User talk:Logophile59

A page you started (Jean Vance) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Jean Vance.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 23:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of this as an issue but as you say, secondary sources (especially for work done so long ago and unappreciated in its time) are hard to find. I'll keep looking.

My intention in including the primary references was to flesh out the story told in the few secondary sources I could find, i.e. to add (hopefully) uncontroversial detail. I was under the impression that this is acceptable, though perhaps not to the degree I've done here. Logophile59 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Citing sources is more art than science. I think that as a stepping stone to a better article (if/when someone can find secondary coverage) it's fine. If you want to go the extra mile but can't find secondary coverage, see if you can reduce the amount of primary sources cited (without necessarily adding other sources) so that the references section is easier to use for casual readers. I see in a few cases you've stacked as many as four citations on one claim––you can probably cut some of that down. signed,Rosguill talk 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. As a scientist I always think that the more references the better, but now you mention it, I can see that the reference list could be pruned to make it easier to find the key ones. I'll work on that. Thanks for the advice and forbearance. Logophile59 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a new secondary source (yay!) and deleted some primary ones. Logophile59 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! signed,Rosguill talk 23:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit notes
Thanks for your copy edit of powered exoskeleton. Here are some notes from the Manual of Style (shortcut MOS:). The MOS is a long series of documents covering just about every style issue you can think of. It's mainly a reference work, nobody knows it all, but copy editors are expected to be more familiar with it than most editors. I addressed these issues and rephrased a bit for clarity, conciseness and tone. You can see my changes in this diff. Try to watch for the above in your next copy edits. If you haven't already, you might want to have a look at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. Feel free to leave me a message here if you have any questions. Thanks again, and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Watch for punctuation at citations. The punctuation should always go before the citation, with no spaces, otherwise a line wrap could separate the citation from the text that it is supporting.
 * There was a bit of overcapitalization; Lifesuit is a proper noun but doesn't have to be styled in all caps (unless, perhaps, if it's an acronym, but that'd be pretty contrived). There were a couple other nouns that seemed to be generic.
 * I expanded some acronyms (MOS:ACRO). Not everyone around the world is going to immediately think of the US Food and Drug Administration when the article has FDA; similarly with CDC. Also, the ES in LOPES stands for "exoskeleton" so LOPES exoskeleton is redundant.
 * 1960's &rarr; 1960s (MOS:DECADE)
 * USA &rarr; US (MOS:NOTUSA)
 * When you added quotes to “violent and uncontrollable motion by the machine” the quotes are "curly". Wikipedia just uses straight quotes (MOS:CURLY) and tries to avoid high-bit characters.  It may be that you copied them from the source, or your browser or OS preferences may be set to use "curly quotes" or "smart quotes".
 * @Reidgreg, thanks very much for all the pointers. I knew about the citations going after the punctuation, and will try to be more vigilant in future. The other information is new to me and very helpful, thanks! Logophile59 (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Oh, I should have noted that articles aren't expected to be fully compliant with the MOS until they're at the featured article quality.  When articles are under development, with material still being added to them, it's not expected or efficient to have perfect prose and all the MOS minutia taken care of.  Good articles are supposed to be MOS-compliant for lead, layout, lists, punctuation, grammar and spelling.  Powered exoskeleton is currently C-class, so you could maybe be aiming for a B-class copyedit, in which I'd like to see the punctuation and acronyms to be sorted out, as well as the points for consistency, but the decades and curly quotes are really being nit picky on my part.  Still, it's good to train your eye to spot those issues if you want to work toward copy editing articles from the Requests page. Thanks again, and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Reidgreg, thanks again! One small thing, I looked back at the original refs for the Lifesuit, and they do indeed give it in all caps -- whether that's because it's some kind of acronym or they just think it makes it sound more important, I don't know. But I think it's better left the way you had it. (And you're right, the curly quotes were a cut and paste issue). Logophile59 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 GOCE drive bling
Great work! The drive had the highest editor participation since May 2015, and brought the copy editing backlog to a record low of 585 articles! Much thanks for taking part! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In use tag
Hi Logophile59, regarding the use of the "In use" tag at Interpersonal communication: you're doing it exactly the right way, now. Thanks! Edit summaries looking good. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice and feedback. Logophile59 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE drive bling
Tremendous work to place in every leaderboard category and earn three gold awards! Congrats, and thanks for all your work on the drive! I hope to see you back for our next drive in November as you've got a nice rollover bonus. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for the organizing. I hope to be back in November, though it's shaping up to be a busy month. Logophile59 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I assume 519 articles is a new record low? Seems worth celebrating if so! Logophile59 (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned it as I did in July, hmmm? Well, we've bolded it on in our monthly progress box and will mention it in our next newsletter.  The trend is very nice:  this makes three drives in a row which have brought a new record low. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite the Sisyphean chart. Loud applause (belated) for the people who cracked 1K for the first time in November 2018. Impressive. Logophile59 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a never-ending job, typically with 300+ articles tagged each month. Yet it is staggering how much can be done when you put twenty or thirty editors to the task.  May and November have traditionally been our most-productive months, so I have great hopes for the next drive. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020 GOCE drive bling
Thanks for helping to bring the copy-editing backlog to a record low! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 GOCE drive bling
Thanks for helping to reduce the copy-editing backlog by 75% in one month! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Rainbow article help needed
Hi there, are you still doing copy edits? I'm having a problem at the Rainbow article. I will elaborate when I hear back from you. Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)