![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hiya again Acabashi - hope you arent too busy to see this ;) Ive been busy creating new pages for some of the smaller places in Lincolnshire such as North Forty Foot Bank and Pelhams Land and when I put the category pl: in a bot comes along and takes it off again. Why? and how can it be resolved so that the work done actually shows up in the recent edits bit of the Wikiproject Lincolnshire page? Thanks Panderoona ( talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Our friend Dinosaur has added some rambling uncited stuff to Alvingham and Castle Bytham. I have no doubt at all that if we write on his talk page he wont read it. So, any suggestions? Panderoona ( talk) 20:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. She had a rough-ish start but it is paying off. We need people like her, with the passion for a subject area and the willingness to learn the ropes about citations etc. Getting the head to rule over the heart is a tough one sometimes, but she is doing it. - Sitush ( talk) 00:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No aggrandisement - Bury is a cathedral city. Opbeith ( talk) 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!
![]() There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.
During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started.
The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( Talk), Tea with toast ( Talk), Chaosdruid ( talk), and Torchiest ( talk). |
Sent on behalf of the
Guild of Copy Editors using
AWB on 08:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to ask for your assistance on Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer) , a page you tagged back in January, and Deborah_Houlding. -- I have been trying to improve these pages and clean up unsourced items, but one editor goes on insisting that we should add links and references to (his?) external website. All attempts to point him/her to the WP guidelines have only met with resistance. See the respective talk pages. What to do in this case? MakeSense64 ( talk) 09:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you indicate where this has actually happened, and perhaps take up that point on the relevant discussion page? Or perhaps on the discussion page of the Wiki Astrology Project? if it is a viable problem it can be discussed and addressed appropriately. Clooneymark ( talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that the issue of 'belief' versus verifiability is a problematic one. That is why I think it is important not to speculate or assume, because that is part of the same cycle really. Follow the policy of 'good faith' and if there are genuine causes for concern - raise them at a place where the issue can be verified. Just my suggestion Clooneymark ( talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is a matter of legwork. It is easy to tag an article. Much more time consuming to actually work on the content with the intention of verifying what can be verified and bringing the page up to standard. That needs time and it also needs proper notification of the problem. The Wiki Astrology Project has a noticeboard and I will try to create activity on it and raise awareness of the problematic pages there. In response however, I suggest that negative aspertions are not cast on those who repond to the problem and aim to improve the quality of the content. Alerts for attention will - ideally - stimulate attention to the problem Clooneymark ( talk) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure it needs to be tiring to work out a plan. Just follow policy and remember that when it comes to subjects that involve belief, neutrality does not require the dismissal of the belief. It only requires that the nature of the belief is objectively defined, with a sense of detachment and a reliance upon verifyable sources. Clooneymark ( talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I fear you made your suspicion all too apparent, and underlined it with too much negative assumption. Perhaps a reason why this particular member will not now, contribute again. I too hope he will. His contribution was useful and important Clooneymark ( talk) 13:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I will add a notice about this on the Wiki Astrology Project noticeboard. I think that since that project exists, it ought to be utilised. Clooneymark ( talk) 13:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
One of the ways to deal with articles that are seriously flawed is to add a Copyedit template and a Wikify template. This may appear tag littering sometimes so I only do it where an article is so beyond acceptability, while I usually try some improving at the time and explaining tagging reasoning - the value of this is that there are regular Copyedit and Wikification drives (sorry to push this one again) that will pick up these articles which are automatically added to their lists. They may not be tackled as editors can tend to go for the easy ones first, but it's not a fruitless exercise. Drives have cleaned-up about 50% of all tagged articles from 2009/10, and there can be no suspicion that the changes are carried out other than by complete neutrality - very important for those who will often use the "you're not neutral" cloak to mask their own vested interests. Drive editors' work is monitored so there is no point in being a Drive editor with ulterior motive. The Drives can pick up on non-notables, even if not tagged as such, and quite a few have been deleted during the process, under a reasonable assumption that "you can't polish shit" (pardon the vernacular).
