User talk:Reidgreg/Archive 2

These are the user's talk archives from 2018.

Welcome, new GOCE Coordinator!
Thank you for being willing to serve as a Coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors! Your contributions have already been valuable, and I look forward to more goodness.

You are welcome to place WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Userbox on your user page, if that is the sort of thing you are into.

Please remember that, as the main Coordinators page states, we are "responsible for maintaining the Guild's internal structure and processes. [We] do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers." We operate by (sometimes presumed) consensus and do our best to check in with one another before taking an action that another coordinator might reasonably revert. I think you'll fit right in.

Please take a look at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Task list, which I try to keep tidy. You are always welcome to jump in and do any of those tasks. Thanks again for being willing to serve. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for the welcome! The only coordinatorish thing on my plate are the newsletters.  The 2016 is ready in substance but needs some tweaking (choice of alternative text, tables, and balancing the whitespace – I had some trouble arranging the tables and charts, possibly an interaction with the style sheet).  I hope you're okay with my numbers.  The 2017 newsletter should fill-in quickly when the last requests from 2017 are completed.  I suggest waiting until then and sending a mass-mailing notification link for both of them at the same time.  (If I'm still around in a couple years, I'm sure I'll do a first-decade report with charts galore.)  – Reidgreg (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines: that we should send 2016 and 2017 at the same time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For help when needed.
thanks for the barnstar and the kind words! I'm a brash newcomer as a Guild Coordinator and it's nice to get recognition for helping someone only a few days after taking office. I don't mind taking a little time to help someone who's making an effort, and I'm sure any investment in aid and encouragement will payoff many times over through your contributions. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You may live to regret it. You are now my go to person for help with Wiki-problems of all sorts. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuous assessment article
Hi. I am about to make some drastic changes to this, so I thought it best to run them past someone more experienced that me. You may want to undo some or all of them and/or advise me on a different approach. Background: I am a retired college principal with a lot of experience of continuous assessment. Both at national development level in the UK and at delivery level. I could probably write a passable, if unreferenced article on it off the top of my head. (He wrote immodestly.) This article started as a harmless stub, then Jaminem made their one and only edit It is rambling, opinionated, unreferenced, often off topic tosh. The only way I can see of saving what should be a moderately important topic is to delete it entirely. Obviously with an explanation on the talk page. So I am going to; but if I am getting in a bit deep, feel free to drag me out. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, revert it. I ran it through Earwig (see here) and parts are in copyright violation.  You can put COPYVIO in the edit summary of your revert, after the auto-generated revert details.
 * WP:COPYVIO is a likely suspect when an editor makes a single large and unsourced contribution to an article. You might want to note the sources from the Earwig search, though, in case you want to use them to properly expand the article (citing them to avoid plagiarism and paraphrasing to avoid copyright violation).
 * Reverting such a large part of an article can be scary, but sometimes it's easier to start over from scratch. It's also perfectly within the Bold, Revert, Discuss practice of editing. Generally, it's better to revert, which gives the other editor a notification, than to sneakily remove the material with a regular edit.
 * As you are knowledgeable on the subject and it interests you, I hope you will give the article a little attention to expand and cite it, though maybe it should be moved to the draft space since it's not really article-ready. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The deletion discussion of the article noticed the copy&paste but surprisingly didn't deal with it or tag the article.  The discussion does link some sources, though, if you're interested in expanding it. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't want to do a 'I've got a GOCE badge, I'm going to gut your article'. I appreciate the reassurance that even this level of boldness may on occasion be appropriate. I have chopped it down to size, saving what I could - not a lot - and putting "citation needed" everywhere. Given the inactivity of this one shot, drive by editor I am not concerned about notification; but I take your general point.
 * Er, no. I retired to escape all of that; I edit for fun. Anyway, all of my sources are back at the college. But I will keep eye on it and offer advice if it seems appropriate.
 * I am working on a new article, but it is something which actually interests me. I'll get back to it once this drive is over. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppressing glossary term links

 * Copied from 's talk page

I'm converting a glossary to templates and was wondering if you knew a way to suppress the anchor links made by ? The glossary has 370 terms but about 50 of them are alternate names. I'd like those alternate names to have anchor links at the main term where the definition is, so the reader won't have to jump up and down in the glossary. Do you know if this is possible or if there's a workaround to achieve this? Would appreciate any advice. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC) ... Where  is a presently non-existent parameter for anchor ID suppression? I.e., such that the anchor for foo goes to the phu entry? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand this correctly, you want to have something like (if I may template the crap out of this, for cross-references and hatnotes):

Test block of existing code options: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, looks like the middle option works, using  instead of, for the foo entry. I could also hack the  template to have an option for suppressing the ID. However, I don't really see the point of this.  Why not just link directly to the phu entry? I don't know what  custom template you are or will be using (i.e., your equivalent of ).  Supposing it were , you could just do: .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC) PS: Not doing it the  way will also produce incorrect hover text; when you mouse over it, the tooltip will say "See entry at Glossary of quux terms &sect; foo" but will actually take you to the phu entry which may be confusing to readers even with  as a hatnote in the phu entry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Punto music
Hi Reidgreg, I reverted your edits, on Punto music. You basically halfed the article, when several editors have commented it a actual reflection of the Punto music. On the morrow.. scope_creep (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving this to Talk:Punto music for other interested parties. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 GOCE barnstars

 * thanks for the awards. However, I did not earn the last one.  I don't know if this has ever been earned on a drive because 10k articles tend to get leaderboard awards instead.  (See: the drive awards where it notes: An editor who copy edits an individual article of more than 10,000 words that does not make it to the leaderboard in the "my longest article" category will receive The 10k Copy Edit Barnstar.)  All five editors who did 10k articles received leaderboard awards.  After those five editors, the next-biggest article was 6.500 words, so nobody earned a 10k Award. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. I don't think rescinding them now is worth it, so enjoy your extra star! Tdslk (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No take backs! (laughs) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David Meade (author)
I replied to you there. LovelyGirl7  talk  04:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

CCAs page
Earlier conversation from User talk:Sifr4: "Thanks for updating the article Canadian Comedy Awards. I've been trying to put together sources to update and standardize the article, but I'm honestly a bit confused about the status of the Awards over the last couple years and whether canadiancomedy.ca or canadiancomedyawards.org is the official site.  It'd help me a great deal if you could direct me to any reliable secondary sources on the subject, such as industry publications. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)"

Hi Reidgreg, thanks for contacting me and for the offer of help. The CCAs went through a transition period in the past few years as control over the trademark reverted from a licensee back to the trademark holder. The official site is canadiancomedyawards.org. The old domain - canadiancomedy.ca - was left with the previous licensee who allowed the domain registration to expire. The company that then poached the domain (presumably also the domain host) decided to leave the content up on it. I am in the midst of trying to get them to remove that content since they are infringing on the trademark. I don't have any sources at all for this change. There are no industry publications for the comedy industry in Canada and I know of no publications that provide news on domain name changes or instances of trademarks reverted back from licensee to trademark holders.

