User talk:Reidgreg/Archive 7

These are the user's talk archives from 2022.

Error in 2021 REQ archive
Hi Reidgreg, I found an error in the 2021 REQ archive; "The Smeezingtons" requested 2021-03-31 by MarioSoulTruthFan was completed by me on 2021-05-02, not 2021-02-05. Probably my error. Line 5651 in your 2021 files. I'll let you know if I find any more; probably will if I'm anything to do with it! I've fixed it in the WP archive. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  00:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Found the error in this edit.  Looks like there's still about 60 requests left from 2021, so we've got some time. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha, another of my finest archiving moments... there's another one here; The bot archived 2020–21 SC East Bengal season incorrectly here. I've fixed the archive. Thanks, yes, finishing those requests might take a few more weeks. Looks like we need another lockdown... on second thorts though, nah! :| Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Uranium mining in the Bancroft area
I got the note from your bot that you've started the review. Thanks! This is my first time having an article reviewed for GA status, so I don't know what to expect. I appreciated your copy edit before, I had been unsure of the ice age/precambrian wording that someone else had introduced, and your edit fixed that. If you identify any problems in the article that would block the GA status, please tell me and I'll work quickly to improve any inadequacies. And if you have any questions, please let me know. You might see two red links as Draft:Arthur_H._Shore and Draft:Henry_Joseph_Maloney (two key people in uranium mining back then) are back at draft, I hope to get them into main soon. CT55555 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How this works is that I'll take a few days to write a thorough review. Please be patient; checking the sources probably takes me the longest.  Then I'll post my review at Talk:Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/GA1, noting where I feel the article is lacking against the GA criteria.  I may also have some extra advice for improvements beyond the GA criteria.  Then you can work on changes to the article per my suggestions or discuss why you might feel my suggestions are not improvements or not required per the criteria.  I reply to that and check your edits to the article, and suggest further changes.  It may go back-and-forth like that a few times.  I'm confident that if we work together, this article should be able to pass.  (I think I've passed 14 of 16 reviews, with one of the exceptions being a case of the other editor not having enough time.)  There's nothing for you to do right now, just try to free some time on your schedule for when the review is posted. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've posted my GAN review. Please reply there (Talk:Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/GA1) with any questions or discussion (and feel free to disagree with me on any point) while working on changes to the article. It's pretty long, so give yourself some time, no rush. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a quick note to say: Wow and sincere thanks. This is my first time nominating an article for GA, so I didn't know what to expect. You've done a huge amount of work. I've glanced over it and first impressions are agreement with every piece of feedback I noted. I had lots of motivations to nominate this article, one was that I know it would get me feedback that would make be a better contributor here (I'm new) so all feedback is taken with thanks and obviously it's made in good faith and centres around making wikipedia better, not my comfort. I totally recognize the comments on over section and prose. There's a lot of citation issues, most of the content is covered by many many sources and I was keen to not over cite, so I'm sure I can find the ideal citation for everything. I'm very grateful for your effort and I'll reply over on the right page once I start working through it. How should I keep track, do you want me to add indented replies to each comment as I go? I'll probably just work through them in list order. CT55555 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is your first review, it's probably a good idea to note your changes as you go so that you don't lose track of what you've done and what's still needed – especially as you may have to start and stop a few times over several days. (Next time, you might do a few changes then note those changes in one edit to the review page.)  Try to indent your comments and questions while preserving the list formatting per talk page guidelines – but don't worry too much about that.  Chances are that you and I will be the only ones editing the review page so it should be easy enough to tell who is writing what.  You can sign all of your comments or just the ones under General discussion.  Oh, you may have received a bot notice that you have 7 days to make changes; don't worry if it takes you a while longer than that for this review.  I'm quite confident that this should be able to pass. Oh, some of the prose comments may be immaterial after making changes under layout or referencing – those were the three big areas – hopefully it isn't too confusing or contradictory. Referencing and layout are more about content and structure, while prosework is a final polish, so give priority to layout and referencing. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All good. I'm looking forward to improving the article. Thanks again. CT55555 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for La Poutine Week
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, and questions.
Hello!

I am a newbie editor for the Copy and Edit guild.

I'm interested in these people that call themselves 'Coordinators'

How would one become a 'Coordinator'.