You mention Farmer. Farmer has squeezed through the AfD process - I don't know how as his article (and he admits it is him) is now, in my view, his own personal web page. Once a BLP of this ilk gets through AfD its seems a green light for those with agendas to push any nonsense and trivia. I'm leaving well alone with that one for the moment - drop the stick and walk away - as there are bound to be other editors who will soon pick up on the problem. You are right in saying that the first thing to do is to determine [verification for] notability. However paltry the article is, unless it violates obvious vandalism, blatant promotion, or attack (speedy delete), an assumption can be made that if a claim for notability is made (by dint of the article being there in the first place) then the article should be given the benefit of the doubt and time for reliable secondary refs to be found. If none are found then delete is appropriate. However if refs are found we could be into the territory we are in with Elwell. "People who are relatively unknown" - well here is Wikipedia using weasel words that we are supposed to weed-out. The guideline door is just sufficiently open to allow interpretation. What is "relative" is relative - at what point do the unknown become relatively unknown and then at what point do they become known? Those with an agenda will shift known-ness and quality of sources anywhere along a sliding scale, and those with promotion in mind will slide these towards the top. The vague "exercise restraint" - one editor's restraint is another editor's idea that "you've got it in for my topic". " Due weight" means that all sides of the article topic should be included but based only on the availability of verifiable reliable (secondary) sources - if there are more reliable independent (not self-published or self-referencing) sources to support one aspect of the topic then I assume that the balance would be towards that aspect, and this would be roughly reflected in the amount of words attributed to that aspect. Then the issue of what is a reliable source again raises its head. Acabashi ( talk) 11:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a shame that there is a lot of talk here about mixing up belief with verifiability, and yet you don't seem to recognise how you are all engaging in that problem. Significant points of concern about the Elwell article belong on the Elwell discussion page. But you need to be clear about what your concerns are, and how they might be fixed. Are these concerns really valid, or do they just exits in your worst suspicions? Clooneymark ( talk) 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick request Can you check out my write up on Somerby I am not sure if its okay to include ref to Vineyard. It does include ref to ancient finds - but is also a commercial site, Since theres not much else there, it seems reasonable-ish to include, However dont want to go wrong now and I dont mind losing it, I only included it to fluff the page out a bit. Also wish to disambig Old Somerby near Gainsborough and Somerby Leics, and don't know how. Since I wish to sort it sooner rather than later I am also posting this on Sitush page so apologies if you go and look and its already done. Many thanks Panderoona ( talk) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Whereabouts are you going? I wouldnt want to suggest anywhere off your route. If you go near Brothertoft or Boston please give them a wave hello from me. Panderoona ( talk) 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I notice you have just done some edits on the Atterby article. A lot of the information in this was written by me a few years ago, soon after I started with WP. Surprised it has stayed intact for so long, hi! As I stated in the article talk page, a lot of the info came from a locally produced village guide by Peter Stopp. I realised even at the time that this sort of material doesn't really fall into the realm of WP recognised sources, but there again for little villages out in the sticks there is nothing else available. I lived up in that part of Lincolnshire in my youth so am very familiar with it, and the likes of Everett's buses were well known to the locals - but that of course is local hearsay which has no place in WP.
The Peter Stopp booklet is referenced in the article, and all the items you have flagged requiring citation are directly from that - with the exception of JD Everett now being a haulage company, which a simple Google can confirm, though it is probably trivia with no place in the article.
