User talk:Reidgreg/Archive 4

DYK for Made in Canada
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help throughout the process of improving the above articles for this DYK. Please enjoy the wikicookies and have a great day! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yum! Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been to the Byward Market. Great place.  I should be thanking you for your help on the 1st Canadian Comedy Awards.  Thanks though.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the great cookie, bur almost too pretty to eat it, - later. You have a wonderful way to celebrate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now if I could just find my maple-infused beer! Happy Canada Day! Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cookies! Glad it came together! --valereee (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Add it to WP:DYKSTATS!!! The 2 I reviewed made it, each individually, - I think it may qualify for the all-time-records if you add all five. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The food articles were even higher; it far exceeded my expectations. It looks like it'll be somewhere around No. 20 on the all-time lead hook list.  Stats |Canadian_Comedy_Awards|Made_in_Canada|Peameal_bacon|Poutine here (Poutine normally gets 2k views a day so I have to average the views from the days before and after and subtract that from the total, to be fair.)  Poutine gets 3/4 million views a year so I knew it'd get some hits, and I guess the others shared in that.  I think the broadness of different subjects and the day it ran made for "the perfect storm" of click bait:  foodie stuff, nostalgia, patriotism, humour.  Not bad for my first lead hook, eh? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, excellent, but still YOU or someone who has time (so not me) has to add it to DYKSTATS ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's listed at DYKSTATS. Total views were [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-07-01&end=2019-07-01&pages=Canadian_Comedy_Awards|1st_Canadian_Comedy_Awards|Made_in_Canada|Peameal_bacon|Poutine 67,475] and discounting for baseline views left 64,225.  This made it the 14th most-viewed lead hook, 24th most-viewed for all hooks, the most-viewed hook with three or more articles, and the most-viewed Canada-related hook.  (Rankings by time on the main page would be lower.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and the second time Canada is mentioned at all on that page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One more stat: Poutine reached No. 2098 on the WP:5000 for  with 41,499 page views. (Peameal bacon was about 4,000 views shy of No. 5000.) – Reidgreg (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Franz Kafka was 296, - thank you for the link ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Much thanks! I've got it on the stats page now (some rankings, above) and it looks to be the most-viewed Canada-related DYK! Plus it's just fun stuff. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

IPv6 requests
Hi Reidgreg, thanks for removing the most recent IPv6 request. I'll probably remove the other two; please see [this SPI] and my comments on REQ talk. P.S., welcome back to the Big Chair. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That req was the first or second edit from that IP account, so I thought the best thing was to remove it quickly before a new copy editor took it for the drive.  I'm never sure the best way to communicate with an IP, and feel better about the decision after hearing of your investigation.  Thanks for your vigilance and for educating me a bit. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; a second opinion is always welcome. Wish I'd spotted this earlier; the removed sigs made it obvious something was up. IMO, our members have enough to do without chasing around after socks of blocked users. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  18:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A quick question
I'll try to keep this sort of thing to a minimum, but I have searched and can't find how to mark the text for non-breaking spaces so the code appears on screen correctly so an editor can read it. Any idea? Thanks! Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, please, ask me stuff! Let me feel useful!
 * Quick answer:   which produces: &amp;nbsp; – if that's what you're looking for.
 * I'm not 100% sure that I understand your question. Do you want to show an editor the code for a non-breaking space?  I thought there were a few ways of doing it, but testing just now 'nowiki' doesn't seem to do it.
 * What I usually do is express the leading ampersand of &amp;nbsp; as an html entity:  so then for a nbsp it'd be   which produces: &amp;nbsp;  It's a bit old-school.  With tags like you can similar use   (for less-than).
 * If you don't like html entities, there are short templates like which produces &.  However, when I test amp; I get &amp; – which indicates that the ampersand is resolving before the parser interprets wikitext.  There's probably a way of doing it, but I'm not finding it right now.
 * Is that what you were looking for? It is, of course, impossible to search for these things. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course you can also use the template which is an entirely different way of achieving a non-breaking space.  There's a whole family of  templates.  You can also use, where text is the text that you don't want to break.  The templates cause a tiny bit more server load than the html, but are more portable.  I find it easier to type the ampersand and semicolon than reaching for the scroll brace key with my pinky – one of many reasons I don't like programming languages that use scroll braces. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry my question was vague. I wanted to show an editor whose work I was checking for the current drive the preferred format for expressing time. I came up with a workaround that would require them to go into edit mode with my note to see how it's done. Overnight it came to me there must be an article on Wikipedia about it - there is - and you are right: "code" before and after "&amp" plus ";nbsp;" produces  . I've fixed my note to the editor. Thanks so much for your help. You are useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twofingered Typist (talk • contribs) 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have tried to get the 'quick' answer out quicker instead of being through. You're welcome. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Canada Day Dyks inquiry
Well done with the Canada Day DYKs/GAs! I am very impressed :) (I was going to give you a barnstar but couldn't decide lol). How'd you come up with the idea of having all 5 related to each other in a limited amount of time? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the Canadian Comedy Awards off-and-on for years. It's a tricky subject that received inconsistent media coverage over the years, so I kept setting it aside hoping that I'd find more sources at another time.  I came up with the idea for the DYK six months ago, right after I'd submitted a similar April Fool's hook (three articles, one to 10th Canadian Comedy Awards).  I wanted a couple months before nominating another "Beaver" hook, Canada Day fit right into that timeframe and I had a hook fact that threw together all this Canadiana (my original concept also fit Bob & Doug McKenzie in there).  So I basically had six months to pull it together, though I got into an editing funk and procrastinated for a while.  I specifically promoted the two GAs for this DYK, and was frantic asking editors for the reviews – this simply wouldn't have happened without those GA reviews.
 * As I find time between other commitments, I want to further expand the CCA article and finish with the 17 other yearly articles for the CCAs, currently drafts. It'd be nice if I could do a DYK to tie them together, but I haven't thought of anything yet.
 * I've already received a Silver Maple Leaf Award (above) and I'm due a 3/4 Million Award for the GA of poutine. I'm hoping to earn something for comedy or awards if/when I finish the series.  Oooh, there's a bacon barnstar, that's pretty funny. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't realize there was a long backstory to it :O Kudos! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

GOCE Editorial Comments—twice with ——
Hello:

Would you mind having a look at my recent contributions and check that my talk page interactions over the past several days, twice with one ed. and once with another, don't overstep the bounds of what you consider appropriate? Thanks, Happy 4th - waiting to see footage of the baby T. balloon amidst all those tanks.Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Somebody's crossing the Rubicon, eh? I greatly appreciate your jumping in to give some ce reviews at the beginning of the drive. It's invaluable for new editors to receive early feedback to guide them through the rest of the drive. You started by thanking the editors for their participation, which is great; always start with encouragement. And you likewise closed with a thanks and offer of help with questions. If you happen to notice something in their copy edit which you felt was particularly clever, it could be good to point that out, too.

