed number
  • linked to Life imprisonment in Canada and Parole#Canada if readers wish further information
  • Rob Ford - re-integrated block quotes into paragraphs
  • changed non-breaking spaces from templates to markup
Much thanks for all your time and effort, Corinne! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Canada 10k lists

conversation started on OhanaUnited's talk page

Hi, OhanaUnited! I thought I'd discuss this here because you were the most interested in this plus you're an admin so you likely know more about this than me. Rather than manually going through articles and adding province notes, I'm still hoping there's a semi-automated way to do it through categories. Some Projects use talk page categories to keep track of articles they'd improved. For example, Category:WikiProject Women in Red 2017 articles and Category:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. If we created something similar for articles improved on the Canada 10k challenge, then, so long as other relevant categories are in place, there are tools (e.g.: Wikipedia:PetScan) to cross-reference those articles by province, subject, article class, etc. You'd also be able to do an incategory search.

I don't know much about categories or policies regarding them, this is just something that I've seen with other projects and thought it might work for us. It would still require some work – placing the category on 1100+ article talk pages (for starters). My guess is that this would be less work than manually sorting by provinces, though, and could potentially yield more data.

I feel the easiest way would be if I made a small talk page banner template (a simpler version of {{WIR}}) which would include the category, and link/advertise for the 10k challenge. (I should have time to work on this in October, for now I'm just looking at options and trying to figure things out.) What do you think? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with categories. The easiest and involving least work is to ask everyone to begin labelling province on their own entries (including those that they already submitted, as they know the subject better than random stranger sorting for them). And we can manually sort the rest that aren't labelled. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I already categorized the latest. Wasn't too much work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I appreciate the time you took to test this out, however I'm still against it. I'm not a big fan of flag icons, and I don't think there was consensus on the challenge talk page. Some issues:
  • If you haven't looked at it recently, MOS:ICON has about 2500 words of guidelines on use of flags in articles. Wikipedia-namespace pages are less stringent toward MOS, but the same reasoning applies.
  • A few months ago while I was reading archived conversations about flags – the vast majority of which discouraged their use – one cited a study which found that having even small icons of three or more colours makes it more difficult to read nearby text (the colours attract the eye, causing fixation and interrupting the pattern of saccades). So having flags makes it more difficult to read text from a list. (While registered users can adjust skins to suppress multi-colour custom signatures, I don't know if there's a way to suppress flag icons; in any case, that would be an extra step to opt-out, where the default should always be toward accessibility.)
  • Flags represent political entities and can be controversial and lead to edit-warring, which is one of the reasons MOS:FLAG discourages arbitrary use. Consider, for example, a First Nations editor who submits an article about their people but is offended to have it branded with a provincial flag. (A neutral category wouldn't carry the emotional baggage of a flag.)
  • There have been specific concerns about the loading size, and flag icons will only make this worse. As a dial-up user, this concerns me. (At the moment, Prop 2 has a slight edge in support, which would keep the large list on the main page of the challenge.) If the page becomes too cumbersome, participation may decrease.
  • Requiring challenge participants to categorize their submissions by province is an extra step, and may discourage participation.
  • Some articles may not be easily categorized. For example, one of my articles, Four in the Morning (TV series), you listed with a Canada flag, presumably because it was broadcast on CBC. However, the show was entirely filmed in the Toronto area and mostly set there (half of one episode was set in Manitoba) and I feel the series is very much associated with the city, so I would tend to give it an Ontario (or perhaps even a Toronto) flag.
  • Having the Canada flag provides no additional information. All submissions must be Canada-related, that can be assumed.
The challenge is meant to increase participation with WikiProject Canada, and I feel we should try our best to make this easy for all editors. The flags make it more difficult and more time-consuming, particularly for users with slower connections. Adding flags wastes the valuable time being volunteered toward the project, and thus reduces the work done to actually improve the encyclopedia. It may also cause controversies which is the last thing we want. A contributor who is offended by the flag assigned to their article may quit the challenge or give up on editing altogether.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but when we're looking at 10,000 entries, time adds up and mistakes will be made. If it takes 20 seconds to figure out the right code and put in the flag template, across 10k entries that adds up to over 55 volunteer-hours. And if you're previewing (which you should), it's much longer, especially for those with slow connections. Similarly, over that many flags, you can count on people being offended. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb on this, but I think many of your concerns are vastly overblown. Every project except Canada has been categorizing with flags (Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa, etc.). Country-specific pages like Australia and the US also categorize by their regions. Ideally the person who added the article entry will categorize the flag, as they know the subject better than most of us. This extra step did not discourage participation, as you claimed, as there were no issues with any of the continent or country pages that already have it going. I also don't see that an edit war will break out based on the flag categorization. People are not limited to choose 1 flag. I have categorized some entries with double flags (and sometimes triple/quadruple flags are also ok if it's dealing with the Prairies or the Maritime provinces). Some articles naturally only has the Canadian flag, such as the Convoy SQ-36 merchant ship during the war, and there is no way to categorize it at a sub-level. Others like athletes that competed internationally are also problematic to categorize, so I left it with a Canadian flag until someone can provide a convincing point. As for indigenous pages, I understand your concern and I think we will discuss it further when and if that comes up. I do concede that I didn't read the Four in the Morning (TV series) article detailed enough and missed the production notes. So I think it as both Ontario (from production standpoint) and Canada (broadcasted by CBC nationwide). And I'm afraid I don't have any more solutions for your problem arising from using 56k dial-up. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: "Everybody else is doing it" isn't much of a reason. The list has stood without flags for nearly a year with no problems. Respectfully, you're the one changing the established convention for the page, and it is up to you to justify the change.
  • This extra step did not discourage participation, as you claimed, as there were no issues with any of the continent or country pages that already have it going. I stated that it may lower participation, not that it will. I'm saying that a less-convenient system may be used less. I don't feel it can be objectively claimed that participation on other project challenges wasn't diminished without some kind of before-and-after or control group (i.e.: with and without flags) for comparison.
  • so I left it with a Canadian flag until someone can provide a convincing point. All of these (potential) discussions are more wasted time that could be spent improving articles. How many articles will have to be discussed? How much congestion will that cause on the challenge talk page? Who's going to keep an eye on this and maintain it all? Who's going to watch for flags being changed and edit-warring? Multiple flags means there will be even more discussions and controversies. (My alternative category-based approach would keep discussion of provincial associations [if any] on the article talk page where it belongs.)
  • As for indigenous pages, I understand your concern and I think we will discuss it further when and if that comes up. Okay, that upsets me. You understand this is flawed and could cause arguments but your solution it to deal with it later? I feel that the practice you're proposing is reckless and irresponsible.
  • And I'm afraid I don't have any more solutions for your problem arising from using 56k dial-up Correction: you don't have any solutions at all. Size/bandwidth/ease-of-updating is the one grievance expressed with the list, and you're completely ignoring it (and thus the concerns of the challenge contributors).
At this point I would invite you to revert your changes. Perhaps you could preserve a copy of your list with flags on another sub-page for the time being.
I'd be willing to help explore and implement a category-based approach which could provide the same data (and more), and will try to look at category policy in October. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I'm glad to see that you salvaged the flag list to your sandbox. I know it must have taken you a while to get that data. FYI, here are some page stats I didn't have until I was making the revert. These are for the page without flags and with the flags you had added:
  • wikicode page size: 198,073 → 206,310 bytes (4% increase)
  • html page size: 423,742 → 609,579 bytes (44% increase)
  • CPU time: 0.580 → 0.852 seconds (47% increase)
  • Real time: 0.759 → 1.029 seconds (36% increase)
The impact may have been deceptive since it didn't add a lot to the wikicode size, but it added substantially to the CPU time to convert that code to html and to the html itself. Flags on the entire list would have about doubled the html size and loading time. The numbers were just too high. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

September GOCE bling

  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 September 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 41 articles during the GOCE September 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 107,000 total words during the GOCE September 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 8 long articles during the GOCE September 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 41 old articles during the GOCE September 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (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 – 23,000 words – during the GOCE September 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


First place in all five categories; we should call it the quintuple crown! Congratulations! Tdslk (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yea! The only way I managed that is because Twofingered Typist had to take a month off due to a computer failure. (I also suffered a computer failure, but swapped out the power supply the next day and was back up and running.) I dedicate these awards to Twofingered Typist and hope to see that editor's return.
Very nice to get a "quintuple crown" to complete my first year working with the Guild. If my sums are correct, I've hit one million words copy edited (with bonuses), and also squeezed onto the list of top 10,000 editors by edit count. So lots of high scores for me that month! – Reidgreg (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Those are some shiny gold stars! Thanks for the hard work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:The Women World Contest