I would be interested in how in general in Project Lincolnshire we cope with situations like this, when the only available references are in locally produced material and there is unlikely to be any other sources. Taking all these things out because of this would result in a very short and boring article... Dsergeant ( talk) 19:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You are very welcome. My very first edit here was in a similar vein - tiny place called Brothertoft, and Id managed to find out a fair bit about where my dad was born, and thought Id add it to Wikipedia with no clue of what I was doing. What a journey - but it did teach me that probably 8 times out of 10, theres a reference to what you know somewhere out there. Whats more, I learnt far more about the place than I imagined, so its always worth plugging away at those citations :) Panderoona ( talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Acabashi - I have done all I could on the C's cant find anything much on Claye {historical} nor Conisham. They dont turn up on Gridreferencefinder nor on Google maps. Suggest removal? or leave in the vain hope someone knows what its all about. Ds are done. Have fun with the July Copyedit you know where I am if you fancy a chat. I dont know how much I will be around either with newborn coming home soon. OOh time to enjoy being a gran at last!! Best wishes Panderoona ( talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If I were to try and copyedit some of the Lincs articles, say for instance, the Ds (a good one to start on as theres not many of them, and it keeps me away from clashing with your work) - what am I actually doing/looking for? I am assuming, accuracy, verification/citations, grammar and spelling, weeding out weasels, adding infoboxes images? Many thank A Panderoona ( talk) 18:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
A well deserved award for the work you did on the Dennis Elwell page. Best Wishes Panderoona ( talk) 10:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
Many thanks for this - appreciated. Not many think I'm diplomatic; I'm usually considered rather brusque I'm sure. We'll have to see if any impression has been made before we can consider if I deserve it or not :) Acabashi ( talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Just to let you know that I have archived the request from the GOCE requests page. In case you did not see the comment, Diannaa has advised you to take the article to Peer review, rather than list it for a GOCE copyedit.
Hope this does not cause offence :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember going there as a kid and dad telling me the story. I dont think he named the old witch, but he pointed out her suposed cottage, and told the story and showed us the horseshoes. - By the way back then they were set in the roadside, and not as they are now, just amongst the grass. I havent been able to come up with much on the story online that I cant be sure hasnt been nicked from Wiki in the past. Did you ever hear the tale? have you any ideas for referencing it? Thanks Panderoona ( talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
This barnstar is awarded to Acabashi for copy edits totalling over 8,000 words in the GOCE May copy edit drive. Thank you very much for your support! Diannaa ( Talk) 01:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) |
Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch ( talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive update
![]() Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter.
So far, 45 people have signed up for the drive, of which 30 are actively participating, a very high participation rate. If you have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us.
Progress has been less than that needed to meet our target for the drive (which would reduce the backlog by about 400 articles). Remember though, if everyone copy edits one or two articles every day, we will easily meet our goal. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. Reducing the number of articles on this list has been a major success of this drive. Thanks for participating! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For a history of quality work. jorgenev 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Conflict of interest noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment
at the relevant thread. Thank you.
MakeSense64 (
talk)
09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I just selected Frans Andersson as a random article to check as part of the July drive checks. Only a few comments this time :¬)
A blindingly difficult article to copy-edit though! Well done :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks too ! Other subject : do you have information about the old yew in the St Nicholas churchyard ? We can see it on the right part of the picture. It must be an old one. Nortmannus ( talk) 13:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I was interested in what you had to say about the lede not needing to include citations. I had been wondering about this myself, because I've noticed that the daily featured articles tend not to include lede references. Can you tell me if it's a MOS requirement to avoid lede citations, or is it (as I assume) that it's just bad practice and those references are not deemed necessary because the lede should only be summarising what is explained more clearly below?
I was planning to bring this up with regard to the Astrology page where all the comments in the lede are referenced - however, for the time being I think it's a good thing that they are because the main body text is being worked over and editors are trying to establish which of the comments can be substantiated. A lot of the references don't connect to the points being made in the article - which seems to be the result of random cuts in content where refs are left in innapropriate places.