Some of my approaches:
 * My approach in giving feedback varies on (1) how many edits the editor has on their account and (2) how much copy editing they've done. The one editor (I guess we're not naming names?) has about 400 edits on their account, so not a brand-new editor but probably not that familiar with the MOS.  In comparison, the other has 10&times; as many edits and has participated in drives before, and I'd assume this second editor is more familiar with Wikipedia, GOCE and the MOS. So with the first editor I'd link them to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and give them a little brief on the peculiarities of Wikipedia's writing style.  If I used the same approach with the second editor, they might find it patronizing or condescending.  So with the second editor I'd dive into the reviewing with less preamble, and use more WP:SHOUTYACRONYMS that might intimidate a new editor.
 * I'd also expect more from the second editor and use a little more "tough love" in the review. (You can see I reviewed a couple other copyedits by the second editor above your article check.)  With this editor, rather than correcting the article myself, I noted what I felt still needed fixing and left it to the editor to correct for drive credit.  For a new editor, it can be illustrative to fix the articles so they can see the changes in the diffs, but when an editor is claiming a lot of articles I want them to fix them rather than having a coordinator do their work for them.  I try to convey that they should try to be thorough, and as they learn to recognize style problems they'll spot them more quickly.
 * If I'm pointing out a lot of MOS minutia, I'll often preface it by saying that extremely few editors know all of the MOS and that articles don't have to perfectly adhere to the MOS, but that copy editors are expected to be more familiar with it and that consistent style makes it easier to read articles and helps avoid style-based edit warring. I may split feedback into things that should be done as part of a copy edit (grammar, spelling, basic MOS) and extra work (finer MOS points, alt text, interlanguage links, citation work, tagging for additional cleanup, etc).  This can also serve to let them know what's expected for start-class backlog articles and what would be expected for GAN and FAC on the requests page.

Specific notes with your article checks:
 * I think I would have given links for some of the finer MOS points like MOS:SPELL09, MOS:NBSP, and MOS:BQ. The MOS gives more detail and examples which can be helpful for a copy editor's understanding.  It's always good to encourage a copy editor to read the MOS, even if they only read a bit at a time.  And you'll become more familiar with it, too, when you look up things for other editors.
 * Although I certainly don't write on talk pages the same way I do in articles, I try to set a good example with style, like using dashes as list separators (instead of hyphens).
 * Linking the publication in the citation is helpful, but maybe you should mention this as "extra work" outside the realm of copy editing, or that it's only expected at the FA level. (Before that, citations get moved around so what's first in the ref section can change.)
 * The example for alt text I don't quite agree with. The alt text shouldn't duplicate the caption, but should describe the image for someone who can't see it or can't see it clearly.  Map showing the location of the standoff says what the image is but doesn't convey the encyclopedic content of the image, IMO.  I might use "Map highlight indicating Marion township in northeastern Summit County, in southwestern Utah."  This conveys the image content.  It's a bit long, but more-or-less provides the same information as the image.
 * (Above, I used or  which gives a distinct style to quoted sections. This can be useful when the quoted section includes other styles such as italics or double quotes.)
 * I tend to prefer the  link.  MOS:LINK has examples of piping such but doesn't specifically endorse the practise. Do you know if there's a specific style guideline on this?  If either style is valid then this shouldn't be changed arbitrarily.  (If you aren't sure about a guideline, let me know and I'll inquire at MOS talk.)
 * I liked that you linked the diff in the second post for the first editor, though linked diffs might have also been helpful in the first post. New editors may not be too familiar with diffs or navigating the article history page.  I think you did the right thing fixing up the GA copyedit; for a new copy editor I'd give them credit for it but encourage them to work on the backlog.