That would be a better question for @Dr. Blofeld: - he's far more active in setting up the contests than am I. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Reidgreg, thank you for drawing my attention to the challenge. I didn't realize that I had done several articles that would qualify. Thanks so much and please a wonderful day! Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@A.S. Brown: you're very welcome! I'm much more of a gnome and haven't written many articles, and this bit of advertising has gotten way more articles on the list than I could have written. I feel it was well worth the effort. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. My apologies for forgetting to sign. I glad your're enjoying the articles! There's much to read there. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@A.S. Brown: BTW, don't feel that you have to summarize the article that you're listing or justify why it's "Canadian" and why it's going on the list. Just briefly summarize your changes so a reviewer knows what to look for. I don't want to limit you, but a list like this can get very long (10,000 entries by design) which raises technical issues of page size and loading times. I restructured the page a couple weeks ago to account for some of this, but I feel it's best to keep list entries simple. If you want to discuss an article you're listing, feel free to do so on the challenge talk page. (Which, incidentally, includes discussion of some of these issues.) Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Reidgreg, my apologies and thank you for the advice. I'm new to this. Plus, it seems that I have to justify what I write around here, since other people have a nasty habit of deleting the stuff I write, usually on spurious grounds, so it is a bit of a reflect. I think the most egregious case of that was when I did a lot of work on one article which is all properly referenced, which was promptly deleted by another editor because he has never read any of the books I have read (since when has ignorance been grounds for deleting something?), and then rather aggressively told me that he would continue deleting anything that I added to the article until I prove to his satisfaction that the material I added should be in article. I know one is not supposed to edit-warring and discuss it on the talk page, but this editor does not seem like the type of chap open to a discussion. And another article, some of properly referenced material was deleted because it was "just one man's opinion", which was especially egregious since the same editor let a bunch of self-justifying statements from former Wehrmacht and SS generals saying that they didn't commit war crimes in Russia because of their deep respect for the laws of war stand without citations(!). I have to get back to those articles, though I don't relish combat with other editors, which I find distracting and annoying. This is the sort of thing that discourages one, so please excuse my defensive style of justifying my edits. I wasn't certain if some of the articles I was submitting qualified or not. I've trim the material to make things easier and will be better in the future. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)-
@A.S. Brown: The editor you mention, their attitude sounds like they're claiming "ownership" of the article. It's understandable if an editor has put a lot of work into building an article and keeping it free of vandalism, but one really shouldn't let ego get into it. Discussions should be about the edits, not the editors. You could search the Wikipedia namespace for things like dispute resolution and third opinion, but if it was me I think I'd go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History where they have some of the best and most-organized editors on the wiki. Just be sure to state your case neutrally and in terms of the edits.
Taking a quick look at your articles for Canadian-ness: Oh, every one of them is quintessentially Canadian. Creighton and Raddison are the only ones I didn't know offhand, but the lead gives me enough to approve. Not that I'm any high authority on anything, I'm just another editor: Reidgreg (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Reidgret, thank you for your kind words and advice. It is a pleasure to deal with you. I understand the attitude of editors wanting to "own" a page. I can rather get protective on pages that I have worked hard on, but I understand that others may also want to contribute. I bring much of this on myself as I like to challenge popular misconceptions. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have read books that others have not, which brings a better perspective on issues. For an example, I keep coming across statements around here that the Treaty of Versailles was a punitive harsh peace treaty that drove the German people to Nazism. That's is so wrong on so many levels. In the 1928 Reichstag elections, when the Treaty of Versailles was still very much in effect, the Nazis won only 2% of the vote. The Nazis made their electoral breakthrough until the 1930 Reichstag election when they won 17% of the vote. It was the Great Depression, not the Treaty of Versailles that caused Germans vote for the Nazis. Furthermore, the blanket assertion that the "German people" all supported the Nazis because of Versailles really shows a profound ignorance of German history. It assumes that the German people were one entity, making no account for differences caused by class, region and religion. The obsessive wish for many Germans in that period for a volksgemeinschaft ("people's community") that would make them into one reflected the fractured nature of German society in that time. If the German people were one entity, then why did have so Germans spent so much time wishing that could all be united into the volksgemeinschaft?
The Nazis had a great deal of trouble winning support in Catholic areas and almost the Nazi votes came from the Protestant areas of Germany. Did German Protestants dislike Versailles more than Catholics? The answer to that question is no. Even in Protestant parts of Germany, there is a strong correlation between income level and Nazi support. The higher the income level, the more votes for the Nazis and lower the income level, less votes for the Nazis. The reason for this is great many middle class German Protestants believed the Marxists were about to lead the unemployed masses created by the Great Depression into a revolution, which caused to vote for the Nazis as the "party of order" who could crush Marxism in Germany once and for all. It was the well off, not the poor in Germany, who voted for the Nazis. I know one is supposed to assume good faith, but those repeated statements that I keep coming across that Versailles pauperized the German people, and it was these newly impoverished Germans who voted for the Nazis out of desperation are essentially an apologia for those who embraced Hitler by making those who chose to embrace evil into victims who are forced into it. In truth, Germans who actually lost their jobs in the Great Depression by and large did not vote for the Nazis. It is also significant that the same editors blame all this on the French, who are presented as the authors of Versailles, whereas Versailles was the work equally of the UK, the USA and France, which is usually followed by the caveat that the Americans were "against" the "harsh" terms of Versailles (that is a very convenient position for American editors to take) . It is always so easy to blame everything on the French. The facile theory that Versailles "caused" Nazi Germany is really simple to understand as it can be expressed in one sentence while what really happened cannot be. Sorry for the length, but one cannot explain the rise of Nazi support in one sentence. I patiently keep trying, with varying degrees of success, to set the record straight, but unfortunately too editors around here are too wedded to that theory of Versailles as the "Carthaginian peace", and I settling myself for disputes by going against it. I should drop the issue and let others write nonsense, but I won't.