--Keanu Venter (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
 * Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) Coordinators are volunteers who help manage this user group. Any editor in good standing can become elected as a GOCE coordinator.  GOCE coordinator elections are by community approval voting held in June and December each year.
 * I first served as a GOCE coordinator in January 2018. Before that, I was a highly active member of the GOCE for more than a year (copy edited about 400 articles or a million words), was active on the group's talk pages and had carried out most of the coordinator tasks at one point or another. This demonstrated that I had the competency and availability to do the job. I'd also written about 50 articles at that time, had about 8,000 edits and a pretty good understanding of the policies and guidelines.
 * If you read through the GOCE's talk page archives, you can get a good idea of who the coordinators are, the issues that we face and the tasks that we perform. For information about copy-editing on Wikipedia, you can also go through the essays and tutorials at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and read through the Manual of Style.
 * You may also want to spend some time with other user groups on Wikipedia, most of which call themselves WikiProjects. Some have a subject-specific interest, like WikiProject Military History or WikiProject Computing. Others have a task-specific interest, like GOCE, the Counter-Vandalism Unit or the Teahouse.  The Teahouse is a great place for newcomers to ask questions, BTW.
 * Take some time exploring Wikipedia; there's a lot going on. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome the the Guild. Short answer: copy-edit articles—maybe take part in Drives and Blitzes (we'll notice you); become familiar with Wikipedia's and the GoCE's culture and processes; and nominate yourself for election when you're ready. Coordinator elections are usually held every June and December for a six-month term. By the way, it's the "Guild of Copy Editors", not the "Copy and Edit Guild". Happy editing and Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

February 2022 Guild of Copy Editors Blitz award
I'm not a coordinator anymore, but since you honor the tradition of not giving yourself a barnstar, I wanted to honor you myself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, and happy palindrome day 22-02-2022 ! – Reidgreg (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Annual report
Hi Reidgreg, I'm finally getting to the Annual Report here; as the new lead, I wondered if you'd like to add some text to the "Plans for 2022" section. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  10:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a very detailed report. Have we had anything so detailed before, or is my memory failing me? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I revived the year-end reports when I first became a coordinator and wrote the one for the previous year and the year before that. They became increasingly detailed in succeeding years. I believe the 2020 report was the most detailed, having some extra stuff as a look-back for the Guild's 10th anniversary. However, neither Bafflegab nor myself (the primary authors) were coordinators in 2021, and I don't believe it was ever officially published.
 * I expect to have some free time on Thursday and will see about filling in some blanks (eg: time to completion). Will have to think about a statement. it would help a lot if you could send me your updated spreadsheets in an email (I still haven't figured out the date-importation snafu on my end). – Reidgreg (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem: I've emailed you the spreadsheet with the 2021- and 2022-completed requests. I found the formula to work out days to completion in the spreadsheet, so i should be able to start filling in the blanks. I've sent it in two formats so I hope you'll be alble to access it. No, the 2020 report was never actually finished and published; maybe that's something to work on next! :D Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  09:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I spotted a few errors in my spreadsheet, which I've traced back and corrected in the 2021 REQ archive. I'll email you the corrected spreadsheet forthwith. Sorry 'bout that! Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  07:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Been a bit busy but will try to get to this.  Was finishing a Ukraine article while their websites were going down and now taking another pass at a long GA review. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late reply. I think I've entered the data correctly; I'm unfamiliar with Calc's methodology but I eventually found out how to get the averages... and sat here for an hour using a calculator. The top line of the "medals table" will need checking as I couldn't get the magic wiki formulae working. I'm clearly out-of-practise with this stuff. Next stop is the March newsletter. Well done for getting the Ukraine article finished in difficult circumstances. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  17:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Two templates for the same thing
I seen that there are two templates for the same thing. They Template:Canadian Comedy Award for Best TV Series and Template:Canadian Comedy Award for Best TV Show. It's redundant to have two templates for the same category. I'm all for redirecting one. Since the latter is the correct name of the category, the former should be redirected. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had been unaware of these (or else had forgotten); thanks for bringing them to my attention. Pinging their creators  would you have any objection to a merge?  I initially thought to merge into the TV Series one (which is older), but C.C. is correct, the official name is "Best TV Show" (despite the performance/writing/direction awards being for TV Series). I can handle the merge and then turn the other into a redirect.
 * BTW: I don't like to go crazy with navigation templates and don't want to set precedent to making navtemplates for the rest of the CCA award categories. Sometimes I feel like they might not meet the 'defining characteristic' threshold for all of their members (ie: the articles they appear on) and can add to clutter and transcluded page size.  If the navtemplate title isn't notable enough to have its own article (ie Canadian Comedy Award for Best TV Show), that may be an indication that it isn't hugely important to the subject.  But in this case at least, I feel that it is probably worth having. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they will respond.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