Overall, the interactions looked great. Hopefully your feedback is received well. In terms of improvement, I feel you could add a little more linking in your reviews and be a little clearer about what's expected/required at different levels of copy editing (and what's extra cleanup work in addition to copy editing). "I hope you find this information helpful. Please reply to me here if you have any questions." Happy 4th! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the useful feedback. I don't know if there's a style guideline on the linking question. I guess I just developed the habit after I kept coming across articles where the   were both linked which is unnecessary. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * from what I read on the MOS talk archives yesterday, I think there's a consensus that that would be over linking. I might make an exception if the state is more relevant to the subject being discussed, but then there would probably be a more-specific subject for a nearby link like [cinema in state] or some such.  As for the piping, they agree that dab links should be piped ( The Beaver (film) &rarr; The Beaver ).   calls the   part a disambiguation tag. I've asked at WT:MOS. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding GOCE July Drive
Hey Reidgreg, I saw that you checked one of the articles that I copy edited. I was just wondering, what is the criteria for *O or old articles? The article you checked originally had a Copy Edit template that was put there in January 2019, and it was also listed under the Category of Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from January 2019 before I removed the template. --Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! When I looked at this version of 3x3 basketball, one before your copy edit, the copy edit tag at the top says (June 2019).  It appears to have been added on 26 June.  The old months for the current drive are January and February 2019 (March might also be added if we finish Jan and Feb).  The other three articles on your list count as old, and will receive the 50% bonus.
 * Good catch changing 1 &rarr; one (per MOS:SPELL09).
 * While you're reading this, what do you think of 3x3 vs 3&times;3. It's really subtle (the former has a lower-case x while the latter has a multiplication sign).  I noticed that the article uses both styles for the subject.  Ideally, this should be consistent throughout the article but I'm not sure which one is preferred.  MOS:x notes that The unspaced letter x may be used in common terms such as 4x4.  However, the article Four-wheel drive (to which 4x4 redirects) uses the multiplication sign in its lead.  My thinking is that if it's simply a style issue, we should probably use &times; (times), but if it's treated as a proper noun with the x, then use the letter.  Do you have any thoughts on this?  (Yes, copy editing is often about such nit-picky things.)  – Reidgreg (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad. I could've sworn it was from January. I just looked at the edit history, and you're right.
 * To be honest, I'm not sure if I have the relevant Wikipedia experience to make a proper judgement on which one to use. I definitely agree that consistency is key. Feel free to make the final call on which one to use. --Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Glossary of basketball terms uses x (letter) so I guess I'll go with that. There are a lot of articles with the x in their titles and I didn't spot any with the &times; (times). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Rinse the Blood Off My Toga
Hi, here it is! I appreciate your adding any more detail from your offline sources. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look in a bit. I kind of wanted to tackle a bunch of W&S subjects when I had time to deal with them all at once, as the sources I gathered overlap different potential articles.  I do remember that the original script for "Toga" is in a time capsule! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I wasn't sure if I should start this in a sandbox so you could add to it at your leisure. I don't plan to write any other W&S articles for now. Yoninah (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went through my sources once and did an expansion. I feel like there's some that I missed, and I could try to research more on the dates for first performances and look for reviews... but maybe some other day. I've got to get back to my duties at the GOCE. Thanks again for your work on this.  Oh, I put in some comments with some actors (some of whom have articles) but I'm not sure they should necessarily be included. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks very much! Do you think we should go for GA, or should I just go ahead with the DYK nomination? Personally, I find GA very stressful; the editors seem to nitpick about everything and when I do all I can and still can't provide all the changes, they say, "Never mind", and give it the icon. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it sounds like they wanted you to do stuff that wasn't actually part of the GA criteria. I wouldn't put them up for GAN for two reasons:  (1) I'd like to do a more thorough treatment and some related articles, and make sure that information is in the most-relevant article, and (2) I owe 6 GA reviews at this point and really ought to get some in before I make another nomination.  But I do think they're pretty close to GAs now; if you want to nominate them, I'll try to help out when review time comes along. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll go ahead and nominate it for DYK first. Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rinse the Blood Off My Toga
Hi, I added an alt, and I added this hook fact to the article, but I wonder if you have a source that specifically says this was their US television debut, not just their The Ed Sullivan Show debut? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they were actually on NBC's the Rosemary Clooney Show (or The Lux Show Starring Rosemary Clooney) on February 6, 1958. They performed a baseball sketch on that show as well.  I don't know the name of the sketch, but it was about a World Series game between Los Angeles (the show broadcast from Hollywood) and Liverpool, England. It had a lot of bits putting Britishisms into the American game. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I need to think about the hook more when I'm less tired. Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Precious Legacy
Hi, I was just wondering if you have any Canadian newspaper clippings describing this exhibit during its run at the Royal Ontario Museum (Sep. 14 to Nov. 24, 1985) and, after that, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and the Glenbow Museum in Calgary? I'm specifically interested in the dates of the latter two exhibitions, and visitor attendance figures for all three. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this be "Judaic Treasures set for ROM: Show has some 350 objects from the Prague collection SALEM ALATON."
 * Found about 200 stories (some duplicates) from 1985+. There are some walk-through reviews of the exhibit at the ROM.
 * From The Globe and Mail 25 July 1985 the collection has been touring the United States since November, 1983. Its Canadian stops will be at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum from Sept. 14 to Nov. 24; at the Glenbow Museum from Jan. 2 to March 9, 1986; and in Montreal at the Museum of Fine Arts from April 17 to June 8, 1986. The treasures will then return to the State Jewish Museum in Prague. (This schedule seem to change, see below)
 * Globe 31 August MORE than 60 events connected with The Precious Legacy have been planned by the Royal Ontario Museum for the duration of the exhibit in Toronto from Sept. 14 to Nov. 24. They include a lecture series, a concert series, family matinees, a film series and added exhibits. with details
 * There was a little bit about a labour dispute with the ROM workers; the Culture Minister had to cross the picket line to attend a reception for the exhibit.
 * Globe 2 January 1986, the Glenbow expects more than 750 guests at the exhibit's opening
 * Montreal Gazette, 12 Mar, Precious Legacy is to be displayed at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts from April 11 to May 25. These dates are repeated and seem better than the earlier Globe schedule.
 * Gazette 19 April, For Montreal Jews, this year's Passover coincides with "The Precious Legacy," an exhibition of about 300 out of 140,000 treasures seized by the Nazis from Jews in wartime Czechoslovakia. It is on view until May 25 at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.
 * Toronto Star 3 Jan 1987, An elderly man's silent stare speaks volumes to a young Montreal museum guide in this week's Man Alive episode called "A Journey to Prague". Discusses a documentary episode by Otto Lowry, who was a youth in Prague's Jewish ghetto, and who examines the Precious Legacy travelling exhibition.
 * Took a while to find something about attendance:
 * Toronto Star 5 Nov 1985, Also, those who wouldn't cross the picket line have until Nov. 21 to see the museum's gut-wrenching exhibition, The Precious Legacy. From opening day Sept. 14 to Oct. 27 (the day after the strike began), it attracted 70,979 visitors.
 * Globe, 5 Nov Attendance for Precious Legacy, the current ROM show, was not unduly affected by the strike. More than 80,000 visitors saw the exhibit between Sept. 14 and Oct. 27. Precious Legacy closes Nov. 24.
 * Globe, 24 September Attendance was "way down" for The Precious Legacy exhibition at the ROM yesterday because "people are intimidated by the picket line," according to a museum official.
 * I suppose those two sources should be combined to say "about 80,000" attendees for that period, with a footnote to the discrepancy if you want to be thorough. I haven't read The Precious Legacy article yet; would you like me to add to it with any of these sources? What kind of material are you looking for? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the article and see a few places where some of the above information could be added. Do you know if the Phillip-Morris sponsorship was just for the U.S., or for the whole tour through its association with the Smithsonian? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is really wonderful! I would like to improve the presentation in the article under "Exhibition sites and attendance" to include the Canadian dates and figures. That extra detail about the labour dispute can also be included. If you'd like to start adding things, be my guest. (You didn't provide the titles and authors of the newspaper articles you cited.) I just nominated this for GA, so I'd like a well-rounded presentation. I suspect the Philip Morris USA sponsorship was just for the U.S. tour; I'll have to check with about that. Thanks so much again, Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the language, "national sponsor, "national tour" indicates that Phillip Morris backed the U.S. tour,  What is not clear to me  is whether the tour of Canada was planned at the time that the tour arrived in the U.S. - or whether it was initiated in response to the exhibit's unexpected "blockbouster" success in D.C.   Cities on the tour clearly had to line up local funding.  According to the LATimes, the art museum in  San Diego  secured a pledge of  "between $30,000 and 40,000" from Linkabit to submit its bid to land make San Diego the California venue.  Reading all of the old news coverage will take a bit of time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add what I found. We shouldn't add a citation unless we've read the source material ourselves, and since there's a subscription required and I can't send you a PDF of the material (personal use only) it's up to me.  I noticed there were efforts mentioned to bring the exhibition to Calgary, but I started my search at 1985 so may have missed that for Toronto and Montreal.  I'll broaden it a bit and see what else I can find before I start editing the article. (I hope to get to it this week.) – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The only online book source that I came across discussing the bringing of the exhibit to Canada was deemed a self-published source. But you can look at it to get ideas for searching in other places. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, as this is about to go on the main page, I edited the Canada section. I wonder if you could look at it and add in the two missing references and also indicate who "Cameron" is . Do you have the total attendance figures for Calgary and Montreal? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed that fact-filled paragraph you added to the Exhibit History section. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Added the two references and clarified a bit. They're pretty minor points in regards to the exhibition so not sure if they should be kept (if all the US museums had that much detail, it'd really add up). I had added a lot throughout the article, though I couldn't find attendance figures for Calgary or Montreal. It would have also been really nice if we could mention the Czechs who worked with the Smithsonian to select material for the exhibition, but I didn't find much of anything about their side of the collaboration. If we're finished adding things, I think it might be good to take a critical eye to trimming the fat. On the other hand, it might not be a bad idea to expand the lead. BTW, I didn't realize this was going on the main page; has the GA review started? –Reidgreg (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good work! If you want to add to the lead, go ahead; that'll be more important for the GA review, which hasn't started yet (we're #20 on the list). I wouldn't "cut the fat" before the GA review, since you never know what they'll ask for. Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed the DYK nom. Surprised I haven't gone through the whole nom page in the past month. I did try to check for it, but with the "The". Thanks for crediting me! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)  P.S.:  Have DYK appearances been shifted to 12 hours?  – Reidgreg (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks so much for filling in the blanks on the GA review. I've been pretty busy lately in real life and hope to review your additions this week. Please feel free to add the GA icon to your userpage! Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for TAI Aksungur
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for A Shakespearean Baseball Game
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Many thanks for your kind and thoughtful review of my edits of substitute good! Your explanations are helpful. I appreciate the time you took to review the article carefully and help me become a better editor.

