User:Puddleglum2.0/Archives

More MOS to read
Some feedback. Please take it in a constructive spirit.

Please take a look at this section of MOS about punctuation. In your edits to Hurts 2B Human, you moved some commas inside of quotation marks when they should have stayed outside.

Also see MOS:PMC on reproducing quotations. It was not appropriate to lower-case the word "God" within a quotation.

And one more: MOS:DATECOMMA. There is a lot of MOS to read. Overall, your edits to the article were a significant improvement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Puddleglum  2.0  01:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hurts 2 Be Human
Hello:

I too had a quick look at your edits on Hurts 2B Human. Have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurts_2B_Human&diff=931430254&oldid=931428988 and you can compare your version with the changes I made. Dates like December 18, 2019, always need a comma after them. Numbers 1 through nine are generally spelled out. The rest of my changes are tweaks to the wording which I think just help it read better. Your edits were a great improvement and the article is now in good shape.

In order to show you my edits in one place, I edited the whole article at once and got caught in an edit conflict. To save losing my work I had to go back and reinstate the changes Jonesey95 made. (That's why it's always a good idea to edit and save one section at a time.)

Do let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You can always add this tag to the article's talk page if you wish (edit mode will show you the syntax).


 * , I am curious why you undid some of the improvements I had made, such as straightening quote marks, moving punctuation outside of quote marks that surround song titles, and changing double quote marks to single quote marks in title parameters of citations. It looks like you may have opened an edit window before I made some of my improvements. Did you receive an edit conflict notice or preview your changes to ensure that only your expected changes were being made? (Edited to add: It looks like this was an edit conflict that you were unable to fully resolve. I have restored my edits, as far as I can tell. Edit conflicts can be a real pain. The best way to avoid them is to edit in shorter sessions.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see above. You're right was caught in an edit conflict with you. I had copy edited virtually the whole article to make it easy for Puddleglum2.0 to see my changes. I saved them and went back and redid the work you had done. I thought I caught all your changes. You're right, shorter is best, my apologies! Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC),

Signpost WPR suggestion
Passing along a suggestion left on my talk page czar  08:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Puddleglum  2.0   15:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC),

Belated holiday greetings


Belated holiday greetings. Merry Christmas and happy new year. Thank you for your contribution to the upcoming issue of The Signpost.

↠Pine  ( ✉ )  06:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well thank you, I appreciate this! :) Puddleglum  2.0   06:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC),

Are you sure?
Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed in my colleagues. Personal circumstances can (and do) change, and I seem to remember a lead coordinator or two going bye-bye in mid-term. A few coordinators certainly have, not always by choice; I was very sorry to lose suddenly during her term since we're of a similar vintage, so to speak. Let me know if you change your mind. See you later and all the best,  Mini  apolis  16:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I think I will withdraw if I only have the two votes at the end of the election time, because at least in my mind I don't want to be a coordinator if no one else wants me as a coordinator. I will definitely stay around at the guild though. I don't know, those are my thoughts right now at least, I would love to talk a about it for sure. I appreciate yours and 's support, thank you both. Puddleglum  2.0   20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no one opposed you and 's comment is a good one. I feel the way I do from my experience with volunteers; with few exceptions, turning your back on good-faith offers of help tends to turn around and bite you in the end . All the best,  Mini  apolis  21:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Just to follow up on my comment this morning, it is quite likely that the reason you got fewer votes was nothing personal, it's just that you are relatively new to the Guild and Wikipedia in general. We often have editors who join the Guild and participate for a drive or two before moving on to different projects (which is fine; we're all volunteers here), so people may want to see more evidence of your commitment. The good news is that we have elections every six months (it's like we're San Marino or something), and if you continue to be a regular, positive participant in our activities through June I for one would enthusiastically vote for you. Tdslk (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition has begun and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you! Much appreciated! Puddleglum  2.0   06:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2019#December_2019|NCurse]]
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Arbitration Committee|Xeno]]

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221

'''Guideline and policy nelocks|request for comment]] asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
 * A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
 * Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration
 * The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
 * Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Have a barnstar!

 * Thanks ! If you have anymore questions/requests, please don't hesitate to ask! Puddleglum  2.0   14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Binod Chaudhary
Hello:

When you have a moment please have a look at the edits I made to the article on Binod Chaudhary after you had finished. In my opinion, all of the issues I found could have been fixed if you had slowed down and taken more time with your copy edit. Ten minutes isn't going to allow you to catch everything. As far as they go your edits did improve the article but not to the standards someone requesting a c/e from the GOCE expects. We all make mistakes. However, if you slow down, focus, and perhaps read a paragraph out loud after you've edited it, you'll find your edits improve greatly.

Thanks for your continued help at the GOCE.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Abel Briones Ruiz
Hello:

You added a "Working" tag to the article Abel Briones Ruiz on the GOCE Requests page on January 14 but have made no edits yet. Do you still intend to copy edit the article? If not could you remove your tag so that another editor can work on it?

Thanks so much.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)