BTW, I joined the copy-editors guild thinking that I would have time to explore that section more thoroughly than I have. For now, that's probably not a good idea for me - do you think I should remove my name from the list? Thanks Zac Δ talk 09:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hiya again Acabashi - hope you arent too busy to see this ;) Ive been busy creating new pages for some of the smaller places in Lincolnshire such as North Forty Foot Bank and Pelhams Land and when I put the category pl: in a bot comes along and takes it off again. Why? and how can it be resolved so that the work done actually shows up in the recent edits bit of the Wikiproject Lincolnshire page? Thanks Panderoona ( talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Our friend Dinosaur has added some rambling uncited stuff to Alvingham and Castle Bytham. I have no doubt at all that if we write on his talk page he wont read it. So, any suggestions? Panderoona ( talk) 20:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. She had a rough-ish start but it is paying off. We need people like her, with the passion for a subject area and the willingness to learn the ropes about citations etc. Getting the head to rule over the heart is a tough one sometimes, but she is doing it. - Sitush ( talk) 00:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No aggrandisement - Bury is a cathedral city. Opbeith ( talk) 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!
![]() There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.
During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started.
The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( Talk), Tea with toast ( Talk), Chaosdruid ( talk), and Torchiest ( talk). |
Sent on behalf of the
Guild of Copy Editors using
AWB on 08:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to ask for your assistance on Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer) , a page you tagged back in January, and Deborah_Houlding. -- I have been trying to improve these pages and clean up unsourced items, but one editor goes on insisting that we should add links and references to (his?) external website. All attempts to point him/her to the WP guidelines have only met with resistance. See the respective talk pages. What to do in this case? MakeSense64 ( talk) 09:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you indicate where this has actually happened, and perhaps take up that point on the relevant discussion page? Or perhaps on the discussion page of the Wiki Astrology Project? if it is a viable problem it can be discussed and addressed appropriately. Clooneymark ( talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that the issue of 'belief' versus verifiability is a problematic one. That is why I think it is important not to speculate or assume, because that is part of the same cycle really. Follow the policy of 'good faith' and if there are genuine causes for concern - raise them at a place where the issue can be verified. Just my suggestion Clooneymark ( talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is a matter of legwork. It is easy to tag an article. Much more time consuming to actually work on the content with the intention of verifying what can be verified and bringing the page up to standard. That needs time and it also needs proper notification of the problem. The Wiki Astrology Project has a noticeboard and I will try to create activity on it and raise awareness of the problematic pages there. In response however, I suggest that negative aspertions are not cast on those who repond to the problem and aim to improve the quality of the content. Alerts for attention will - ideally - stimulate attention to the problem Clooneymark ( talk) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure it needs to be tiring to work out a plan. Just follow policy and remember that when it comes to subjects that involve belief, neutrality does not require the dismissal of the belief. It only requires that the nature of the belief is objectively defined, with a sense of detachment and a reliance upon verifyable sources. Clooneymark ( talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I fear you made your suspicion all too apparent, and underlined it with too much negative assumption. Perhaps a reason why this particular member will not now, contribute again. I too hope he will. His contribution was useful and important Clooneymark ( talk) 13:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I will add a notice about this on the Wiki Astrology Project noticeboard. I think that since that project exists, it ought to be utilised. Clooneymark ( talk) 13:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
One of the ways to deal with articles that are seriously flawed is to add a Copyedit template and a Wikify template. This may appear tag littering sometimes so I only do it where an article is so beyond acceptability, while I usually try some improving at the time and explaining tagging reasoning - the value of this is that there are regular Copyedit and Wikification drives (sorry to push this one again) that will pick up these articles which are automatically added to their lists. They may not be tackled as editors can tend to go for the easy ones first, but it's not a fruitless exercise. Drives have cleaned-up about 50% of all tagged articles from 2009/10, and there can be no suspicion that the changes are carried out other than by complete neutrality - very important for those who will often use the "you're not neutral" cloak to mask their own vested interests. Drive editors' work is monitored so there is no point in being a Drive editor with ulterior motive. The Drives can pick up on non-notables, even if not tagged as such, and quite a few have been deleted during the process, under a reasonable assumption that "you can't polish shit" (pardon the vernacular).