They haven't responded. Best to put one template up for deletion. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Formatting - Canadian Comedy Awards
I have been adding multiple wins and nomination sections to each article for the awards. Now, in the 4th, 5th, 6th editions, I put Mike Meyers / Goldmember, for instance, in those sections and infobox. I did that in the others as you can see. Now, do we leave as I have done it? Do we have the a work (film or movie) in the those sections and infobox? Or we do have the person nominated/won in those sections and infobox? That's something that's never discussed. So there is no manual of style for that. The 7th edition has Mark McKinney won twice for Slings & Arrows, but the TV writing award was shared with two others. What would we do then? I just put Slings & Arrows in multiple nominations section until something is agreed upon in those instances. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I tried to get the high number of wins and nominations for each year, it was too difficult for me to attempt comprehensive tables. Finding the names of everyone who was in a sketch troupe or play for a particular year can be quite difficult to source.  For the 1st I noticed that Bob Martin is missing with 4 nominations (1 win) and Lisa Lambert with 3 nominations (2 wins).  I think you're right about Mike Myers/Goldmember, etc., picking just one pushes a POV. Shared awards (or nominations) count for everyone (counts as a full win for each person), I feel, so you'll get a lot when you have multiple writers on a TV series. I think everyone who achieves that number should get listed, but you could check with other awards articles to see what they do. Feel free to continue with the rest if you're confident. If any tabulation is not obvious, maybe leave a wikicomment explaining how you arrived at it. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking Primetime Emmy Awards, in terms of television, they list "major wins" and "major nominations." It says says: '"Major'" constitutes the categories listed above: Program, Acting, Directing, and Writing. Does not include the technical categories."  Since the Canadian Comedy Awards don't include technical awards, we can be general in this instance  if you want.  But the Primetime Emmys list the major awards nominations and wins by network not the individual show.  The Academy Award articles just list movies not actors, writers, directors, etc..  The Canadian Screen Awards go by show and film separately for multiple nominations and win.  So it seems okay to just list the show, movie, comedian, and whatever got multiple nominations and wins.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm noticing something different starting in the 14th Canadian Comedy Awards. You are putting television and films in the multimedia section. But in the 15th Canadian Comedy Awards you put television and internet in the same category. Why would you just do that in the previous year's awards? Keep films separate as well. Keep it consistent. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that I grouped the categories the way that they were presented on the CCA website, which altered it a bit from from year to year. (Check the first reference after "Winners are listed first and highlighted in boldface:")  I believe at the time that I felt regrouping them would have been arbitrary and original research.  In the main CCA article, I purposefully avoided grouping the categories that way, and instead divided them by industry/public voting (and current/discontinued awards). – Reidgreg (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would necessarily be original research. It's redundant to not have films separate.  Web series are generally lumped in with TV, so I can give that a bit of pass.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if maybe there was a lack of theatrically released films to round out the nominees and maybe they included internet-released features... or perhaps only in the preliminary nomination round. Anyways, I wouldn't change it from the official groups.  I don't think I'd mind you using your own determination for mosts (ie: tv and film, not multimedia).  Oh, looks like I included some footnotes for the 15th, which might help with live mosts. –  Reidgreg (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