I will take your advice. I'm jaundiced about the dispute resolution process as I was once involved, much against my will, in a dispute with a sock puppet of an administrator, who was extremely rude to me. At the time, I not know about checkuser, so I did not request a search. I shouldn't let one bad experience jaundice everything, and if other users prove to be consistently obscurantist, then I will have to appeal to higher authorities as you have advised. It is all bloody waste of time. And thanks for again for dispelling my doubts about my editions. I wouldn't sure about Brant, who had seen himself as a Mohawk, not a Canadian, and he came from what is now New York state, and likewise the article was on the North American fur trade. I understand that as the borders between Canada and the United States didn't exist during much of the time period, so really it is pointless to break up. You might just be one user, but you are really intelligent and kind gentleman, and I value your opinion. Thank you for your time. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@A.S. Brown: Different perspectives is good. It's the only way to avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Wikipedia has a mandate to be NPOV, and that means providing differing opinions in articles – so long as they come from reliable sources. Blanket statements like the ones you mention... well, I can see someone summarizing/generalizing in a broad article, but in an article on that specific subject more views (or more contributing factors) ought to be given. I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't get why people forget the fascist-vs-communist struggle, I think there's a historical bias by a certain people who considered each (in turn) to be the ultimate evil and thus equated them with each other. But for editing, I generally try to avoid unstable (ie: heavily edited) articles. I'll leave you with links to essays I found fairly early in my editing, you might find them useful or at least get a laugh out of these: WP:DGAF and WP:JACK. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of there is an article warning about the systemic bias, but it very true, though I would have added in gender as a factor (90% of editors are male and it does show) and the preference for simplistic explanations, which I already mentioned. At the risk of sounding immodest, I do try to give a variety of perspectives, though I often criticized for that by other editors who say that I just stick to the facts rather summarizing the views of historians. There are different interpretations of history, some of which are valid, and some which are not, and I regard as incorrect interpretations of history. To just to go back to the reason of Nazism, President Paul von Hindenburg did not have to appoint Hitler as chancellor. That was a purely gratuitous act of his part, and to say that somehow the Treaty of Versailles "forced" him to do that is dead wrong. He did have a choice about that, and in fact had already refused to appoint Hitler twice. He chose poorly. That is my own view, but it also the view of most historians so I really don't think I am POV-pushing with that. At risk of digressing a bit, I was once asked by one of my professors if history was an art or science. Science is objective (gravity is not a matter of opinion) and art is subjective (the question of what is greatest novel is a matter of personal opinion). History deals with objective facts which are subjectively interpreted. A historian's own values always determined how he or she interprets the past. For an American historian, the American Revolution is the glorious birth of his country while for a British, to say nothing of a Canadian historian it is a disaster. Or just look at the way French historians keep fighting with one another over whatever the revolution was a good thing or not.
The question of the evil of communism vs. fascism which takes up much space around here is a subjective one; at best, all one can do is summarize viewpoints of various savants and leave it at that. As someone of Russian descent whose family left Russia to get away from the Communists, I suppose I should be be on the right-wing side on this debate, but my viewpoint is nuanced. Motives matter when assessing a crime. What is worse, the drunk driver who killed five children or the sexual sadist who raped and tortured one? Stalin killed more than Hitler, but does that him worse or just equal? Mao killed more than both Stalin and Hitler, so is he the ultimate bastard? And if Mao is, then are the millions of Chinese who revere him as a national hero are all bastards as well? Millions of suffered and died under communism, but no communist regime sought to wipe out an entire people like the Nazis did. Even the Khmer Rouge did not envision exterminating the Khmer people. Which is not to deny there was terrible suffering under communism. In 1944, the Chechens were deemed by Stalin to be a "traitor nation" and were deported to Kazakhstan. By 1946, 75% of the Chechens were dead. But the point is, the Chechen nation were not wiped out because was not the aim. Stalin died in 1953, and if he wanted to kill the remaining 25%, he could have done so and he didn't. What happened to the Chechens is a terrible tragedy. Is as bad as the Holocaust? That't a subjective question that I cannot answer, though I do think that motives have be assessed as well as the suffering of the peoples involved. I try to keep this out of the articles, but it is not true to say as some editors are trying to say that the communists tried to wipe entire peoples in the same way the Nazis did, for which I have been called a "Stalinist" who writes "propaganda" for the Kremlin! I have never sought to deny the people's suffering under communism, not the least of which is that I know about my family's suffering in Russia. I just think that motives have to factored in, though this is ultimately a subjective question that cannot be definitively answered one way or the other. I agree with you based on my experiences there is a bias at work here. I do also tried to avoid heavily edited article as well. I just think it easier to write an article without having to fight all the time. Thanks for the links! Most informative and amusing. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