I will add a conflict of interest declaration to my user talk page so everything is above-board and nobody thinks I'm being sneaky. Thanks for the advice. sifr4 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Laff-a-Lympics
Hi! I really appreciate your copyediting efforts on the Laff-a-Lympics article. However, I'm a bit confused where you got the titles "Alaska and Tahiti" and "The Old West and Holland" in this edit. I have not seen any sources which call the episodes that, and I've seen both of those episodes and neither of them take place in those (first) locations. Thanks, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for checking. I really should have made a note on the article talk page.  I don't think I actually changed those in my edits, though I did notice the differences and probably should have investigated further.  I know reference 10 for the DVD set lists the episodes as North Pole/ Tahiti and Arizona/ Holland, and had those titles in that table (though now that I look at it, those should all be in double quotes instead of italics – rookie mistake, now fixed).  I'm not sure if the slash is part of the title and slashes are generally to be avoided (MOS:SLASH) so I left them broken as two segments (e.g.: "North Pole" and "Tahiti").  I'd left the titles in the episode listing alone, though the entire section is unsourced.  Sorry, I'm not great at checking sources and mostly do cleanup. Please feel free to change those. – Reidgreg (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)  P.S.:  Oh, sorry, the comments I'd left were my way of sorting out the differences between the episode listing and the DVD listing, trying to keep it straight while I was going back and forth.  I didn't have a source for that, I was just listing what was elsewhere in the article.  I really should have taken it to the talk page.  Thanks for catching this! – Reidgreg (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I've gone ahead and removed the two alternate titles, as I can't find anywhere that lists them so I'm guessing they are likely fake. Cheers, Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  15:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Marine Le Pen
Please look at this and then the most recent edit summary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. I commented-out the copy edit tag while I was working on this last November and must have forgotten to remove it altogether when I finished (another editor subsequently removing the comments).   Sorry that I left you guys to deal with this. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I removed the Copy edit tag because IMO it's currently too unstable for a copyedit; I left GOCEreviewed on the talk page with an explanation. When it settles down (if it's re-tagged), someone else can do it; I know my limits :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. It looked unusual to me, but I was running out to an IRL thing and couldn't investigate further. Sorry for the curt post. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. You linked and everything.  I'd tried to check on it earlier but my darned Internet connection flaked out just after I'd noticed it. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Toronto Croatia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''WP:POINTy editing. Don't add them again without a clear guideline to do so.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above editor disruptively reverted a revert following a failure to discuss. This editor also seems to have a habit of throwing around links to policy in an attempt to intimidate other editors into backing down.  For more information, please see Talk:Toronto Croatia, the talk page of the article where the edit in question occurred. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A Question
Hi Reidgreg:

How on earth did you find these - Marlins Man and Pierre Coupey?? Are you following me around? :) Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was unavoidably offline for a few days, and while I was catching up on coordinator duties I checked for any abandoned copy edits from the drive, and was very pleased to see that you (and a couple others) had already tended to them. Thanks again! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I hope you realize that was a "smile" after my question - I'm not complaining. Power has been on and off all afternoon here. A real pain. When the seven day deletion notice expires for Marlins Man, do you know the procedure for actually deleting the article? I've never been faced with doing it. I assume you agree the article has no place on WP? Let me know when you get a chance. Thanks, and cheers. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally missed the smiley – juggling a few other things, per usual. Notability is about checking sources and I'm terrible at that. I vaguely remember nominating some obsolete templates for deletion, which I assume went through without controversy. Whatever the procedure, I'm sure a third party (ie: someone other than the nominator or the article creator) has to close the process and perform the actual deletion. BTW: nice that 4 of us each got 2 gold stars on the March drive! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi: Thanks for this. I'll poke around in the nether regions of WP to determine by whom/and how an article is deleted. It was indeed unusual to have four editors with two gold stars. The longest article award was interesting (smiley). I didn't remember seeing Children in the Military on the June->August 2017 lists. Were you aware it was tagged for c/e on March 12, 2018? The drive instructions are a little fuzzy. It says "focus on" and later it says: "You will receive a bonus score of 50% over the article's word count for articles that were tagged with "copy edit" in June, July and August 2017, and for articles listed on the Requests page." This implies to me that any article can be listed by drive participants, but if it's not in the target month range it won't get a 50% bonus. Am I reading this right? If so, perhaps the instructions can be fine tuned. Just a thought. It doesn't really matter since any article that is copy edited is a good thing, and that article needed a massive amount of work.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've got that right. (The editor who copy edited that article is doing a lot of military articles while working on WP:Milhist contests, so he's more interested in subject overlap than the 50% bonus.)  At some point in the not-too-distant future, we'll hopefully have the backlog so short that there won't be a need for "oldest months" and the instructions can be simplified.  We went over the instructions a few months ago and tried to keep it concise rather than addressing every outlier situation; I'll try to get a look at that when I have a better connection, a little flakey at the moment. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Concrete Revolutio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daruma ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Concrete_Revolutio check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Concrete_Revolutio?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; fixed! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My apologies, Simon! I'd set this aside and have been working on a time-sensitive article. I feel the main issue is that you don't want to use Wikipedia to self-publish or promote.  If you can send a nice media release to press outlets and get them to cover it, then you're golden. At that point we can summarize what those reliable secondary sources say.  It's probably okay to cite the CCA website for a full list of nominees, but not anything that's subjective or promotional.  I will try to get back to this in a week or so.  In the meantime, please feel free to ask me anything here or on the CCA article talk page, and link any web sources you've come across.  Thanks for bringing this back to my attention! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Danzig Street shooting
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Danzig Street shooting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Danzig Street shooting
The article Danzig Street shooting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Danzig Street shooting for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't jump the maintenance queue
Hi Reidgreg. I saw your edit summary, but don't know what it means. Could you explain? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry for the confusion. The  maintenance tag you added to the article was dated February 2017.  I'm guessing you were following the problem noted with the  tag that had the same date.  However, the Guild of Copy Editors has been steadily working at the articles with the copy edit tag and we've cleared everything older than September 2017.  So when you set one with month before that, it recreated the maintenance category for that month.  It's a very minor wrench in the works, but it throws some of our automated progress trackers askew.  A lot of editors and WikiProjects that deal with cleanup tags handle them in chronological order, so when one is placed before the others it looks like queue-jumping (or budding in line).  It's generally better to use the month the tag was placed, which also helps editors find it in the page history. I hope that explains it. I think I understand what you were doing and that you meant well. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had just discovered the article and noticed that the tag was removed without comment or related changes, so I restored it. Sorry to have caused problems in doing so. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have gone back to February 2017 in the page history to check, but I felt the article had other issues and copy editing would have been a wasted effort until broader issues were dealt with. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I looked over the older versions as well. It needs a rewrite from far better sources. I'd be surprised if the SPA accounts work on it further, and expect this is a COI situation for them. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Danzig Street shooting
The article Danzig Street shooting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Danzig Street shooting for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Danzig Street shooting at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reidgreg (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

>>>Edits to Bruce McArthur
This section was created in response to a post at User talk:Kelisi. That post is reproduced here:

"Thank-you very much for your recent edits to Bruce McArthur! I have comments on a few of your choices. BTW, I'd wanted to avoid being overly formal with the language and was trying to stick with plain English for the average reader. Also thanks for a lot of the useful linking you added! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)"
 * strangling &rarr; throttling. I feel that strangling might be an easier word for most readers.
 * because her data were academic Here I felt data is used as a mass noun and unquantifiable (like water), and that treating it as a singular works better.
 * told him that that was no place to be gay I'll think about a rephrase to avoid that that.
 * who &rarr; whom. There is a movement in plain English to do away with whom.  I don't particularly care for that, but it apparently confuses some readers.
 * I don't think there's any reason to replace html entities (eg: &amp;ndash;) with unicode characters.
 * excavating at 3 properties &rarr; three. Normally small numbers are expressed as words instead of numerals.  One of the exceptions to this is when numbers may be compared, in which case numbers should all be in the same format (words or numerals).  That paragraph has other numbers (30, 75, 100) which the 3 could be compared to.  So I feel it's better to have it as a numeral.
 * most prolific known serial killer. You removed a hyphen in most-prolific.  This is a compound modifier and MOS recommends hyphenating these for clarity.  I feel the hyphenated version is less demanding on the reader.  Serial killer might also be hyphenated but I think most readers are familiar with that term.  It may be more obvious with male sex worker which is ambiguous without the hyphen.  (Is it a male prostitute, or a "worker" who is of the "male sex"?)
 * amyl nitrate -Should this read "nitrite"?- One source says to possess amyl nitrates or "poppers," another took poppers, amyl nitrate, though I see the Wikipedia article says it belongs to a class called "alkyl nitrites" which I take to be an over-encompassing chemical group.
 * cafe &rarr; café I would rather not use accents on loanwords. I don't believe there is any confusion to what a cafe (unaccented) is.
 * f-- fa-ots &rarr; fucking fagots. The Bowdlerism is part of a published quote and I feel that it should be reproduced as published.