On the 15th edition, The Hour Has 22 Minutes was nominated twice for best series. It's redundant to nominate the same show twice in that particular category. There is no way to know why that was done. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I couldn't figure that out either. I presented it as listed.  perhaps a footnote? Reidgreg (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The footnote would have to explain why it was nominated twice. We'll never know.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Finally finished adding multiples wins and nominations sections and most wins and nominations infobox. That's all I can figure out that needs doing in the articles. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Free Comic Book Day improvement
Hey, thanks for all of your work improving Free Comic Book Day! One thing that has bugged me about the table for a little while now is that we don't have any source that we can cite for no film being associated with FCBD in 2021 or it being associated with Free Guy. If we can get a source for either (I haven't had luck with my limited searching) we can put something in and get rid of that one blank cell in the table. Thanks! Spidey 104  18:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I nominated it at GAN in March, hopefully someone will review it in time to be eligible for DYK on May 7.  I haven't found anything mentioning FCBD and Free Guy.  The movie appears to be from an original idea and did not originate from a comic book, so it doesn't really make sense as a cross-promotion. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I know it's not from a comic book, but it is a similar genre and it was released the day prior. Just trying to "cross the T's and dot the I's" in having something for or against it being a cross-promotion. Spidey  104  18:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for McNally v R
— Maile (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you look over my work?
Hi!! i just joined Wikipedia, and i tried to help by 'copyediting' Adanga Maru but idk how well of a job I did, and the 'guild of copyeditors' said I could ask you questiosn, so can you help me out and look over y work? If you're too busy, that's okay! The Wolfie&#39;s Star (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * willdo. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Left detailed notes on Wolfie's talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free Comic Book Day
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Free Comic Book Day 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! I was at the point where I was considering withdrawing the nomination and trying again next year.  BTW, I was the reviewer on Talk:Free Comic Book Day/GA2. I had to fail that because the nominator was on a break and I couldn't find anyone else to take over, but I'd found lots of sources for expansion and ended up improving the article myself. Then there were a couple lean years due to the pandemic and the event's future seemed uncertain. Now it's back on schedule and seemed the perfect time to nominate it again. (Well, maybe I could have done it a little earlier.) Reidgreg (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free Comic Book Day
The article Free Comic Book Day 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:Free Comic Book Day for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

April blitz barnstars
I think it's fair to give Urban Versis 32 10 percent of their claimed total,, and (since it's almost time for the May drive) it may be time to finish the barnstar page; I have a bit of time today and tomorrow. All the best,  Mini  apolis  17:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only other one I'm concerned with is Asparagusus's copy edit of Latin America, which you pointed out earlier. I don't have energy to give the copy edit a thorough review.  I can see the editor made some good changes throughout but it could use more work, and they continued copy editing after the conclusion of the drive.  Maybe a partial discount of that one article? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, . Does half credit on their total seem too generous? (It's okay with me; I'm just trying to get the barnstars out before the drive starts .) I can finish the barnstars tomorrow. Enjoy the weekend and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll update the barnstar page and you can distribute them tomorrow. Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free Comic Book Day
The article Free Comic Book Day you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Free Comic Book Day for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Free Comic Book Day
Hello! Your submission of Free Comic Book Day 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Free Comic Book Day
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The_Blacklist_(TV_series)
Thanks your your cogent arguments there. The opposition is baffling. —В²C ☎ 19:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I don't get it either.  Although the idea with a discussion is to discuss, it may be a better idea to not engage with someone who has committed to an entrenched position.  Feel free to vent your frustrations here, outside of the discussion.
 * I've been in discussions like this before, with experienced editors who have a good editing record and you'd think would be more open to collaboration. Editors who shout that consensus is on their side but don't actually bring anything to the discussion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Editors who say that other things support them but won't offer links and when you provide examples for your argument they shout WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – essentially cherrypicking, saying that the precedents in their favour are valid but any other ones don't apply.
 * Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the move request will close with 'no consensus' due to the division, even though consensus is not a vote but a summary of opinion, and the opinion on the support side is (to me) overwhelmingly stronger (article title policy, examples of moves with similar articles, pageviews, etc) compared to the oppose side (Google Books ngrams, IDONTLIKEIT, and rhetoric that it will disgrace Wikipedia). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope the closer has your wisdom. --В²C ☎ 21:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Bancroft and its uranium
Sorry for the delay, but I have now replied to each of your (agreeable) edit requests.

Uranium mining in the Bancroft area is ready for your firth review (or GA approval). CT55555 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very busy, will try to get to it after I finish replies for my FAC. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All good my friend. Please don't feel any urgency from me. CT55555 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for When Jews Were Funny
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Being Canadian
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Although I haven't seen a formal request, tells me that you are interested in the newly promoted Danzig Street shooting being WP:TFA for July 16. I have already scheduled that date for J. Robert Oppenheimer, which was a WP:TFAR by. I'm asking Hawkeye to give his view here on your request, specifically if he is willing either to defer or to have a different date in July, probably 31 July. Whether Danzig Street runs this year or not, you should write a blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Danzig Street shooting/archive1, maximum 1025 characters including spaces, no non-free images, see Today's featured article/July 2022 for examples. Please don't edit WPTFA directly, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Since Danzig Street shooting is a tenth anniversary, I am willing to defer Oppenheimer until next year. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you would like a hand with the blurb. I have some experience in this area. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * many thanks to Hawkeye7  and Gog the Mild, I'll sort the rest of the changes Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hawkeye7. I wrote a blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Danzig Street shooting/archive1, just under the prosesize threshold.  It could use a copyedit for sure. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Looks fine to me. Is there an appropriate free use image to go with it? The Morningside-Coronation one, perhaps? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks OK to me too. Posted at Today's featured article/July 16, 2022. Feel free to change the image if there is a better free-to-use one Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