GOCE October 2017 Blitz bling

  The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Main page

Don't forget to add your entries on the main page list at the bottom, I added the first earlier, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Reidgret, thank you so much the barn star! Much appreciated!--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar! -- Kndimov (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Page Update

Hey Reidgreg,

I recently joined wikipedia so I could contribute to pages that I have a lot of information about. I made a lot of mistakes in the beginning but I now realize that wikipedia works best when you present facts and support them with strong sources. I have tried to do that recently with a wikipedia page about a Canadian topic. Unfortunately I was told off by some other members and have been lead to believe that my contributions will not be accepted even if properly sourced. I have been told that the concerns are with regards to the 'promotional' nature of my posts however the members offer no recommendations on how to word my information in a way that is not promotional. There was also a concern that I had a conflict of interest with the topic however an administrator has confirm this to not be true. With some research I noticed that you are helping with the Canada 10,000 challenge and I was wondering if you might help me improve the page. The page I am speaking of is a wonderful place and that has done some truly remarkable things that can all be confirmed with strong sources. If you visit my 'talk' page it will fill you in quite quickly on what has happened. Only the most recent edit that I made to the page is properly sourced however there is a lot more information I would like to have added. Any help or information you might provide would be incredible! THANKS! D4NN7N (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)D4NN7N