Cheers, Aarre (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

American Legion
Hi! Reidgreg, Nice to meet you ~ I'm a member of the Guild. Can you take a look at the american legion. the editor started here and did a major delete here. On User contributions page looks like the editor kinda stopped on the 14th of August, (there is one or two afterwards) I don't know if research is taking so long but the page is essentially blank and looking like a stub w/ a bunch of names and pictures. Thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! The editor in question has been around for a while but hardly has any edits to the Wikipedia namespace, so they may not do a lot of collaborative editing (though that's just a guess).  The editor's contributions show work on a lot of other articles, so I'd consider the  template to be stale.  You can feel free to remove the template and/or revert the deletion of material (per WP:BRD) but it might be more productive to open a discussion on the article talk page, politely inviting the editor to discuss the recent changes.
 * The edit summaries are unclear on this, but it appears as though the major delete (inadequately summarized as "Cleap up") was following a large move of material to the new article History of the American Legion. (BTW, GOCE coordinator emeritus Dianna has already cautioned the editor on doing this without proper attribution in the edit summaries and talk pages.)  It's not unusual to split material into a new article when the original article becomes cumbersome (generally about 10,000 words, which American Legion never reached) but it is unusual to do so without prior discussion and editor consensus (lots of information on this at Splitting).
 * Another guess on my part, but it might be that the split was an attempt to move the more controversial aspects of the organization's history out of the main article, so that the main article would be less susceptible to edit warring and possibly become more stable (if that was an issue).
 * Again, you can feel free to boldly revert the split, or to open discussion with the other editor, and possibly follow the various dispute resolution processes if the two of you are unable to reach an agreement. Or, if you're okay with the split, you can certainly feel free to expand the American Legion article; the other editor seems to have put it on the back burner.
 * I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any other questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Reidgreg, I'm going to remove the tag ~ and take it from there ~ thanks for all the info ~ it really helps. I'll keep you up to date ~ it will be a few days before I tackle the article ~ also nice to meet you. ~mitch~ (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The Precious Legacy
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rinse the Blood Off My Toga
valereee (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for List of Canadian comedians
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi
How are things going? Is the interweb still a thing of joy and beauty? Kudos for tackling the Donbass monster. I had run an eye over it as it was a military topic and can't say that I had much fancied it. Thanks for the thanks re the India request; it reassured me that I was handling things at least acceptably. Recently I had this, which I took as high praise and which immediately made me think of your rigorous mentoring, back when I was even less inexperienced than I am now. Once again, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you. I've been well, but busy.  I find that I'm still playing catch-up on the talk pages, with others putting out the fires before I notice them.  The scary thing about Donbass is that there are a dozen other timeline articles just like it.  (I suggested reorganizing it as a table, given the repetitive nature of daily events in the frozen conflict.)  I hope the TFA copy edits aren't putting too much work on you.  That's a big job that never stops.  If you can think of a way to split the work with the GOCE (in addition to submitting requests), feel free to propose something.
 * It seems like a quarter of my DYK reviews get pulled from prep; usually it's a small issue but my standards could use improvement. One of my last batch of DYKs made it onto the stats page and the article is just starting its GA review.  My GAs have been pretty diverse: a crime, a TV show, a food, and now fine art.  Next month I've got to look at the annual activity for the CAN10K challenge. A few hours here, a few hours there, it starts to add up. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if you have been the perfect lead coordinator and have a firm grasp on the advantages of delegation.
 * I have come across some of the other Donbass articles. They, en bloc, are very depressing.
 * TFA: doing them every month is becoming something of a chore. I don't need to do work on every one, but even so ... If there were a copy editor or two at GOCE who were willing to look at one article per month that would certainly help. As current FAs, few of them need that much work, and it is a question of removing anything obviously infelicitous rather than preparing them for a FAC, so it wouldn't be that much of a challenge. Possibly there could be barnstars in it somewhere? They are arguably the most important articles to get right, copy edit wise, on Wikipedia; I think so, which is why I took them on.