 * Thanks! It only took me six years.   Noticed a couple things while it was TFA:  some sockpuppet vandalism which must have been bad since it was deleted from the article history.  Also, it got about 47k views on the mainpage, which is close to the peak 52k daily views the Bruce MacArthur article received on the day of his sentencing.  Most of the Toronto newspapers covered the 10th anniversary, but nothing notable to add so looks like a finished article, content-wise.  Here's hoping it doesn't take another six years for my next FA. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Danzig Street shooting scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Danzig Street shooting article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 16, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 16, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the article "about a 2012 shooting in Toronto, Canada. It occurred at a crowded block party and is considered the city's worst mass shooting, with 27 bullets fired and 26 people wounded, 2 fatally. All four people convicted in relation to the shooting were teenagers at the time of the incident.", and welcome to TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

more July songs, from Swiss Alps --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Punctuate this sentence....
Hi. It wasn't clear from WP:GOCE where to ask questions like this, so I figured I'd just start here. How would you punctuate this sentence: In the United States, proposals to arm teachers were made following shootings at schools in Columbine, Colorado; Omaha, Nebraska; Newtown, Connecticut; Sidney, Ohio; Parkland, Florida, and Uvalde, Texas? Normally, commas separate items in a list, but if I did that, I'd end up with "...Columbine, Colorado, Omaha, Nebraska, Newtown, Connecticut...", which would be horribly confusing. So I left the city/state separator as a comma and switched to semicolons for list separators. But I have no clue if that's actually correct or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your example above has correct punctuation (there is a similar example at MOS:SEMICOLON). I might have additionally introduced the inline list with a colon:  Proposals to arm teachers were made following school shootings in the following US cities: Columbine, Colorado; Omaha, Nebraska; Newtown, Connecticut; Sidney, Ohio; Parkland, Florida, and Uvalde, Texas.  But there's nothing wrong with the way you had it. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You need a semicolon after "Florida", not a comma. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Missed that. Reidgreg (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; all. And I guess that means I've got an oxford semicolon :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Advice for starting RfC
You kindly responded several weeks ago to a 3O request I placed. In your response at Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka, you made the suggestion of perhaps seeking broader consensus for the same issue across LGBT article infoboxes. Having had the same issue come up on yet another article, where I thought I had been "holding the line"(!), it's probably more than time I followed that suggestion.

My uncertainty though, is, where do I start it? Should I place it at Template talk:Infobox LGBT rights or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, or somewhere else?