There were good reasons for these edits. To begin with, there is no dumbing down on WP. So simplifying the English is not something that we do here. "Plain English", we are told, means avoiding needlessly complex diction and suchlike. So I will always, for instance, edit some questionable wording such as "The river begins at its source in the Poconos" to read "The river rises in the Poconos." I will also avoid writing snotty-sounding things like "The town is situated approximately 10 km from the urban centre in its immediate proximity", because of course it will do to write "The town lies roughly 10 km from the nearby city." Anyway, thank you for making this into a proper article. Kelisi (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strangle and throttle do not mean the same thing. If you strangle somebody, he's dead. If you throttle him, he survives. That man in that section clearly survived to tell the story.
 * Interesting. My dictionary does not have that definition but seeing that strangling is a specific criminal offence it may not be the best choice of word.  How to you feel about choke?
 * Data is plural. One of them is called a datum. Information, though, is an uncountable noun.
 * There is nothing wrong with that that — or indeed with had had, or even do do (as in "They do do alterations, but only for a price."). I'd quibble over very very, though.
 * As for who → whom, if it confuses some readers, there's always Simple English Wikipedia. And once again, there is no dumbing down here. If you look at my userboxen, you'll see that I have declared myself a sworn foe of this movement that you mention. Whom is perfectly good English, and I don't know why it would confuse anybody.
 * What's wrong with Unicode characters? Besides, HTML entities show up as gobbledygook in the source code. I'd never even seen that one –  before, although I left that because the way I usually write that is just as gobbledygooky.
 * I found no instance of most used with a hyphen in MOS, and it certainly isn't needed in those instances where I deleted it. There is no ambiguity. Serial killer is never hyphenated.
 * As for the numbers, I thought that only the lower ones should be in words. I don't know that readers would do any in-depth comparison between them anyway.
 * The rule is that numbers below 10 (i.e.: integers 0 to 9) be expressed as words, numbers that can be expressed in one or two words be expressed with either words or numerals, and all others with numerals. But there are exceptions like dates, in tables and infoboxes, and cases where numbers might be compared.  You wouldn't want to see a one-sided basketball score as three to 81.
 * Nitrate/Nitrite: What you saw on WP is also what I saw, which is why I posed the question. The newshounds often get scientific things wrong, and I believe that this matter of one letter should be cleared up. No medical use is given for Amyl nitrate in that article, and the article also disambiguates somewhat with a reference to the similarly named Amyl nitrite. As it stands, it looks as though the man was abusing a diesel fuel additive, which likely isn't true, and it is therefore a question of accuracy.
 * I'd be okay if there was a good source to go with it, preferably from the same jurisdiction.
 * What's wrong with diacritics? We can do those here. They only get left out by publishers who cannot render them. Well, WP can. I even insist on smörgåsbord.
 * Does it not then follow that if they can't be rendered well we should also leave them out? Because there are Wikipedia readers using antiquated computers.  I sometimes use a text-based browser.  Wikipedia has a mandate for accessibility.
 * Bowdlerized the quote's source may be, but we know what he said. The source may be censored, but WP isn't, and there are worse things written in many articles.
 * I'll reply to this on the article talk page.
 * The article was a lot of work, but there were a lot of little mistakes in it and I'm grateful for the time you took cleaning it up. I'll try to keep it current.  I'm a little cautious about following the sources so I'm going to keep that chemical name and quote as reported (until a better source comes along).  I'll be reverting a teensy bit of your otherwise helpful edits (and rephrasing other bits to avoid issues). If you wish, we can continue discussion of specific changes on the article talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Bruce McArthur
Your wording falsely implies that nobody knew that Faizi and Kayhan had gone missing until the police identified the link in 2013. That's not accurate in the slightest — we Toronto queers already knew about all three men, and were already screaming to the police that there was a common link between them, long before the police announcement. The LGBT community in Toronto very definitely was already raising the alarm that there was a link between the three cases long before the police admitted it — trust me, I was there. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to diminish what you went through in any way, I'm just cautious about following sources. I reworded a little in an attempt to make it clear that police linked the missing persons cases rather than discovering the men were missing (which was unintended).  I'll review the source and the others it links to and get back to you.  Thanks very much, BTW, for a source from 2010. I only had a few pre-2016 sources and none of them (nor any of the summary sources which came afterwards) said the community had linked those three disappearances ahead of the police. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the 8 June 2013 Xtra story a couple times yesterday and once more this morning, but I didn't spot anything about civilians connecting the disappearances before the police announced it (on 6 June 2013, I believe). One quote from Livingstone reads "I'm not sure I understand the connection [...]" suggesting that he didn't see a link between two of the missing men he knew.
 * There was a search for Navaratnam. Another source says that Faizi's wife came down to the village several times searching for him. But those searches would seem to have taken place in different years, and I don't have any sources about them linking-up or being connected, pooling resources and information, etc.  The first I have of that is Toronto's Missing Rainbow Community in 2017.  There were some vague statements like "For years, members of the city's LGBT community had reported disappearances from the area, sparking whispers about a possible serial killer targeting the community." but nothing I could put a date to, and nothing to say the community recognized this before the Project Houston announcement.
 * Do you feel the current wording By June 2013 the task force had identified two other missing persons cases linked by geography and lifestyle, those of Abdulbasir "Basir" Faizi and Majeed "Hamid" Kayhan. is acceptable? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Danzig Street shooting
— Maile (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for adding this DYK to the 5000+ list for May 2018! It was my first DYK, and I hope it'll still be in the top-ten for May at the end of the month!  I'm a little curious about the number though.  I also got 10,824 using the link in the template above, but the rules say to use DYK Stats tool which gives me 10,622 (I believe it adds mobile views then subtracts "background" views the page might have gotten if not a DYK).  Does the link on the template (or the instructions) have to be updated? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. (I knew the hook was a winner!) The DYK Stats tool is mainly useful when the article gets a lot of traffic independent of the the DYK nomination. (For example, see this nomination for May 20, which was already trending before the DYK appeared). In your case, the 70 hits the day before had nothing to do with it, and you can probably add the 560 hits the day after to your total. However, in this and other cases, I would just stick with what the Pageviews link in the template reports for the day it appeared. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There were a couple big ones at the end of May which knocked it down to 13th highest for the month, or 7th among those that didn't have pictures. Not bad when there were close to 250 for the month, and it beat out 25 that had the added draw of a picture. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Guild of Copy Editors backlog status as of 2018-06-01.png
Thanks for uploading File:Guild of Copy Editors backlog status as of 2018-06-01.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

✅ – why doesn't it prompt for licensing on upload? Silly. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

GOCE election
I think wants a break as lead coordinator; if you're willing to be the lead coordinator (it's not hard), I'll be happy to continue as coordinator. Or whatever; I just want a place to play :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reidgreg: I would support your move to Lead if you are willing. I will be available to assist and answer any questions you may have, as will many other previous Leads and Coordinators. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that we're twisting your arm or anything ... :-) Seriously, though, if you'rather not then I'll do it; I've done it before. All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems a little weird that the role is avoided if it's not that much work, but assuming I'll have support from a big team of coordinators I think it'll be okay for me to take point. I'm grateful that the two of you have lead us so well the past few years but it's not fair to put everything on two people – for a tenth consecutive term!  I would hope that at least one other person would step-up to run for Lead, but we'll see.  I do want to serve the next term and contribute to more coord-work.  I think I've done all but 3 things on the task list (not counting the annual tasks).  Copy editing is not my raison d'être so at some point (with the diminishing backlog) I may shift my focus away from copy editing articles, but I'm still happy to do maintenance work. I think that I can take care of the drives and blitzes, though I'm a Mac user so I'd appreciate someone else running the Barnstar script. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd rather not be lead coordinator because what I enjoy the most is copyediting. Don't worry, we're not trying to snow you; being the lead isn't that time-consuming, but you tend to be the one who gets pinged :-). I've never been much of a fan of the blitzes, so we could probably lose those if you wanted. Think I'm finally coming to terms with the barnstar script; I'm not really computer-savvy so it's been harrowing, but the terror is beginning to fade. Back in the day we didn't have such a high level of participation (editors and number of articles), but 's script (like Jonesey's templates for drive/blitz pages and barnstars) have really cut down on project maintenance. FWIW, for better or worse I'll always be around :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  20:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged I thought I'd make a small comment. As a former lead, I can say that it wasn't all that different from being a regular coordinator, but you do need to be active on the project on a daily basis to make sure you are aware of everything going on. There were just a very small number of times where it required making judgement calls on issues like copy editors who did sub-optimal work, but nothing too bad. And I'm around too to answer questions, even though my participation is much less frequent these days. —Torchiest talkedits 20:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 GOCE drive bling
Thanks! But, er, you missed  I probably overcomplicated by drawing, but what can I say? I like to share. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Sorry about that. I know I looked for it, but I just didn't see it. Too many ties in the table this month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bruce McArthur
Hello! Your submission of Bruce McArthur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Brigitte Martel