 * DYKs being pulled doesn't sound like you. On what sort of issues?
 * I am in the midst of one of my periodic personal GA drives - I have picked up 10 so far this month, but couldn't see any of yours. When you have your next up, if you would like a prompt review, feel free to give me a ping.
 * It sounds as if you are keeping more than busy! Speaking of things Canadian, I am hoping to nominate Razing of Friesoythe for FA next month.
 * Take care. Remember to say "No" occasionally. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe my reviews weren't as bad as I thought; I only noticed two that had had problems. Both were relatively new topics and the terminology wasn't firmly established, which not everyone likes when being moved to the main page without context.  One of them was in the realm of medical topics, and while I checked the citations for the hook and spot-checked others, I didn't check for every medical claim in the article.  There was also difficulty getting a hook under 200 words without over-generalizing its claims.  (If you can believe it, we went through 17 alts for that one.)  Another, once it was in the prep, got more attention and was plastered with tags which weren't part of DYK criteria, but had to be cleared up before it could go to the main page.  There's a lot of stuff that I would normally do on my own, but as a "reviewer" I feel like I shouldn't directly edit the article too much.  So a lot of the time I'm more comfortable just jumping in to help fix a DYK that's languishing for whatever reason.  (Though I ought to bank some QPQ credits for the future.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GA number 4 passed pretty quickly, The Precious Legacy, and it seems FAC-worthy after a bit more expansion. I wasn't the nominator so it wasn't listed under my account (see below), but I have about 50% authorship of it.
 * Will keep that 'no' thing in mind. Cheers. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to be a bit picky about what I review, looking for either quick and simple or a nominator I recognise. And yes, having a bank of DYK reviews can be handy.
 * The Precious Legacy looks good. Definitely a FA in there. Ping me when it comes to FAC would you? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Aw, shucks. I found those articles quite interesting to work on, and it happened to coincide with my gaining access to a research database I was eager to delve into. You did all the heavy lifting, and inspired me by going above and beyond with your work on DYKs. It was a distinct pleasure to work on those articles with one of Wikipedia's best editors! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

DYK for Ivan Golunov
valereee (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Reidgreg, and welcome to Women in Red. From all the informative biographies of Canadian women you've been writing, it looks as if you are going to be one of our most useful and productive members. I'm glad to see you've already signed up as a participant in our stub contest and look forward to your contributions over the next three months. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got a lot on my plate already, but I'll try to get some articles in for the WIR stub contest, Oct–Dec 2019 (free advertising to my talk page stalkers). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE drive bling
Thanks for giving out the barnstars! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for cleaning up the copy edit of Dragutin Keserović and I'm sure much other uncredited work you've been doing. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just wandering around with my dustpan and a little broom.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (and copy edit). Thanks you. Olascf (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of sockpuppet activity around this article, so I'm going to say "no thanks". Copy editing requests by contributing editors to the article (i.e.: not your account) may be made at WP:GOCER. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I had this one too; probably Fdery.  Baffle☿gab  20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a pain. Oh well, comes with the territory when one wears the juice. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

TFA copy edits
Hi Reidgreg. November's TFAs have been posted. Considerably later than usual. Looking at the first few:

1. 11 years since promotion. IMO could therefore do with a look over. I would be reluctant to do this as it is a television episode.
 * Reviewed by Reidgreg.

2. Promoted in 2012. Also went through ACR. The experienced nominator has maintained it. I had a superficial look at it last month. I would be inclined to skip it.

3. Promoted three months ago. I notice that you have copy edited it, so I will leave it to you.

4. Promoted five months ago. Copy edited by you.

5. Promoted nine years ago. Has seen a lot of traffic since then. IMO could do with a copy edit.
 * Reviewed by Reidgreg.

6. I gave this a pretty hard time at FAC last month, as did several other assessors. TFT GOCEed it in August. I would be inclined to skip it.

7. Promoted in August. Got a thorough going over from four experienced assessors. TFT GOCEed it in May. I would be inclined to skip it.

8. Promoted in August by an experienced nominator. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim.
 * Done – Reidgreg

9. Promoted in August. I was one of the assessors and you copy edited it this month.

10. Promoted in August by an experienced nominator. I assessed it at FAC. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim, but I think that someone other than me should do it.
 * I made a small tweak to one sentence for tone; otherwise good. – Reidgreg

11. Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. Virtually no edits since then. I would be inclined to skip it.

12. Promoted last week by an experienced nominator. Received a thorough review and went through ACR in August. I would be inclined to skip it.

13. Promoted last week by an experienced nominator. Received a thorough review. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim - which you have done; thanks.

14. Promoted in August after a failed attempt in May. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim - which you have done; thanks.

15. Promoted six years ago by an experienced nominator who has maintained it since. I would be inclined to skip it.

16. Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. A number of edits since. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim.
 * Did a little MOS cleanup, convert templates, etc.

17. Promoted 12 years ago. I think that it needs a copy edit and I would be happy to do it.
 * Go ahead; this was on the main page two weeks ago, so seems to have had some recent attention already.
 * The OMT team seem to be working on it. I'll leave it until it stabilises.

18. Promoted 6 months ago. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim.
 * Only small updates and citation cleanup since FAR; I did additional ce for tone.

19. Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. (I did the source review.) A lot of changes since - by the nominator. I think that it needs a copy edit and I would be happy to do it.
 * That was hard work. Although nice to know that I called it correctly.

20. Promoted three months ago. I would be inclined to give it a light touch skim.
 * Light copyedit, might sent this to GOCER for additional tone and conciseness work

21. Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. No edits since. I am inclined to skip it.
 * Copyedited

22. Promoted three years ago by an experienced nominator who is currently dormant. Quite a few edits since. I think that it needs copyediting. Normally I would put it on Requests; what do you think?
 * Light copy edit, no major problems detected.

23. Promoted eight months ago by an experienced nominator; it went through ACR last year. I think that we can skip it.

24. Promoted four months ago by a pair of experienced nominators. I think that we can skip it.

25. Promoted five months ago by experienced nominator has maintained it. It was thoroughly checked over at FAC, including by me, and I think that we can skip it.

26. Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. Few edits since. However, I think that it could do with a copy edit. Do you fancy it, or shall I put it on Requests?
 * Needs some work, for GOCER

27. Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. I think we should give it a light touch skim.
 * Tone issues, for GOCER

28. Promoted eighteen months ago by an experienced nominator. I think we should give it a light touch skim.
 * Light copy edit, looks good.