You mention Farmer. Farmer has squeezed through the AfD process - I don't know how as his article (and he admits it is him) is now, in my view, his own personal web page. Once a BLP of this ilk gets through AfD its seems a green light for those with agendas to push any nonsense and trivia. I'm leaving well alone with that one for the moment - drop the stick and walk away - as there are bound to be other editors who will soon pick up on the problem. You are right in saying that the first thing to do is to determine [verification for] notability. However paltry the article is, unless it violates obvious vandalism, blatant promotion, or attack (speedy delete), an assumption can be made that if a claim for notability is made (by dint of the article being there in the first place) then the article should be given the benefit of the doubt and time for reliable secondary refs to be found. If none are found then delete is appropriate. However if refs are found we could be into the territory we are in with Elwell. "People who are relatively unknown" - well here is Wikipedia using weasel words that we are supposed to weed-out. The guideline door is just sufficiently open to allow interpretation. What is "relative" is relative - at what point do the unknown become relatively unknown and then at what point do they become known? Those with an agenda will shift known-ness and quality of sources anywhere along a sliding scale, and those with promotion in mind will slide these towards the top. The vague "exercise restraint" - one editor's restraint is another editor's idea that "you've got it in for my topic". " Due weight" means that all sides of the article topic should be included but based only on the availability of verifiable reliable (secondary) sources - if there are more reliable independent (not self-published or self-referencing) sources to support one aspect of the topic then I assume that the balance would be towards that aspect, and this would be roughly reflected in the amount of words attributed to that aspect. Then the issue of what is a reliable source again raises its head. Acabashi ( talk) 11:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a shame that there is a lot of talk here about mixing up belief with verifiability, and yet you don't seem to recognise how you are all engaging in that problem. Significant points of concern about the Elwell article belong on the Elwell discussion page. But you need to be clear about what your concerns are, and how they might be fixed. Are these concerns really valid, or do they just exits in your worst suspicions? Clooneymark ( talk) 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick request Can you check out my write up on Somerby I am not sure if its okay to include ref to Vineyard. It does include ref to ancient finds - but is also a commercial site, Since theres not much else there, it seems reasonable-ish to include, However dont want to go wrong now and I dont mind losing it, I only included it to fluff the page out a bit. Also wish to disambig Old Somerby near Gainsborough and Somerby Leics, and don't know how. Since I wish to sort it sooner rather than later I am also posting this on Sitush page so apologies if you go and look and its already done. Many thanks Panderoona ( talk) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Whereabouts are you going? I wouldnt want to suggest anywhere off your route. If you go near Brothertoft or Boston please give them a wave hello from me. Panderoona ( talk) 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I notice you have just done some edits on the Atterby article. A lot of the information in this was written by me a few years ago, soon after I started with WP. Surprised it has stayed intact for so long, hi! As I stated in the article talk page, a lot of the info came from a locally produced village guide by Peter Stopp. I realised even at the time that this sort of material doesn't really fall into the realm of WP recognised sources, but there again for little villages out in the sticks there is nothing else available. I lived up in that part of Lincolnshire in my youth so am very familiar with it, and the likes of Everett's buses were well known to the locals - but that of course is local hearsay which has no place in WP.
The Peter Stopp booklet is referenced in the article, and all the items you have flagged requiring citation are directly from that - with the exception of JD Everett now being a haulage company, which a simple Google can confirm, though it is probably trivia with no place in the article.