Hello, Reidgreg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Brigitte Martel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Claudette Dion


Hello, Reidgreg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Claudette Dion".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hélène Mercier-Arnault


Hello, Reidgreg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hélène Mercier-Arnault".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lucie Poitras


Hello, Reidgreg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lucie Poitras".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  18:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the above articles were all deleted within 24 hours of notification so I have no idea if they were worth saving or not. These were all women's biographies that I'd started for the Women in Red World Contest in November 2017 but was unable to complete at that time, and other priorities took over.  I believe they all met notability requirements but there was some information that wasn't sufficiently sourced.  I've seen worse articles in the mainspace, but not from my account.  Anyways, I've far too much going on and haven't time to go through the red tape to appeal the "decision". – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bruce McArthur
Hello! Your submission of Bruce McArthur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, your nomination has been approved, but the dispute tag on 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides‎ is holding it up from being promoted. Is it possible to drop the discussion about hyphens in the article until after this appears on DYK on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'll leave that matter alone for a while (a week or so?) and will work on a minor content update from last week.  Apparently the police had surveillance inside McArthur's apartment for months before his arrest. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Wait till after it appears on the main page; not sure when it will be promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, will prep but hold the updates. I guess updating it would require you to check it again, and you've done enough work on this.  Does this count as three DYKs (in terms of reviewing and QPQ) since there are three bolded articles in the hook?  Hmmm.  I just noticed a new account has made its first edit to Murder of Tess Richey, with at least one unsourced claim.  I'm going to undo that edit (once only) and leave an explanatory note and talkback notification. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it counts as 3 DYK credits. The hook is currently in Prep 1, scheduled to appear on June 14. Keep that page watchlisted, as well as ERRORS, where administrators often question hook wording and verification. (If you see a discussion starting on the latter page, jump in!) Since the hook is now in prep, it makes sense that it's more visible and other users will start making changes. There may even be vandalism. It's okay if you delete unsourced claims and erroneous edits. Hopefully it won't come to more edit-warring... Yoninah (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

GOCE Hall of Fame
Hi Reidgreg:

Wow, that nomination came out of left field! Thank you! I think we can blame the stats on our lousy winters! I do enjoy (most) copy editing and hope to be able to continue for many years to come.

Thanks again!

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been holding onto this nom for six months, since I ran the numbers for the year-end reports, and have been biting my tongue (or fingers) to not mention it to anyone. IMHO you've more than earned it, and I also feel it's good to have representation from a non-coordinator in the HOF.  Seriously, you do so much it's ridiculous to not have you in the HOF.  Please keep on doing what you're doing, and hopefully enjoying it! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! I most certainly will, Reidgreg, starting tomorrow with the Rolling Stones article I've had my eye on for weeks! That's one I will most certainly enjoy. The music of my youth! Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Careful! A few months ago I did ce on Abba's Dancing Queen and had the song stuck in my head for weeks! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Death of Alloura Wells
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Murder of Tess Richey
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

3O Capture of the Esmeralda
Sorry, we do not talk about flags.  --Caminoderoma (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can not give us 3O please tell us. The dispute is if "British Volunteers" could be in belligerent, or not in the Infobox military conflict. Please read about the British intervention in Spanish America and Neutrality Act of 1819 about unrecognized states. here Thanks--Caminoderoma (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I put the nationality of these people in the body of the article, as you say, but Muttawallis move it from the body of the article to a note. Another conflic edition with 3RR  Sorry, what can I do now.--Caminoderoma (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * From the looks of the footnote, different sources have different things to say about the nationalities. I would suggest asking the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History.  Some of them have really big collections of military history books, and they may know a lot about these sources and other sources and be able to help you figure this out.  You shouldn't cherry-pick sources and only use the sources that follow what you want to put in the article.  NPOV means finding a balance between the various sources and giving balanced representation to diverging viewpoints.  But I am totally inexpert in the subject and have no idea how reliable various sources are. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not select the references. All the sources coincide in the same. I have done my homework. I read the references. This is the table with the true information of the references. Mutawalli has published false news in the article, this was the reason why he wants to moves the information to a footnote. He changed the references Semicolon and Coma, changing the results of the numbers. This has a name but I do not wants to say .  Now I can answer your question about exact numers of foreign fighters in this table. Thanks for your patience and advice.--Caminoderoma (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "These numbered 240 man, 92 from the O'Higgins; 99, of whom nearly half, 43 were chileans, from the Lautaro; and 49, of whom 15 were Chileans, from the Independencia. Of the 32 officers, petty officers, midshipmen and marine and regular army officers on the enterprise, all but five were British or North American". Cubitt.1974 page 302


 * "Se seleccionaron 240 hombres: 92 de la O'Higgins; 99 del Lautaro, la mitad de ellos chilenos; y 49 de la Independencia, 15 de ellos chilenos. De los 32 oficiales, sólo cinco eran chilenos." Urrutia,2008 page 148

I'd say to wait a week to see if this gets any traction at Milhist. If that doesn't provide useful input, then you could file a Requests for comment. If you do so, be sure that you succinctly state the issue. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red's Monthly achievement initiative
Hi there! As you were so active in the World Contest, you might be interested in August's Monthly achievement initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Copyediting
Sorry about that! I did notice that there was an editing conflict when I went to save my changes. I think you had made your edits while I was already working on the page. I typically check on the pages' talk and edit history before making large edits, but I don't recall seeing any evidence that you had already started working.

Good work on the drive by the way. You have done a lot more than I have.

Triangleman3 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it was only about 20 minutes before, and I suspect you were working on your copy edit before that. It's good to leave some sort of edit to let others know you're working on it.  (I don't like to inflate my edit count with little edits, but in cases like this it's usually a good idea.)
 * I don't mind so much, like you say I've done a lot this month so it's not really going to affect me. I didn't intend to do so much copy editing this month, but now I'm hoping we can get 2017 finished.
 * I rewrote the lead of Women's Action Alliance and put a bit of the unsourced information back with tags, but overall I think I liked your copy edit better than mine! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion
Thank you for your response and the effort you took for citing your opinion in Talk:Saudi_Arabia. However, the dispute was between two competing versions. so since we and Oxfordlaw reached a dead end, I am asking for your opinion, should we separate every kingdom into its own section, for Kindah, Lihyan, Dilmun, Thamud as in here, or lumped together under pre-Islamic era section with a narrative ? Which one is more preferable? Nabataeus (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I replied at the article talk page. As is often the case with third opinions, mine is also a third option. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

July drive bling

 * And thanks for giving out the rest of the barnstars! All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Copy edits
Hi Reidgreg, thank you for your note about Equestria. I like what you did, and I think we dodged a potential edit conflict since I was out of editing mode at the time. I am about to jump back in, so I will change the "under construction" message at the top to the "in use" one (I might be in editing mode for a few hours). Thank you for coordinating the blitz&mdash;it is my first time participating in one, and I'm excited to see how it goes! Romhilde (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank-you for participating! I try to keep an eye on eager new editors and offer advice.  Your copy edits looked really good, BTW.  The only thing I noted was in one place you added a comma on the right side of an inline reference, where punctuation almost always goes on the left side of inline citations or inline markup templates (exceptions: dashes and sometimes parenthesis).  I made some other little changes, many of which were more cleanup than copy editing. I think you're doing a great job, especially considering how new you are.  If this is something you enjoy I hope you'll come out for more GOCE blitzes and drives. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions, or you can ask on the blitz talk page which might get a quicker response. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. It's helpful to know that I am going in the right direction, since I know there is a lot I don't know yet! I will be sure to ask if I have any questions along the way. Romhilde (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
thanks! I do like to collect barnstars – I'm also looking forward to completing my set of Guild of Copy Editors barnstars next week. Reviewing is new for me, I've been a bit worried about it but DYK has been a good experience. Although the rules/instructions are absurdly long, everybody's been helpful and open-minded. I've just got to be careful not to overextend myself with the other chainsaws I'm juggling. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear! Since English is not my native language, I don't think I would bring enough value at GOCE, although I'd love to join that project one day. You might also want to consider looking into reviewing Good Article nominations. It's a great way to learn a new topic, meet some of Wikipedia's best content writers, and polish your reviewing skills. Cheers, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your third opinion on Akaike information criterion
Thank you much again for giving a detailed third opinion on Akaike information criterion. I was really glad to get the issue resolved. Additionally, you recommended that the lead note that AIC was formulated by Hirotugu Akaike: I made a relevant edit two weeks ago, and it has held so far, which I take to indicate general acceptance. Offering appreciative and good wishes, SolidPhase (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad that it all worked out! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hélène Pedneault has been accepted
 Hélène Pedneault, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Pedneault help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * hey, thanks! This was one of five "unfinished" articles I'd started for WIR's The World Contest.  I guess I wasn't confident that it was adequately sourced.  Four of those drafts were deleted in June.  I don't know how this one escaped that round of deletions and made it to AfC, but I'm glad you found your way to rescuing it.  It's nice to know it it made it to the mainspace! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing Electroless nickel plating and questions about copyright
Hi Reidgreg, after I finished editing Electroless nickel plating for our September drive, I realized that the sections Characteristics and Types may have been taken originally from a copyrighted website. I am concerned that I unknowingly edited a copyright violation, turning it into a close paraphrase.