29. Promoted 12 years ago. I gave it a rough and ready copy edit when it was scheduled for last month, so I think we can skip it.
 * Did a little MOS cleanup and linking, it's good.

30. Promoted two months ago. I think that it needs a copy edit. I should be able to get round to it.
 * Minor tweaks.

Is this sort of summary useful? If so, is this the best place for it, or should it be moved to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2019?

Gog the Mild (talk)
 * thanks! Still trying to fathom how to develop a systemic way of handling this (or handing this off, as the case may be).  I'd watchlisted the Nov 1 page so it showed up on my list Saturday, and I'd earlier worked ahead on some of the articles listed at WP:TFAR and WP:TFAP, so I've given light copy edit to 1 (the plot could use more work but would need feedback from someone who's seen it), 2, 3, 4, 5 (just MOS, didn't spot anything wrong with it), 6 (during its DYK), 9, 13 and 14.  Most of them were generally in pretty good shape but often there was one place with some sort of problem – a double negative, a confusing quote, or awkward or flowery phrasing.  The problem being that one has to read through the article carefully to spot that.  And a touch of MOS cleanup, as well. Will endeavour to keep calm and carry on. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again.
 * 1) Summaries of another ten added above. I think that you can see how I am triaging them. Feedback on this approach is welcome.
 * 2) Obviously the numbers in bold indicate that I don't think that any further work is required.
 * 3) I am not, personally too concerned about picking up every single CE issue. That would be nice, but there is a time:benefit issue. If we had more resources ...
 * 4) Many thanks for all of the work you have put into the articles for the first half of the month. That's a heck of a lot of effort.
 * 5) I am entirely happy to act in a "coordinator" role: summarising articles as above; flagging up where attention is needed; passing some to Requests; doing some myself; and shouting for you for much of it. If you think that this is useful. I would also be more than happy to pass this role on; it would probably be more appropriate for a GOCE coordinator to be doing it. But I am not fussed if GOCE would rather maintain an arms length relationship.
 * 6) When I put forthcoming TFAs on Requests, they are invariably picked up by TFT. Would it make sense to overtly bring them into this discussion? Assuming that they are not already stalking this page.
 * 7) The more I think about it, the more I think that the summary above, and possibly this discussion, should be on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2019. What do you think? It would form a regular feature each month and interested copy editors would know where to find it, or could be nudged towards it.

Phew. Your views on the above would be much appreciated.

Do you have views on any of the above. Does any of it sound inappropriate or egregious?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand what you're doing: checking the talk pages and histories for the dates of previous assessments and copy edits, and perhaps checking the individual editors involved against your naughty–nice list. I think this is very useful.
 * Indeed. As I have been assessing 8-10 FAcs a month for a while, and had a few of mine assessed, I have, I think, a reasonable "feel" for the nominators who submit articles we don't need to worry too much about; similarly which reviewers are strong on grammar issues and/or MoS. Sometimes I will look at the cumulative diffs since promotion to see what has been changed. This all feeds into my summaries above. All rather subjective, but probably close enough.
 * I believe you're right, that the level of scrutiny I'm giving them is excessive. I felt I ought to get an idea of the quality of the articles over a month, how much work was needed, and assess the cost–benefit ratio. I've been largely impressed with these articles. (The worst thing I found was a double-negative, and I'm sure 90% of our readers would skim right over it, inferring the correct meaning without noticing the literal meaning.) I'd noticed that some of the articles had had 10–20% expansion since their last assessment, and in some cases I focused on these expansions.
 * That seems a sound approach. It would be great to work through all of the FAs, or at least the TFAs, making them "perfect"; but, cost:benefit ...
 * My mind is wandering; I must get a proper leash for it. I'll come back to this tomorrow.
 * I now have an image of your brain on a leash, being taken out for some fresh air. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – Reidgreg (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That or a tethered balloon (i.e.: airhead). To an earlier point, I'll mention that you can't spell egregious without Greg.  That's also the working name of an app to track my debts.
 * I've listed four – 17, 20, 26 and 27 – at WP:GOCER, and started a discussion at the GOCE coord talk page. You'll probably want to claim #17 when OMT are done.
 * Now that they're thoroughly assessed, and we've got about 3 weeks to breathe before the next batch, I feel it went pretty well. I'll try to make an easier job of it next time, and yes, we should do our coordinating at the TFA month's talk page.  Much thanks for your help and guidance throughout! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ha! No! Thank you for doing virtually all of the donkey work. It is much appreciated. Never has such a finely written set of FAs been set to grace the main page. I also thought it went well. I have a couple of "improvements" in mind for next time, but let's see what the discussion on the coordinator talk page throws up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Today is hectic, I'll have a look tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any feedback this month ... maybe in November. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As an aside - on the months when I'm responsible for scheduling TFA (that's currently February, May, August, and November) I generally don't even start considering articles until about the 20th. I've found over the time I've been doing scheduling that inevitably, when I try to start scheduling early - someone will nominate an article at TFARequests late in the month and this throws the whole schedule off. I generally do a rough outline offline of what I'm planning on scheduling, and then get some input from the other TFA coords. Usualy I do the fiddly bits (the actual plugging in of the articles into the pages and stuff on wiki) about the 22nd or 23rd. This month was a bit delayed because I had other commitments that ended up running a hair longer than usual. (And, there was at least one late nomination at TFARequests that would have been missed had I scheduled on my usual timetable) But even getting them up on the 27th is still a vast improvement over the old system under Raul, where sometimes there was a couple of hours notice, if that. And Raul rarely scheduled more than a few days ahead even when he did schedule farther out. Note that the other two TFA scheduling coords schedule earlier usually, but I prefer to let folks have as much time to request things at TFARequests as possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't want to rock the TFA boat. I understand that the Main Page is voracious for content, that feeding time is hectic, and that the chefs/zookeepers can't work so far ahead that its meals get cold.  We seem to have managed, and just finished assessments before the end of the month, with enough time for our requests process to take care of the few articles in most need of copy editing. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nike Dattani
Dear Reidgreg, the subject of the article Nike Dattani has asked me if this possible to have the user NikeDattani, which almost only edits that article, have at a minimum have his/her user name changed. I'm not up on the rules here, but it seems to a violation of the BLP rule as people will think that account is the subject of the article, and the edits by this user are frivolous, it is potentially damaging his reputation. Furthermore, on the article Hierarchical equations of motion, this user deleted much sourced content that cited a 2012 article by Dr. Dattani, suggesting a certain personal animosity against him. Is there a way to have him stopped? Thank you for your time and help. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with Username policy. It would seem to be a possible violation of WP:MISLEADNAME (impersonating an actual person).  I've left a message to that effect on the user's talk page.  If you feel this is a serious matter that requires more immediate attention, you may report it at Usernames for administrator attention.  (It seems to meet the criteria, but I didn't feel comfortable doing this myself, as I'm not in contact with Nike Dattani.)
 * For issues with specific edits, follow Dispute resolution. This generally means starting with WP:BRD – reverting edits back to the established stable version of the article and then discussing on the article talk page (just be careful not to break the three revert rule).  Be polite in discussions and focus on the edits, not the editor; this can help your case if you have to escalate the dispute resolution process.  If you've already discussed edits and feel this is a behaviour issue, you can bring it up at WP:ANI, but I'd save that for a last resort.
 * Let me know if you have any other questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Dr. Dattani has asked me if I could do something about this matter, so since I'm not entirely clear on the rules about usernames, I thought it was best to ask you. Thank you so much for your help and time! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I've worked with connected contributors a few times, reviewing their edits for neutrality, and consider them a valuable resource for the encyclopedia. Reading over those policies helped inform me as well, so I'll be ready if I come across something like this in the future.  Always more to learn here. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, your report at WP:UAA was commented upon by one admin, then removed by another admin with the edit summary . I'm guessing that they would rather allow for discussion from my templated notice before taking administrator action.  Such is usually the case unless they are given a strong reason for immediate intervention. I think this leaves you with three basic options:  (1) wait and see what this user does next and take action appropriately, (2) repost at WP:UAA noting the concerns/complaints you received from Nike Dattani, or (3) suggest that Nike Dattani post to WP:UAA himself to personally stress his concerns.  In the third case, be sure ND knows that posting from an unregistered account will reveal his IP address (which could be a privacy concern). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Reidgreg, thank you so much! I'm rather new to this, but I suspect that this account, which was only active for one day, may be somebody's passing fancy. I rather suspect that somebody was being petty and immature here, and perhaps they have gotten over it. For the moment, I wait until something else happens, and I'll contract Dr. Dattani to see if he wants to pursue further action. Thank you so much for all your help here. Cheers!
 * I suspect that you're right and that there won't be any additional edits from the account. You can probably revert any of the account's edits that you disagree with. The real Nike Dattani might still take issue with them being in the permanent record of the article history, though.  BTW, if you notice additional disruptive edits to the article from another brand-new account, it may be evidence of sockpuppetry, which has its own avenues of investigation. Being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" leaves us open to all sorts of abuse, and many different ways to try to deal with such while assuming good faith. Not much else to say but to keep calm and carry on! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders. Please consider the request, if you like.  PA TH  SL OP U  16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm working a deadline on some major tasks for WikiProjects so haven't had a lot of time to check mass messages lately. I may be able to spare some time tomorrow if nobody else gets to it by then. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