I would be interested in how in general in Project Lincolnshire we cope with situations like this, when the only available references are in locally produced material and there is unlikely to be any other sources. Taking all these things out because of this would result in a very short and boring article... Dsergeant ( talk) 19:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You are very welcome. My very first edit here was in a similar vein - tiny place called Brothertoft, and Id managed to find out a fair bit about where my dad was born, and thought Id add it to Wikipedia with no clue of what I was doing. What a journey - but it did teach me that probably 8 times out of 10, theres a reference to what you know somewhere out there. Whats more, I learnt far more about the place than I imagined, so its always worth plugging away at those citations :) Panderoona ( talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Acabashi - I have done all I could on the C's cant find anything much on Claye {historical} nor Conisham. They dont turn up on Gridreferencefinder nor on Google maps. Suggest removal? or leave in the vain hope someone knows what its all about. Ds are done. Have fun with the July Copyedit you know where I am if you fancy a chat. I dont know how much I will be around either with newborn coming home soon. OOh time to enjoy being a gran at last!! Best wishes Panderoona ( talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If I were to try and copyedit some of the Lincs articles, say for instance, the Ds (a good one to start on as theres not many of them, and it keeps me away from clashing with your work) - what am I actually doing/looking for? I am assuming, accuracy, verification/citations, grammar and spelling, weeding out weasels, adding infoboxes images? Many thank A Panderoona ( talk) 18:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
A well deserved award for the work you did on the Dennis Elwell page. Best Wishes Panderoona ( talk) 10:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
Many thanks for this - appreciated. Not many think I'm diplomatic; I'm usually considered rather brusque I'm sure. We'll have to see if any impression has been made before we can consider if I deserve it or not :) Acabashi ( talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Just to let you know that I have archived the request from the GOCE requests page. In case you did not see the comment, Diannaa has advised you to take the article to Peer review, rather than list it for a GOCE copyedit.
Hope this does not cause offence :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember going there as a kid and dad telling me the story. I dont think he named the old witch, but he pointed out her suposed cottage, and told the story and showed us the horseshoes. - By the way back then they were set in the roadside, and not as they are now, just amongst the grass. I havent been able to come up with much on the story online that I cant be sure hasnt been nicked from Wiki in the past. Did you ever hear the tale? have you any ideas for referencing it? Thanks Panderoona ( talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
This barnstar is awarded to Acabashi for copy edits totalling over 8,000 words in the GOCE May copy edit drive. Thank you very much for your support! Diannaa ( Talk) 01:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) |
Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch ( talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive update
![]() Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter.
So far, 45 people have signed up for the drive, of which 30 are actively participating, a very high participation rate. If you have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us.
Progress has been less than that needed to meet our target for the drive (which would reduce the backlog by about 400 articles). Remember though, if everyone copy edits one or two articles every day, we will easily meet our goal. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. Reducing the number of articles on this list has been a major success of this drive. Thanks for participating! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For a history of quality work. jorgenev 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Conflict of interest noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment
at the relevant thread. Thank you.
MakeSense64 (
talk)
09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I just selected Frans Andersson as a random article to check as part of the July drive checks. Only a few comments this time :¬)
A blindingly difficult article to copy-edit though! Well done :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks too ! Other subject : do you have information about the old yew in the St Nicholas churchyard ? We can see it on the right part of the picture. It must be an old one. Nortmannus ( talk) 13:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I was interested in what you had to say about the lede not needing to include citations. I had been wondering about this myself, because I've noticed that the daily featured articles tend not to include lede references. Can you tell me if it's a MOS requirement to avoid lede citations, or is it (as I assume) that it's just bad practice and those references are not deemed necessary because the lede should only be summarising what is explained more clearly below?
I was planning to bring this up with regard to the Astrology page where all the comments in the lede are referenced - however, for the time being I think it's a good thing that they are because the main body text is being worked over and editors are trying to establish which of the comments can be substantiated. A lot of the references don't connect to the points being made in the article - which seems to be the result of random cuts in content where refs are left in innapropriate places.
BTW, I joined the copy-editors guild thinking that I would have time to explore that section more thoroughly than I have. For now, that's probably not a good idea for me - do you think I should remove my name from the list? Thanks Zac Δ talk 09:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)