Should these two sections have been tagged per WP:COPYVIO? If so, I'd rather revert my edits and tag the sections. What confuses me is whether this website copied Wikipedia or Wikipedia copied the website.

The list of advantages in the original article is nearly an exact copy and paste, and by this edit even more had been subsequently copied. It seems unlikely that a business would claim text from Wikipedia as their marketing material-but not impossible. I appreciate the guidance. Romhilde (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of websites which mirror or fork Wikipedia content, and many more which modify it. They're allowed to do so as long as they attribute it, but some rarely do and unfortunately Wikipedia can't go after them since Wikipedia is not the content creator – it's up to individual editors to protect their own work.  Given that most editors can't be bothered with that, there's a lot of plagiarism going the other way.  On the other hand, this article was created in 2006, which I've been told was a period of massive article creation without a whole lot of reviewing and many of those articles continue to have problems.  (The first article I attempted to copy edit this month, Freedom of religion in Russia, turned out to be a copy & paste from a U.S. government report, which had gone undetected since 2008.)
 * In this particular case, the material was in the article since 2006 while the website has a copyright of 2014. That's the most-recent copyright date and not necessarily the date they first had the material there.  I'm not sure how to check it any further though I'm sure there must be tools to do so.  (The original editor has been inactive for ten years so we can't ask them.)  If you feel it's worthwhile, you could report it at Copyright problems where a specialist can examine it.  However, that the website hasn't updated its copyright suggests they're not actively protecting the content, if it was theirs to begin with.  So I'm not too worried about it, also given that it's a list and there's only so many ways you can state some things.
 * I think you were on the right track to begin with, and just to be safe a little additional tweaking could be done so the phrasing and/or structure is different. If you're not already familiar with the Earwig copyvio tool, it's quite useful to check for close paraphrasing.  This link compares the old version of the article with the site you found. I feel a larger concern are these websites (1 and 2) which were used as sources for the article, so you know they came first.
 * A very nice copy edit, BTW, and I applaud you for doing this extra work. When you run into something like this you can always tag the article (or section) with  or another cleanup template, but it's always interesting to learn more about the Project by pursuing it further.
 * Also, thanks for asking me about this, and letting me feel useful. I hope this helps (though a little long-winded).  Let me know if you have any other questions about this or anything else, or if you'd like me to take a crack at rephasing some of that. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help, Reidgreg! The earwig copyvio tool looks incredible, so thank you for linking me to that. I appreciate the thorough response and positive feedback, too. If you could do some additional tweaking and rephrasing, I would love to review it and learn by example. I will be sure to keep you in mind when I run into other questions. Romhilde (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you're welcome! I'm not the best copy editor, but for this term I'm the go-to guy for questions.  Earwig is one of my favourites, and very much used by reviewers.  Tools lists some other tools, and there are also gadgets you can activate in your preferences (note: they use javascript and can encumber your browser if you have lots of webpages open; if you decide to use a bunch, you may want to assign sets of gadgets and scripts to different "skins" that you can switch depending on your editing activity).
 * I tweaked the phrasing a bit. Though as I looked over it, link "1" above doesn't seem to be in the sources.  Earwig may have found that on its own, and so "1" might have copied from Wikipedia.  Nonetheless, it wasn't bad to make those parts a little more concise.  Feel free to check the diff. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Date Masamune
Thanks for the copyedit in Date Masamune. If there's something that worries me though is that the lead is now one paragraph only which tends to go against guidelines. Maybe could the lead be divided into two paragraphs? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that part of the copy edit was done by (see my comments on his talk page).  The article is fairly short, 10,754 characters according to DYKcheck, and MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends that articles of less than 15,000 characters have a lead of one or two paragraphs.  There may be another guideline that contradicts this – I know there are some that recommend a maximum of 5 paragraphs while others say 4 – but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to change it.  Another article I checked had a 10 paragraph lead, so it could be worse!  If you want to change the lead to 2 or 3 paragraphs, I certainly won't revert you. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Development communication
Hi there, would you mind taking another look at your recent edit of Development communication? Something seems to have gone amiss. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a risk with overly large articles (WP:LENGTH and WP:SIZESPLIT). It won't let me undo it due to intervening bot edits, so I'm just going to copy & paste from the version before my edit, take out the  tag which had been my intention, and put in a  template from the diffs.  (Also put the External links into a bullet list.)  Okay, done.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Gaya
Hi - just wanted to say thank you so much for looking over the Gaya article and adding your copy edits. I've learnt a lot by looking at your improvements. In particular, I didn't know to make the distinction between hyphens and en dashes (so I've been back to make a few corrections for this in the other articles I worked on in the September GOCE Drive); and I wasn't able at the time to find the right conversion template, converting in the right direction, for some of the distances and heights. All very good to know, and I'm very glad to have been pointed in the right direction. Great also to see the final touches that make all the difference now in the layout and wording. I really appreciate the guidance and the learning curve - thanks again! FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * you're very much welcome! I feel you did a good job with your copy edits, I think I just did a few style changes, maybe a little for conciseness and some layout and template tweaks.  A lot of that is "extra work" so you get full marks for your copy edits.  I tried to check an article from each editor on the drive, but was lazy and didn't give any formal reviews or feedback.  (I was also slow on the talk pages this month, but saw Miniapolis replied to you.)  Please feel free to come to me if you want any advice, particularly with Manual of Style or template issues.  I tend to obsess a bit over the MOS, but even good articles are only expected to be compliant with the basic MOS.
 * As you seem rather enthusiastic, I'd like to point you to Tony1's exercises which are linked at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. They make up the best tutorial I've seen on Wikipedia, and if you take a couple weeks to go over them you should be in top form for the November drive.  Barnstars for the September drive should be distributed shortly.  Please keep up the good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the recommendation! I've been looking through Tony1's tutorial and a couple of other resources - it's all grist to the mill. Looking forward to this Blitz week, and glad you all decided to take the pressure off by adding in the country subdivision articles and taking out the still-intimidating Requests! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiveFaintFootprints (talk • contribs) 10:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I was glad to see you signed up for the blitz!  If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or at the blitz talk page. Happy copy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly will - thanks! - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a question already: I've just copyedited the article San Javier, Murcia. If you use Preview on the Edit page you get the double message "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox settlement with unknown parameter "pushpin_map1" (this message is shown only in preview)."  I'm not equipped to resolve this - any help appreciated! - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's more of a cleanup issue. It's a non-fatal template error, which basically means someone made a typo in the parameter name or used a parameter from a different template which this particular template doesn't support.  Sometimes there's already a bot going around fixing these, or a technical-minded editor will periodically make semi-automated edits to fix them. Don't worry about it too much... but for your curiosity (and mine) I'll explore a little further:
 * In this particular case, since this appears to be a translated article from another wiki, it appears to be a parameter used at es.wiki that isn't supported here. (There was a period when many such articles were machine-translated en masse and there was no human editor to check for errors.) It's a bit of a puzzler because the article is still displaying both pushpin maps (though not the one caption).  I tried searching the template namespace for "pushpin_map1" and I found syntax-checking templates like the one that reported the error in preview, which also seems to automatically pass the data to the correct part of the template.  So it doesn't actually appear to be a problem.  Weird.  I suppose you could try to search through examples to find a proper implementation if you really want the second caption to display.  But it seems like it could be an awful lot of work for little actual gain. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the enlightenment! I'll file that information away for future reference. And - phew - it looks like Jonesey95 has been through and fixed both messages, which does indeed save quite a lot of time all round! FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, the template is smarter (i.e.: more sophisticated) than I thought, it must automatically associate the regional map with those coordinates for the country map and doesn't need those parameters to produce the second pushpin map. Somebody worked on that.  Kudos to Jonesey95.  In the edit histories you'll find quite a few "WikiGnomes" who make little changes, tidying pages and keeping the code running smoothly.  So, again, no reason to panic, and no reason to feel you have to fix everything yourself – though it is interesting to see how things work. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Comedy Awards
I know we haven't spoken about this in a number of months, but if look at the bottom of my talk page, I have someone up my ass about references. They are annoying me about source. Have you by chance found any references for the 1st Canadian Comedy Awards? I've have been searching and still can't find any outside of the official website. We can use it, but I want more secondary sources. Ping me in this conversation so I can get notified of your response. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * good to hear from you! I spoke to Boleyn when I noticed the unref tag go up on 1st CCA.  I tend to agree with this editor but pointed out that I've got a sourced draft expansion at User:Reidgreg/1st Canadian Comedy Awards.  I followed your format, BTW, thanks for that!  Some could be moved to the mainspace now but I want to hold them so that I can promote them through WP:DYK (preferably with some multiple hooks).  DYK has a lot of rules and nominations only qualify within 7 days of a mainspace move or expansion, hence my desire to hold them until ready.  Other commitments have slowed my progress somewhat but I hope to get some of them into the mainspace by the end of the year and most of them before the next awards season.  I have a lot of work to do on the main article.  I have some thoughts on the articles along with a list of them at User talk:Reidgreg/Canadian Comedy Awards.  I expect you're probably busy with all the other articles Boleyn listed, though. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been doing other stuff as well. That's why I haven't been focusing on it.  Like I've said in the past, I'll do what I can when I can.  I am slowly taking care of those articles.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing help
I very much enjoyed working on the blitz this month. I'd like to tackle one of the longer articles on the requests page. However, the ones I am most interested in are articles whose recent contributors are trying to get their article to FA or GA status. I am not sufficiently confident in my skills to attempt these. I think the only way to learn, though, is to go in and edit and then have a more experienced copyeditor check the work thoroughly (and "nitpick"). Or, maybe there's another better way to learn? Do you have any suggestions on either how to go about learning or a recommendation of a more experienced copy editor to copy edit my copy edits? PopularOutcasttalk2me! 13:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another great way to learn is from the diffs in the article history. Find an article from the Requests page that was up for FA or GA, check the "view history" and load a version from before it was copy edited.  (You may have to go to the page history for the Requests page to find an article, or you can go to the requests archive page for a list).  Look at the pre-copy edit version and carefully go through it, noting the copy edits that you would make.  Then check the diffs and see what the experienced copy editor changed.  You can learn a lot from seeing how another editor handled the same situation.  I would particularly recommend copy edits by Miniapolis and Twofingered Typist, they do very good work and probably have the most experience. Thanks for your edits on the blitz, btw, I think you copy-edited the most articles! (I was one behind you, but Twofingered Typist and Miniapolis had double our word counts.) – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will take a look. I copy edited smaller word count articles so I got through quite a few. I will do some studying before the next blitz. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 17:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (humblebrag:) If you want to see a thorough copy-edit of a long GA/FA-level article, take a look at my copy edits of Magna Carta from a couple of years ago (my edits took a while, so a couple of other editors added some new text while I was editing). It was a LONG article and very satisfying to edit. I find that short, poorly written articles can be challenging to copy-edit, but the stakes are pretty low, so I just get in and get out, trying to improve the article. Longer articles that are GA or FA candidates can be more satisfying to edit, since they are often interesting and well written, but you have to pay closer attention to the article's existing style and spend some time reading the WP Manual of Style. Both types of copy edits are needed here at WP; use your skills and proclivities as you see fit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do! After the #ferryincident I tried to pick articles where the stakes were lower. Naw, just kidding; that wasn't the end of the world. My lack of confidence has to do with the way my brain works. I am definitely not the "know every grammar rule" type (which is a fine type). I am more auditory – this doesn't sound right or this could be clearer. I get concerned that when I make things sound better, I introduce grammar errors. I tend to notice style mismatches but don't always know which style is correct and so I spend a lot of time over at the MOS. My memory is shot so I get concerned that I missed something. But, I am trying to help. I just want to make sure that my editing style helps and doesn't hinder. Oh and by the by, I copy edited a few India place articles, and I was fascinated. I knew they were the second largest country by population but it really hit me reading through those articles. Popular<b style="color:#8A2BE2">Outcast</b>talk2me! 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rasgulla for you!
wow, thanks! Don't feel that you have to memorize everything from every MOS page, by the way. I do a lot of cleanup that isn't required. Even good articles only have to comply with the MOS for punctuation, grammar, layout and lead. If you can get most of the basics or main-page MOS, that's great. Just knowing the guidelines are there and where to find them helps, and you can refer to them depending on the needs of the article, like reviewing MOS:TV when copy editing a television article. Thanks for the rasgulla, and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Nemanja Todorović Štiplija
Dear Reidgreg, first of all thank you for copyediting that article. I think that it is part of his surname now, because in the media they often present him as Nemanja Todorović Štiplija, Nemanja Štiplija or Mr. Štiplija. So I think that you could say that Štiplija is a part of his name, but Todorović is definitely his surname. VuXman talk 08:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If he's referred by that by reliable sources, then we should probably refer to him by that in the article. I've made the change. You're welcome for the copy edit, by the way. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