In appreciation
Good thing I've gotten this now, 'cause I was thinking of handing the work back to you for next month! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm quickly working through the last articles and hopefully will post en masse to GOCER in time for the outliers to be included with October requests for the November drive. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requests page
Hi Reidgreg, I noticed you currently have four requests on the Guild's Requests page; our current limit for requests is two per editor. I'm wearing the juice today! :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Slay this impertinent one, master! Display your wrath. Alternatively, I could post last pair in my name, as they stem from the work on TFAs we have been doing together. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dare the mob to rise up, or some [k]nave to usurp me. I shall have at them! I'm off with some frightening medieval devices to slay some leaves before the rain resumes. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They darest to mock thee? Flay them with thy wrath. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ignore these foolish knaves; they were warned! Check out this discussion for some details (oops, I see that you have already commented there). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jonesey; I foolishly failed to read the whole conversation there. Their medieval flaying and slaying shall not harm me, I'll be hiding under that rock --> there my wings are like a shield of steel! :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MMS
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMS. Please consider the MMS request, if you like.  PA TH  SL OP U  13:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

My Apologies
Well, Reidgreg, I certainly seem to have dropped you in it! I am sorry. I hope you do not have to spend any more time on this issue. Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly livened up a quiet Friday evening :)   ——  SN  54129  14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this was my bad all around. Especially as lead coordinator, it's my job to deal with this sort of drama, not create it.  I think I've just taken on too much, that I'm not giving proper attention to what I'm doing. (And above, someone wants me to help with mass mailing.) Apologies. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My take from the discussion is that there's no role for TFA per se in copyediting the articles, particularly since WP:ERRORS, WP:FAC and the Guild all have established procedures and preferences. So I'll butt out ... all I have to offer is my thanks and admiration. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

IAbot reference archiving
Hello! How did you manage to create all those excellent internet archive links, as in this Susan Blight edit? Automated process? I would like to learn how to do that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I learned how to do it via the IABot interface! Is there a way to run the bot on a normal Wikipedia article editing page?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've been doing a little cleanup and reference archiving while checking articles for the WP:CAN10K challenge (hoping to get the awards out before the end of the month).  I launch the IAbot by going to  for the page, then, then click on the box  and press .  I'm not sure of a way of doing it directly from the editing window.  IAbot checks a few things (for example, if the citation didn't have an access-date, it pulls that from the edit history and adds it!) and it can take a while if a page has lots of citations, so I don't think you could do it with a simple script in the edit window. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the tips! I found the tool very useful and ran it on some of my page creations. Good luck on the CAN10K!!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

10,000 Challenge
Hello Reidgreg: Are you contributing to the 10,000 Challenge? Your improvement to René-Arthur Fréchet is the type that initiative is looking for. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I liked that Fréchet article, interesting subject.  If you're interested, you could probably make a series of it with small articles for the listed historic buildings he designed.  I made a few edits while doing a quality check on contributions to WP:CAN10K and hope to send out awards before the end of the month.  My main content contribution this year was a five-article DYK on Canada Day.  I'm hoping to find time to write more articles next month, but for the moment I'm busy with WikiProjects.  Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Happy Volunteer Day