@D4NN7N: Hi! Let me first say that I'm just another editor. I'm fairly active with Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada but I'm far from an admin or anything. I went through some of the talk page messages but didn't spot any huge conflict. I also looked at your sandbox and that material looked interesting, though I didn't check the sources (reliable secondary sources are preferred, e.g.: a report in the news or a journal or a anatomy magazine rather than the school or professor). Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of an editing drive and don't have time to go into it further. You might want to browse through WP:ESSAYLIST, the essay directory, for some interesting advice from fellow editors. Also, Wikipedia:Teahouse is a great place to get basic advice, they specialize in these sorts of issues and they're extra-patient with new editors. I hope that helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Reidgreg! Thanks for your reply. Your advice is really helpful and I will be sure to check all that out. I believe the issue has been resolved. One of the other editors was being quite aggressive so I was just looking for any other people who may know a bit more on how I could deal with everything. Thanks for your time and happy editing! D4NN7N (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@D4NN7N: well, everyone's a volunteer here and some occasionally get stressed and snap a little (in this situation, commonly called "biting the newcomers"). Try not to take it personally, it happens to everyone. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Reidgreg, I was looking at the page history, and the appearance of a new user whose only edits were consistently promotional in tone. I cut little slack for that among newbies--promotional editing, is, for the most part, the province of new editors, since they tend to be blocked before they can amass much experience. The professed intent to add content about a wonderful place and that has done some truly remarkable things confirms my concern, and the difficulty that single-purpose COI editors have in adjusting. By all means let's see how this plays out, rather than characterizing my actions as that of a volunteer who's 'snapped a little.' Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: sorry if I implied anything there. Like I typed above, I "didn't spot any huge conflict". I was just trying to give a possible explanation about what might have happened, from what the new user described. I hoped to convey that, just as much as experienced editors should try to keep calm and not take things personally, new users should endeavour to be just as understanding. I do appreciate the work of editors who do patrols to ensure article quality does not degenerate, so you have my thanks for that. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Reidgreg. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

French language links

The problem is that the vast majority of users of the English Wikipedia don't speak or read French at all, so linking to the French article as a substitute for English content isn't helping them at all. And as well, it makes it impossible for us to detect how many red links on the English Wikipedia are waiting for an article about the person if they're all linking offsite instead. We do have a template, {{Interlanguage link}}, that can be used in cases like that — what it does is provide a link to the French article as a parenthetical supplement to an internal redlink that's still waiting for an English article (e.g. Patrick Bouchard). That way, people who can read French have the option of reading that article, but people who can't aren't forced to try. But we don't just pipe a French language title so that it's the only link that's being displayed at all, because the vast majority of our readers don't have the language skills needed to actually read it. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Awesome! That's exactly what I need to use. I'll go through the other bios (I've done 20+ for the WIR drive) offline and correct this. Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Cool. By the way, f you come across a more complex situation where disambiguation is necessary at one end or the other, the template is also coded with extra options to accommodate the fact that the disambiguators won't be the same in both languages — I don't know it off by heart, but it's present in the template documentation if you need it. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks fairly complex (it's a merge of 5 templates), but I saved a pdf of the documentation and will give it a read offline. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

A page you started (Hélène Desmarais) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hélène Desmarais, Reidgreg!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Bellavance) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bellavance, Reidgreg!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that surname pages are structured slightly different than other disambiguation pages. I added the {{surname}} template. For disambiguation pages including names as well as other uses, compound templates can be used, e.g. {{dab|surname|geo}} would be appropriate if there were places named Bellavance included on this list. Cheers.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Animalparty: thanks! I've applied this to another dab, Chaloult, and made a note to watch for this in the future. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Award

  The Bronze Maple Leaf Award
This maple leaf is awarded to Reidgreg for outstanding collaboration throughout the edit drive and improvement of articles during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator?

Would you be interested in being nominated (or nominating yourself) as a GOCE coordinator? All the best, Miniapolis 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I'd intended to nom myself. I'd like to take up some of the maintenance burden. However, I've been having connectivity issues and can't always respond in a timely manner. I still seem to manage to get things done, though, so maybe it'll be okay? (This month I got on the leaderboard while also writing nearly 50 articles for the WIR contest.) I'll post something to this effect when the nom page goes up tomorrow. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, and thanks for wanting to help. Don't worry about availability, since no one is expected to be around all the time. Since it's 1 December UTC (as a radio buff, I've been converting UTC to local time—EST here—for decades :-)), I think the nomination page is live now. Thanks again for your interest and all the best, Miniapolis 02:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
D'oh! I knew that, too, because I was hurrying to get a last article in for WIR before that closed at 0:00 UTC. Dummy me. Reidgreg (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Reidgreg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

An exceptional barnstar for you

  The World Contest Laurels
Congratulations for finishing in 16th place overall in the Women in Red World Contest!! -♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for the hard work! I make it $45 that you've won. Please double check. If you would like to donate any of your winnings into the Women in Red Book Fund to raise money to buy books for editors of women topics who need them on demand please add your name and the amount you'd like to donate in the sub section below the prize winners on the main contest page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not join Women in Red?