GOCER
No problem. Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wordcount and subsection format
Hello again! I have a question about the word count for the article Sensual Phrase, which I've just started to tackle in the November Drive.

The word counting script initially didn't pick up the contents of Section 2, "Characters", because of the section layout. I pasted it into a Word document and got a count of 1554 words. The first thing I've done is reformat that section into subsections, replacing the initial semicolon before each character name with the triple dash, and removing the indenting. The word count script now picks up those 1554 words and includes them in the total count. I was just wondering if it's alright to use that updated total in my article list (8978 words as opposed to the initial 7424). No problem at all if not, but so much the better if so!

Another thing I'm not sure about is how to tackle the formatting of the long string of episodes in Section 4. Maybe they can stay in the current format, maybe a table would be better. Or can I nest them with four dashes as per MOS:SECTIONS? Grateful for any quick counsel!

By way of quick update, I had occasion to use the double pushpin map template fix from San Javier, Murcia (above) in a second October Blitz article on the same region - quite pleasing to have something to copy! You were right, it is very clever. Good to know about, too. – FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I spent most of yesterday offline working on a large article.
 * The prosecount tool is used by a number of WikiProjects and doesn't count the contents of lists or list-like templates. For drives and blitzes, you can count anything that you copy edit, so can adjust the wordcount upwards (if there are lists, etc., that need copyedit) or downwards (if there are sections inappropriate for copy edit) as necessary.  We're essentially on the honour system for that.  It looks like you did the right thing, and you can absolutely claim the higher count.  Just to be clear, though, a short list like the one for the light novels wouldn't be counted because there's really nothing to copy edit.  The characters section, though, absolutely, that should count.  Sometimes there will be text in a template like the plot summaries in an episode list (see below), and that can be counted as well.
 * Prosecount works in preview so sometimes what I'll do is remove the colons or asterisks, preview the article, and run prosecount to get the wordcount without saving.
 * The episode plot summaries in § Anime would ideally go in a table using and .  There's more information at those pages and .  But that's more of a cleanup job and don't feel you have to do it. If you do try it, check out how those templates are used in other anime articles as an example.
 * Hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions or if you run into problems with the templates. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wonderful - thank you so much for this information pointing me in the right direction. And for the tip about using the prosecount tool in Preview mode. Understood about not counting clean and short sections. I did do a bit of tidy-up in the Light novels list as it had stray commas before the ISBNs for three of the five listed, but I'd much rather claim the Characters section than that bit! And as you point out, that list isn't included in the counts I've run anyway, which still leaves me with the original calculation.
 * I'll read up on the Episode table/list templates - had already concluded that nesting 44 episodes would make for a very unwieldy Table of Contents but I wasn't sure where to next. If it looks like I can do it without causing chaos I'll have a go! So many ins and outs to navigate, but nice to explore the new ground. I'll take you up on your offer if/when I run into the next puzzle - thanks again! FiveFaintFootprints – (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can't find a guideline or instruction for something, sometimes the easiest thing is to look for a similar article and see how the situation was handled there. If you ever do have an unwieldy table of contents (TOC) there are tricks to address that as well.   will only list section headers up to level 4 (i.e.: four = signs).  Or you can use  to put the TOC on the right side of the page (particularly for a list where there isn't an infobox or image there) with prose appearing on the left. There are also ways to have the TOC list horizontally, usually for an alphabetized list like A • B • C • D etc. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good to know re: TOCs!
 * My only hesitation about looking at other articles is sometimes not quite knowing whether to take them as representing the correct, or best, way of doing things, so it's useful to be pointed to the right resources to consult alongside them. I'll happily search up some manga articles now I know that episode tables are canon! – FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true that there are a lot of bad examples in articles, which are often cited in edit disputes even if they go against guidelines (see Other stuff exists). To find good examples, go to the associated WikiProject and look for featured articles.  The page locations vary a bit but you can usually find it in a search of the Wikipedia namespace.  Here it is at WikiProject Anime and manga/Quality articles or you can find a link of various articles by class in the table at WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment.  Or you can go straight to Featured articles and look through those long lists. Featured articles usually have things right, though there's always room for improvement. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent - thanks very much! – FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 3rd Canadian Comedy Awards
Hello Reidgreg,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 3rd Canadian Comedy Awards for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 02:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! FYI, I'd blanked a redirect (to draftspace) after moving the article back to a draft. Another editor had thought the draft was good enough for mainspace and good-faith moved it, but I am holding it back for several reasons.  More discussion at User talk:Reidgreg/Canadian Comedy Awards. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

For doing what you do
thanks! That was unexpected! I've added it to my awards page with a better introduction. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Excellent. You have copy edited my words - I approve. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Reidgreg, I'm sorry about being late in getting back to you, but thank you so much for the Bronze Star! Much appreciated! Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, much thanks! I thought I'd have to write more GAs before "precious" found me.  It must be tough selecting recipients from the 10,000+ active editors.  This is the second big encouragement I've had this week – I earlier discovered that an article I'd expanded for DYK has accumulated a quarter-million pageviews! (|Bruce_McArthur link) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - I always like when Precious - the prize from the cabal of the outcasts - is understood as encouragement. Selection is not tough at all: the first on a day who helped (me) and doesn't have it yet, - no ranking ;) - I noticed your work on the Clap your hands review, but waited for the next thing to happen, like another DYK, and mysteriously arrived with the quarter million. These days, I normally look at those who were called "awesome" 10 years ago by one of my predecessors giving the award, but not yesterday, - she is unforgotten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The nature of the work at GOCE allows us to semi-automate the process of awarding barnstars. Awards for the 10k challenge took a bit more time and I only manage to do them once a year.  I do want to get to those other Psalm DAB pages, BTW, and hope to write and expand more articles in the new year. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled, mass-message sender
Both flags given, and thanks for all you do; until now, I think Jonesey and I were the only GOCE regulars with WP:MMS. All the best,  Mini  apolis  01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How to send a mass message: On Special:MassMessage, enter WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List, a header, and the message itself. Add four tildes to the end of the message and you're good to go. NB: Double- and triple-check that you have done each of these things. If you mess up something, and a message goes out to hundreds of people, you may need to file a bot request to get it fixed. I don't want to scare you, as it's really quite easy, but do take care with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the permissions, info and links! I do not take this lightly, as it is essentially the ability to spam the userbase. Seems like there are only 53 editors (now 54) with the MMS user right, not counting the 1,200 admins.  Will read over everything and get back to you if I have any questions – Reidgreg (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I made myself some notes and previewed a newsletter at Special:MassMessage which gave me the alert: "Warning: Your message does not include a timestamp or signature. This may prevent page archiving by bots."  Is this a typical alert to ignore?  (There's plenty of attribution in the newsletter, as well as opt-out, etc.) – Reidgreg (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have ever seen that message, and you should pay attention to it. Did you add four tildes? Like this: (as if you are signing a talk page post). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops. No, I did not. .  And I even wrote that down.  Twice.  Okay, no more alert. Well, sometimes it takes an idiot to idiot-proof instructions. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're doing fine; I made some awful (and embarrassing) mistakes when I was learning the ropes :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Review of brief article on Jim Longley
Hi Reidgreg. I used to be part of the Guild of Copy Editors, though really did very little. As you are one of the co-ordinators, I thought I'd ask you for some assistance. Some very negative words have been added to Jim Longley recently -- like "allegedly corrupt" and "abscond" -- and some claims I know to be untrue, but difficult to verify. Given that I know Jim, I do not want to edit too much of that article myself. As you'll see on the Talk page I have requested a discussion about how to improve the article.

Would you be able to comment on the Talk page and/or make any edits you think appropriate to bring the article more in line with guidelines on NPOV and biographies? – Matthew C. Clarke 23:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see from the very first sentence of the lead that there are definite Biographies of living persons policy issues. I will try to give it some attention and possibly a rewrite. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look at it. Matthew C. Clarke