Hope you don't mind me asking you; just not sure where was best even after reading guidelines at WP:Requests for comment. Thanks for any advice you can offer. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, meant to reply to this earlier but got sidetracked while looking things up. (I've only posed a couple RfCs, so I'm not an expert.) I feel that the RfC would best be held at Template talk:Infobox LGBT rights with a notification at WP LGBT studies.  That way the RfC discussion can be easily found at the template talk page instead of wading through the talk archives at the WikiProject. The whole template would benefit from documentation on the intended use of parameters but best to focus on penalty for the RfC.
 * Keep the RfC question succinct. It might be best to avoid the word vigilante, which could confuse the issue as some define it as 'one who enforces the law without legal authority'. Perhaps: Should the penalty parameter of Template:Infobox LGBT rights be used only for legal punishments or should it also include extralegal punishments? Then follow up with an opening statement about how this has been an issue across multiple articles using the template (linking previous discussions), that the articles discuss legal rights, and then your opinion on the relevance of lynching and vigilantism.
 * You could possibly also cite MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE or link LGBT rights by country or territory with its problematic table, but maybe just keep those in your pocket and bring them up if needed to clarify the discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Reidgreg, that's very helpful. Not to worry about the time taken to reply: a couple of days is nothing and I just really appreciate your effort in giving me your thoughts. I'll do my best to follow your advice; succinctness is not a core strength for me! But hearing a bit more about the process will boost my confidence in putting it forward. Here's hoping there'll be a good level of response. Many thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox name param
You already know that there is consensus for this since you participated in the discussions. We've cleared the parameter from over 40k pages over the past 12 months. Processing the maintenance categories is essentially a semi-automated process, with several of the editors using AutoWikiBrowser. It's not realistic to expect that your pet pages are ignored since the typical process is to load the contents of the maintenance category for an AWB run. No one is going to remember to ignore 3 pages (or whatever it is you want to keep it on). If the page name matches the pagebasename, it will be in the maintenance category for updating. As long as the maintenance category exists, TV project editors are going to process it. So what's your suggestion going forward? Butler Blog  (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you please link to the consensus discussion you mentioned? Thanks. Oh, my suggestion was to delete the category, but that was shot down for procedural reasons (nothing to do with the maintenance task's merit or lack thereof) and I was a bit frustrated at the maintenance cabal and chose not to pursue it further at that time. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. You manually reinstated your edits removing the name parameter from the articles, citing Template:Infobox television. That page says the parameter Need not be used if the name is the same as the article title as the infobox handles this automatically.  "Need not be used" means that it may not be used, not that it should not be used, and I do not believe it is a valid reason for the wholesale removal of the parameter from articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You manually reinstated your edits - huh? I think you need to take another look at that.  To clarify my point above, the mere presence of this as a maintenance category is going to result in those edits being made.  Sure, I can make a note about these pages and/or ignore the cat completely, but that doesn't mean others will (or that others will even know about your concern). There are quite a few other people who work on these maintenance categories regularly.  As long as the maintenance category exists, you're fighting an uphill battle because some other gnome is going to come along to clear it.  The most recent edits that you appear to think I did would seem to prove that point.    Butler Blog   (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, it was another editor who made the manual revert. Pinging in . – Reidgreg (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * duly noted ;-)  Butler Blog   (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Reidgreg Good morning, yeah I found a category with more than 20k article listed with unnecessary name parameters. I don't remember I ever crossed path @Butlerblog, but yeah I have come across multiple instances where unnecessary parameter from infobox was removed manually by editor and not by any automated bot. I assume I made the edit in good faith, as it was listed in maintenance category. Thank C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the background of this dispute, but a hidden HTML comment in a given article should dissuade human editors, and  should keep AWB-using editors away from the article. Those insertions may or may not be desirable in a given article, but they are possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnstars for you
Just know I appreciate it and even though this wasn't what I posted on the reward board. This for you especially. Wikiwow*_* ( talk ) 05:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's an embarrassing number of barnstars for one article. Thanks very much for the Writer's Barnstar, I've wanted that one for a while. BTW, I've prepared cover art for the article which I can upload once it's moved to mainspace.  If you're holding to prepare a WP:DYK promotion or something, though, take your time.  Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Stats for 10,000 Challenge (fifth year)
Hello. Thank you for giving me a barnstar for the sixth year of the 10,000 Challenge. I was wondering if the stats for the fifth year of the 10,000 Challenge could be added. It's currently the only year without stats. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Reidgreg (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

«unliked username »
Thank you for frankly stating your opinion of me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1125644640 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)<
 * That was supposed to be unlinked. I didn't understand why you removed your records from the challenge. I thought maybe having your username unlinked might be a compromise to putting some distance between the challenge and your account, if that was somehow an issue for you. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

December blitz
Hi Reidgreg, I hope you're well. I was checking the page and I noticed your count of 24 words of wearable technology for the December blitz. I checked the history but I can't find any edits from your account in there. Is there a mistake or am I missing something? I noticed one revision was deleted; could this have hidden your edit? Thanks and cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, you can ignore the above... I've spotted the edit in your contribs, though I've no idea why I didn't see that before! It's all good. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I seem to have claimed wearable technology for the blitz when my copyedit was to the much more problematic article wearable computer. Apologies for my error and the resulting confusion. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would explain it... thanks. I should have checked your contribs much earlier! I thought the site software was doing something odd when I couldn't find your edit. It did give me a minor giggle though! :D Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  21:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Project Canada's 10,000 challenge
I have just added Canada-related articles I created in 2022 to The 10,000 Challenge/Recent additions. I have been adding quite a bit of content, including articles created, etc. for a number of years now without adding it to this list so they are not recent additions in terms of their contributions, just recently added to this list. Please let me know it this is appropriate.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's great! Awards will be given in November – hopefully! I'm the only one overseeing it. Reidgreg (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Reidgreg!


Happy New Year! Reidgreg, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)