Thank you for creating articles on women and their works over the past few weeks as a participant in our World Contest. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
If you would like to receive news of future WiR events and participate in our discussions, you might now be interested in becoming a member of Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
  • Our priorities for December:

Seasonal celebrations First ladies Go local #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017 GOCE Drive awards

  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 November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 13 articles during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 4th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 31,201 total words during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 1 long article during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 4th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting 13 old articles during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Reidgreg for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 7,277 words – during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for the updated barnstar script! It works well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Glad to hear that, Jonesey95! Between some computer crashes and general busy-ness I almost forgot about that. I'll have to try to make a version of that in AppleScript or Java so that I can run it. I've got my dial-up working again so should be back to what I was used to.
BTW, I'd committed to participating in WIR's World Contest (which was supposed to run in October but it was pushed back) and so I ended up doing two editing drives last month. Quite satisfied that I managed to stay on the leaderboard while writing almost 50 women's biographies (it was a little easier to do the biographies offline). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Contest Prize

Please email me and state your user name, email address and how much I owe you in your preferred currency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to email me your email address!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan

Hello! Recently, I have nominated an article for copy editing and I have seen that you copy edit some articles. Do you have some interest in taking a look at the article? If possible, I would be so grateful. Harout (talk) 20:52 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Harut111: I've taken a pass at the article and will try to do more tomorrow (Thurs). Would appreciate if you could hold off any major changes until I finish. A lot of tenses and dmy dates and Manual of Style fixes so far. I'll try to be more comprehensive on my next passes. I understand the GA reviewer's concerns and I think I can handle the prose, but I can't help you with sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: Thank you. I am ready to help if you need any help with the Armenian language. - Harout (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Harut111: thank-you for addressing my inline notes so quickly! A few notes:
  • Simultaneously, she studied at Yerevan Komitas State Conservatory, after leaving unfinished her design studies. I found this a little confusing and I'm not sure it's lead-worthy. It might be more appropriate to give the detailed version of her education in the body of the article and just the very important parts in the lead. Perhaps this could be simplified as "During this time she received vocal training at Yerevan Komitas State Conservatory."
  • As you say, you are the expert here. I moved it to her Early Life.
  • Also, The Path of Our Dream is mentioned in the lead and in her filmography, but not in the body of the article. I realize it's very recent, but you should try to put something about it at the end of 2016–present. The lead should summarize the rest of the article; there really shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't also in the body.
  • I corrected it. Is it all right now? In August, Mukuchyan announced an upcoming movie with Mher Mkrchyan and Arka Manukyan, which was released on 19 December 2017 titled The Path of Our Dream.
  • On 19 March, Mkrtich and Iveta unveiled the music video for Du haneluk es (English: You Are a Riddle), the soundtrack of the film. Is Du haneluk es the title of a song or the title of a soundtrack album? Song titles are minor works and get double quotes while albums are major works and get italics. Although it's in a non-English language, it doesn't get italics as a foreign phrase because titles are considered proper nouns. Also: would it be accurate to call it the soundtrack album or more like the theme song of the film?
  • Du haneluk es is the title of the song. The movie doesn't have any soundtrack album. Therefore, it is better to call it the theme song of the film.
  • On 31 October, she and Nazeni Hovhannisyan announced the winners who were given the opportunity to go to Jennifer Lopez's concert in Dubai. Does this refer to winners of the "New Body Awards"? It follows from the text but I wouldn't expect the event to last several days.
  • I knew this had a lack of explanation. Evocabank, for promoting itself as a new bank, organized some kind of contest where 75 people were given the chance to go to Dubai. Long story in short, the winners were announced on Armenia TV (Live) and Mukuchyan was reading their names. Here [1]. Also, I think these two sentences should be merged. On 31 October, she and Nazeni Hovhannisyan announced the winners who were given the opportunity to go to Jennifer Lopez's concert in Dubai. The ceremony was organized by Evocabank.
  • Filmography – Some might think it excessive to list all of her appearances on talk shows. I believe the more prominent ones (eg: where she's a talent judge) deserve mention. I'll leave it to you.
  • Done. I only put the famous ones.
  • There is a box quote, sometimes called a pull quote: I fell in love with acting and playing different characters. My first experience was with the amazing Mkrtich Arzumanyan and now I was allowed to work with Mher Mkrtchyan and Arka Manukyan for a new movie project that will be in the theaters this year. It is a very different character than I played before. I'm sure you gonna be just as much surprised as I was.—Mukuchyan on her acting career.[49] Although the templates exist, this style is discouraged in articles by the Manual of Style (see MOS:BQ for details). To pass GAN, it should be integrated into the body as a block quote. I put it just after the announcement of her second film.
  • This new style looks better.
  • There were some links like IvaVerse and Hayastan Jan which were redirects back to the article. Please try to avoid these.
Otherwise it's a pretty substantial article and I can see why you're promoting it. I'm a little wary of the Facebook sources, but that's not exactly my area of expertise. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand. Doesn't an artist's official Facebook page considered a reliable source? - Harout (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Harut111: Thanks for responding to everything! I usually work on the backlog of neglected tagged articles, and it's really helpful to talk things over with someone familiar with the subject. I made a couple additional tweaks and I feel the prose is good. I'll mark the copy edit as complete but feel free to bring me any other concerns you may have.
For an artist's Facebook page, you just have to be careful because it's a primary source. It's like how the GA reviewer wanted you to say her "alleged" difficulties when she moved back to Armenia. As long as you have "according to her Facebook page" or "according to the artist" so the reader knows this is the artist talking about themselves. (For example, I don't see any problem with taking that block quote from her Facebook page.) You also have to watch that it's still encyclopedic, NPOV, and not promotional. The GA reviewers will prefer to see reliable secondary sources, which tend to be more neutral and objective, and also establish notability of the information. But you work with what you've got; it's better to include information from a primary source when you can't find it in secondary sources. (I'm running into a similar issue with an article for an awards show; almost all the information is from the award show's website.)
Oh, you might want to use the parameter |trans-title= for some of the references, which provides space for an English translation of the Armenian title. Reviewers also like to see the |publisher= parameter to check for conflict-of-interest (eg: whether the source is owned by the same parent company as her record label, that sort of thing).
I don't know if these are must-do for a GAN, but you can wait so long for review (I've been waiting 80 days!) that I figure it's good to try and do as much as you can first. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. You helped me a lot. - Harout (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