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

High-voltage transformer fire barriers
Hello Reidgreg: I looked at the inline citation 56, which is a bing search on the topic of modularity for transformer fire barriers. Modularity itself is already described on Wikipedia. But as this concerns transformer fire barriers, currently, this is only available from purpose-made product manufacturers, 5 vendors, by my count. This means that in terms of links that are available to back up the fact that the concept exists and that people are devising products purposely to offer this feature, it is not possible to insert a link without having it viewed as blatant advertising. Any thoughts on how to deal with that other than to suggest to do an online search?--Achim Hering (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My first inclination is that if there are no reliable secondary sources on it (modular barriers) then it may not be a notable part of the subject. WP:RECENTISM suggests that we shouldn't give undue weight to something which is new to the subject (which may or may not be broadly accepted in time).  Do you have a source about the testing of modular barriers?
 * Modularity is a product feature. It is not something that, in and of itself, has testing. Testing would be to one of the copiously mentioned fire test standards. Theoretically, in order to claim "modularity", a manufacturer, or test sponsor, would demonstrate during sample construction, that the product can be taken apart and re-assembled. If it is bolted or "slid" together, then the fact is inherent, albeit that it is within the responsibility of the test engineer to say: "Prove it", and then document the matter. However, this is very subjective at best, since, right now, modularity is not mentioned in E119 or any of its cousin standards. Why? because 99.99% of all rated walls go into buildings with the intention of a final installation. Modularity is not generally a big deal compared to block walls or drywall assemblies, or cast concrete walls in buildings, which is the overwhelming majority of the business. Therefore, it is also not a reporting requirement. On the basis of §5, in E119, which says to have the test sample match reality, one might make a case concerning that. In order to wind up in a report, the test sponsor pretty much has to request this. At that point it becomes "optional information". From my look at the vendors, 5 of them claim to have it. And you can see what they base it on, visually. However, having back-up to say that it actually works and comes back together cleanly, is another matter. The topic is a lot like repair procedures for through-penetration firestops. It is pretty much ad hoc. The biggest part of the topic is this: I have yet to find a fire barrier that actually fits all recommendations of NFPA 850, and has a certification listing. From what I have seen, all have used just testing, as opposed to certification for the whole wall, as opposed to certification only for certain components of it. I am no fan of "just testing". The degree of care taken by the laboratories when it is only fee-for-service testing differs largely from when the intention, from the beginning, is product certification. Since the laboratory's follow up service (FUS) is not being used or paid for, there is no funding or incentive to make sure that the item being tested is identical to the item being sold afterwards. This means that compliance with job requirements later on, in practical use, is based on assumption of good ethics on the part of the vendor. That has not always worked out so well, historically. But is modularity important? You could argue that for sure. Any of the "home-made" barriers, with cast concrete or concrete block, have zero modularity. Swap out affected panels of a purpose-made barrier after a real fire, and you're back up and running faster. Remove panels or modules to enable replacement of the ruptured transformer, and pop them back in place when done. This all translates to grid integrity, and the ability to bounce back from adversity, for items considered to be critical national infrastructure. So, yes, it is important and benefits the ratepayer.--Achim Hering (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a little look around and found this magazine article about power plant fires but it is mostly about cable fires. (Incidentally, all I found on electrical fires here was .)  Some other possible sources I came across:
 * Bullet-resistant Precast Concrete Fencing for Substations
 * Oil-Filled Transformer Explosions this article seems to be written by members of a company
 * Research and Applications in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation at Google books
 * Preventing transformer explosions interesting bit from Norwegian research group
 * Thanks. I'll have a look at them.--Achim Hering (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a very narrow subject and I don't envy you trying to find sources. It might not be bad to use some of these for brief mention of alternatives (or enhancements) to fire barriers:  spatial separation, water sprinklers/deluge, alternatives to mineral-based transformer oil, alternative transformer wall construction, electronic measures to detect and prevent surges leading to fires, and solid state transformers.  (But this can wait for a full treatment of the subject, the main thing is to source what's already there.) – Reidgreg (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Achim Hering (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the suggested section. Please have a look. As to alternative materials to make transformer caseings out of, apart from welded plate steel, it is something I have been thinking about for some time, but I could not find any public domain record of such details. I imagine engineers at ABB, Siemens and GE/Alstom have been all over that for some time. One such former staffer also told me that he had come up with an ester many years ago. He ran testing, using garbage can sized transformers, side by side. One had his ester and one had normal mineral oil fluid. The ester was fine and the mineral oil filled transformer made quite a spectacle of itself. The effort eventually failed though, on account of cost. The story was, that no utility was prepared to part with one more dime for the better fluid. Go figure! Having checked the pricing of such fluids once, I could not believe how expensive even the highly combustible variety was. Go ahead and buy a bucket! These fluids are shipped to site in tanker trucks. Big bucks! As far as solid-state transformers, our Wikipedia page indicates that they are used for AC to AC or DC to DC. In my experience, the big wall installations are for AC to DC or DC to AC, along HVDC lines, so the power plant makes AC, and then it is converted to DC before going into long overland transmission, which runs in DC to minimise power loss. Mind you, looking at this thing, that is also quite a humzinger. But in that, I look at the main transformer, the turret and the bushing, and I am thinking that it looks like a normal oil-filled unit, with a conservator tank on top. So I did not feel comfortable including anything about these transformers for this article. This article indicates a shorter life span for solid state. Utilities in North America let these things run till they pop according to statistics. So what happens when these things go? If they pop faster, will they really be used a lot? Judging by recent HVDC projects I have seen, it's all mineral oil fill. Anyway. it's a start I suppose.--Achim Hering (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a good addition, though with only a sentence or two for each item, It might be better organized as a list rather than subsections. The one external link (for FM Data Sheet 5-4) should be converted to a reference or moved to the External links section. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Psalm redirects
The Lord is my shepherd, - I think the redirect and possibly the DAB should be in sentence case. Thanks for making them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I didn't find too many of them with articles that needed disambiguation, though.  For the capitalization, I wasn't too sure about that myself.  The guideline (MOS:TITLECAPS) states In titles of English-language works, every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized.  MOS:MUSICCAPS says something similar, and adds Exceptions are not made to mimic logo/cover stylization, even if such mimicry is common in the music press.  So that would have it as "The Lord is My Shepherd".  I decided to go with that for The Lord is My Shepherd (disambiguation), anticipating that it would mainly be a list of works.  That guideline suggests the Rutter work might be moved to this capitalization, but I didn't feel strongly about it.
 * If you know of a few articles like this, and you think it might be worthwhile to move them, we could list them at Requested moves for broader opinion before (possibly) going to the work of moving them. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In English titles, yes, but psalms are like songs, often known by their incipit instead of a title: sentence case. (Their title is "Psalm xyz".) If Psalm 23 is composed as an extended choral setting, title and title case are fine, but just with a melody or four-part setting, it would be sentence case even for the musical piece. My understanding. - So: no moving of the two works, because they seem to be extended settings, but the redirect should not be title case, especially as our search function distinguishes, and people simply typing will not use exactly the same formatting, and even argue about the titles of published works, - just see A Boy was Born. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Capitalization of titles is covered by style, and Wikipedia uses its own style guide. Sounds like it's fine as-is.  All of the different capitalizations redirect to the psalm article, and the dab page can retain title capitalization as a list of works, similar to Men in Black (disambiguation), where the primary has sentence case. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December Blitz
Hello Editor,

I wanted to update you regarding the yet-to-commence December Blitz. Out of the 13 articles tagged with "copyedit" in May 2018, I have dealt with 6 of them: Hwangbo, Wu Sangui, Luca Pignatelli, Zdravko Mlinar, International mobile remittance, 2018 cricket pitch fixing and betting scandal.

I will be completing Hitori Kumagai and Belen Rodriguez, leaving us with 5 articles for May 2018. Maybe we can proceed to June 2018 articles in the upcoming blitz.

Thank you, Csgir (talk)


 * Sorry for not replying to you sooner, I wanted to review your copy edits (above) but haven't had time yet.
 * As I'm sure you've realized working on those articles, the last ones remaining in the oldest month are often problematic and difficult to copy edit, and that's the reason we usually have the oldest month of backlog (and requests) on blitzes, to put a focused effort on clearing those last tough articles. Especially in December, we want to try and shorten those backlogs to put us on a good footing for the new year.  I'll bring this up on the coordinator talk page and see what the others think; there are a lot of new copy editors signed up for the blitz so maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to open it up a bit.
 * If you're worried about the quality of the copy edits required for requests, you can try one that's up for DYK or a general copy edit, and/or ask for a review of your work. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We had a quick chat about it and agreed with you: June has now been added to the December blitz! Thanks for bringing this to my attention! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please help me with my draft?
Hi Reidgreg, there is a draft in AfC that I have worked on over the last few days - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kalynn_Campbell. This draft was already present on Wikipedia, but lacked proper referencing and formatting. I have worked on both aspects and also checked on the references, wherein I discovered that each of them is from an independent source - they have been written by someone for the person in question. There were some blogs and personal website mentioned in the original draft, all of which I have removed bearing in mind the guidelines. I would be grateful if you could take a look and revert with feedback as to what more can be done to ensure its approval by the review committee. Thanks in advance, Vinvibes (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Stash
Hi! Thank you for sharing your feedback on my COI edit requests over at Stash. I've replied to your comments and revised and would love your thoughts if you have a moment. Thank you again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've committed to a lot of tasks and won't have time to even look at anything else until the new year. I'd suggest leaving on that section of the talk page, and another uninvolved editor who does have time should respond in about a week. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Awards
They all look pretty damn good to me. To be honest, I don't really "curate" the Genie Awards articles all that actively — apart from getting them upgraded to ensure that they were all complete (some of the ones for the 1990s in particular spent years listing only the "big six" categories while ignoring everything else, until I was able to locate the right sources to upgrade them) and properly formatted, I haven't put that much energy into actually adding very much content to them beyond that. I know it may seem like it, because I'm close to the only person who has bothered to do much of anything to them at all this decade, but I don't own the articles or anything — once I was sure they had all the nominees listed, I concentrated more of my energy on getting redlinked films in place at least as stubs (even if it isn't always possible to write much more than a stub) than I did on expanding the ceremony articles very much further. So any work you want to do in helping to improve the Genie/CSA articles further is most welcome. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I went full circle on that – looking at the Genies for how to format awards articles, then working on the CCAs, then coming back to that Genie article to expand it for a multiple-hook DYK. I've been working on the CCAs off-and-on for a year or so (the sources are pretty spare some years, not a lot of media coverage for comedy) so I expect that'll keep me busy for a while still (I've created a few missing articles as well) and I'm pretty sure that by the time I'm done with that I'll want to shift focus to something else. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)