Happy International Volunteer Day. Every Wikipedians are volunteers and you deserve this recognition. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Merry Volunteer Day to us all! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Patsy Cline
Oh my goodness, thank you so much!! I am so honored. This made my day/week. Have a great night! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! And thanks again for promoting this vital article. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your copy edits
I appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia better, but sometimes you go too far. Your copy edits to WKON, WKOH and WKMU, for example, deleted "non-defining" and "non-notable" information that's actually pertinent to the subject of the articles. As for "not verified in body", the mention in the infobox is just enough. As for sources, the links to the FCC Profile and CDBS are sufficient. I'm going to restore the articles to the point before you made the copy edits. I don't disrespect you in any way, sometimes you just need to slow it down. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you tagged the articles for copy editing, and now you have rejected well-reasoned copy edits and thorough tagging of the articles for statements that need reliable sources to back them up. Please reconsider. Also, please read the documentation for Citation needed lead, which is one of the many these articles were justifiably tagged with. The infoboxes and the leads contained many claims that failed MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which reminds editors that an infobox's content should summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoo, you've rejected/reverted twice as many of my copy edits in 90 minutes than had previously been done in three years. I don't feel it's a good practise to remove tags without addressing the issue(s) noted.  (Under the Verifiability policy, any challenged statement should not be restored/detagged without a citation to a reliable source WP:DETAG.)  I don't feel that external links to FCC/CDBS are an acceptable reference style; shouldn't such data have inline citations like anything else?  How do we know what information in the infobox is sourced to those and what isn't?  And I'm not sure that something like, for example, the height of a radio station's antenna is anything other than trivia (unless, perhaps, it's the world's tallest antenna and thus notable).  There generally shouldn't be anything in the lead or infobox that isn't also in the body of the article, and exceptions should have inline citations (MOS:CITELEAD).  I also seem to recall a lot of redundancy and verbosity in the prose of those articles, and various style issues.  I noticed on your talk page that you explain  one of your edits which removed small fonts from the infobox of an article, yet this is something you've reverted in my edits to these articles.  I'm honestly baffled and would really like to hear how you explain that, and anything else you'd care to explain about these reverts.  I'm hoping that this is a big misunderstanding and that I won't have to go over all the specifics at WKON, WKOH, WKMU, WKMJ-TV, WKSO-TV, WKGB-TV, WNGH-TV and WKHA. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already pinged you and left some notes on my initial copy edit at (27 Nov), in which I noted that you had a history of reverting copy edits to the article.  Perhaps it would be best to continue this discussion there. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Or simply take this to WikiProject Television Stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel that venue would be premature at this point, and that we should attempt to reach a consensus or at least to uncover the roots of the disagreement. Either requires good faith discussion. I await your response at Talk:WNGH-TV, where specific issues are noted along with a half-dozen guidelines. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove


Thank you, ! I'm currently working to try and peacefully resolve a couple disputes, and will take this to heart. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa
Hi Greg, firstly many thanks for the shift you are putting in on the TFA copy edits. Secondly, I am reviewing the FAC Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa and I am unsure if the translation of the title into English should be in title case. I suspect that you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's me: make a late appearance to finish the last one, and take all the credit! To answer your question, it depends on whether this is an English title by which the work is known in the English-speaking world, or if this is a translation by which the work is not known . That link offers the example Les Liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons), which is an English title that follows the English title case conventions.  A translation (by which the work is not known) gets an initial capital only (plus any proper nouns within the translation).  A Google search of "A celebrated specialist pulling teeth at the grand Hotel Europa" only turned up Wikipedia mirrors, so my guess is that it isn't known by that title and that the article has it correct. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Well you did four - I reckon that counts as a decent shift. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Parachute Jump‎
Hi Reidgreg, would appreciate copy editing help on this FAC. Thanks and best. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I left some notes at Featured article candidates/Parachute Jump/archive1 – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Beaune Altarpiece

 * If you are going to leave long shopping lists of orders for others, please ensure these do not contain things that do not need doing. An ellipsis does not have to be in square brackets. According to MOS:ELLIPSIS, "Occasionally, square brackets are placed around an ellipsis" (my emphasis). It is editorial judgement, not a "must do". - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing my concerns with the article. Please forgive me for the above.  If you'll look at MOS:PMC, the advice there is more definitive: the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced and Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets.  Without access to the source I don't know if any alteration was actually made, but if there was then I feel it ought to be in square brackets.  Leave that for someone with access to the sources.  I'll read and reply at  when I have time. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is less definitive - or certainly less clear. The MOSs I have seen (although I don't make a fetish of reading them and do not claim to have read them all) suggest that the three dots mean missing text, and additional words should be enclosed in square brackets, not the three dots: ie, the square brackets are only for additional text, not missing text. - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a lot to read; most editors shouldn't be bothered and leave it to cleanup and copy editors. I'm surprised that it's worded as should instead of must (guideline rather than policy), but that's probably to leave room for cleaning up obvious problems like typos in the original (I'd opened an RfC over that once; a small but complicated and somewhat subjective matter).  I'll have to mention this at MOS talk.  I would think that removing material from a quotation is just as significant as adding material. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with most of what you said, but particularly two points: 1. "most editors shouldn't be bothered and leave it to cleanup and copy editors". Not at all - good copy editors are as rare as hen's teeth, and I've not seen any come out of GOCE in my time on Wiki. Editors have access to the sources are work within what the source says. Copy editors change the nuance and meaning without any contact with the sources, and that is a big problem in my book. 2. "removing material from a quotation is just as significant as adding material": nothing so absolute, as it depends what is removed. Good writing will remove an aside or superfluous detail while retaining the original thought or meaning - the three dots is proof that such an edit has taken place, so there is no need to use a second piece of formatting; the addition of the word needs the square brackets as the only piece of formatting to signify it. In both cases the change is alerted to the reader by the use of one piece of formatting - they don't need to be confused with too much in the way of dots and dashes. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that review by an open-minded editor familiar with the sources is helpful. I wonder if encyclopedic writing ought to be understandable without nuanced meanings. Unfortunately, it isn't proof (i.e.: certainty). A simple "..." in a quote may indicate that the Wikipedia editor chose to omit material, that a secondary source chose to omit material from the primary source, or that the "..." was in the primary source. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"good copy editors are as rare as hen's teeth, and I've not seen any come out of GOCE in my time on Wiki."—It's always nice to know our work is appreciated. You're welcome. Baffle☿gab 22:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello Greg: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.