 
Holiday greetings and Best

Wishes for a very Happy New Year.
Cheers!!
Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
 

Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen.

Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year.

March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.)

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words).

May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words).

June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words).

2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated!

July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words).

August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words).

September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words).

October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words).

November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words).

2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating!

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Hello, Reidgreg – Merry Christmas to you! What do you think about this edit to Carl Jung? I don't often see the first sentence or two of the lead of an article separated from what follows it.  – Corinne (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: It does look a bit odd. Previous to the edit, the first paragraph might have been too long but the single sentence might actually be worse. I'm sure that there's other high-notability information that could go in the first paragraph. MOS:BLPLEAD recommends that the first paragraph include: (1) name(s) and title(s), (2) dates of birth and death, (3) location or nationality, (4) notable position(s), activities or roles, and (5) why the person is notable. It comes close to that but Jung is a highly-notable figure and I feel it could probably use more. For a long article to have a short first paragraph seems to hide the notability (ie: I would only expect that on short articles which are only notable for one thing). I'd hesitate to suggest specific changes, though, without reading the article which the lead is meant to represent.
Merry Christmas! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, also. Perhaps after the holidays one or both of us can take a closer look at it.  – Corinne (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 Guild of Copy Editors Blitz Award

  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 December 2017 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I've got all of the drive/blitz awards except for the very lowest and the second-highest. Tricky to hit the right wordcount, so I think a minimum of six months to complete my collection. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick Response

Hey, will try to contribute to the CE drive. Moved cross country to start a new job and am working on buying a house, so it's been a busy month especially with the holidays. Hope you are doing well and had happy holidays. HRouillier (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Reidgreg/Archive 1".