Advice please.
I had 1515 rollover words from the March Drive to add into the May Drive. May Drive produced 10051 words, for which I gratefully received the 8000 word Star. Is my rollover for July calculated on the 1515 + 10051 - 8000 (3566), or on just the May (2051)?
Also I added June 11 copyedit temps to Dennis Elwell (astrologer) and Chris Newman (actor), two articles that I have recently edited ( one a major edit through an intercession request from two warring editors) for an opportunity to be independently reviewed by others during the Drive - I shall not review them. Although templated in good faith, I was wondering if this was a kosher thing to do or a conflict of interest. Acabashi ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I started to copy edit the Saul Ascher article as part of this drive, but I have found that much of the article is confusing and sometimes incomprehensible. Perhaps a fluent German speaking editor can look at the sources in German and make sense of this article. I improved the grammar at the beginning of the article, and added a good many links for places and people. I cannot take any credit for my effort as part of this drive. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 18:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My thanks to whoever is putting me, and perhaps others, into the leaderboard at the proper places. Keep up the good work! The table is a bit tricky, and I was reluctant to start updating it, but now that I am on there, I can update the numbers. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why the graphs are not updating. If you click on the picture, you can see that the graphs have been updated, but it does not update on the article page. I'm not sure if truncating the "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" cat box is causing this problem as the problem only started since this was truncated (in the last drive). Anyone who knows how to fix this, please help. Thanks in advance. – SMasters ( talk) 06:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
For example, you can place a special "page in use" tag when you are copy editing, and another tag on the talk page when you finish.
Please add these two tags to this sentence in the article. Otherwise, they are hard to find. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am giving up on this one. Can I claim the 208 for the one section done, or can I leave both to whoever does the following section? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I had just finished updating the Margret Green Junior High School as part of this copy editing drive, when I discovered that there is another article, Margaret Green Junior High School, almost the same as the one I did but not copy edited. The proper article name is with the "a" in Margaret. Now I do not know what to do, so I am asking for help here. Please make sure my improvements and copy editing is retained. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the stacking-up of numerous articles (one with 8) is happening again, while not putting the { {GOCEinuse} } at articles' heads, apart from the fact that I thought this multiple booking was discouraged - I was almost in danger of an edit conflict. Acabashi ( talk) 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The goal of reducing the backlog by 10% (about 400 articles) seems to be too difficult, based on the late start of this Backlog elimination drive/July 2011, and newly-tagged articles are raising the total backlog count. I would like people to think towards a lower, more practical goal (such as: "Complete 300 articles from the 2010 backlog"). Plus, we should seek ways to ease the task. Some (many) of us did not start editing articles until the end of the 1st week, and copy-editing of these articles is just as hard as ever, especially since we are meeting (huge) machine-translations of articles from languages we just barely know, and re-translating is not "copy-editing" so that situation needs to be discounted. Hence, see below: " #Retagging of machine-translations". - Wikid77 05:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We need to just re-tag large machine-translation pages (trans-spam), as not being {Copyedit}, and move on to fixing real copy-edit pages. I am ready to replace {Copyedit} with the broader {Cleanup} for non-English text. It is too frustrating to be guessing the mangled phrases from " Google Translate" ("Google Mutate"), especially for editors with only limited knowlege of the other source language of an article. Plus, new editors, who do not realize the twisted horrors of machine-translation, might actually "imagine" that copy-editing could, somehow, fix all the warped, convoluted text in those articles. Instead, those articles need to be fairly re-tagged quickly, somehow, to get the much-needed inter-wiki attention (some day later).
I have just finished "de-mangling" the machine-translation of article " Thorame-Haute" from the French Wikipedia, with an attempted "197 changes" just to make it seem readable, but knowing that some French phrases should have remained quoted in the original French wording, and that needs to be done, someday. Plus, to my horror, the French-version page had been nicely updated (newer revisions), with clearer details, which probably would have translated with more clues to clearly reword English text (Google-trans of the new French would help fix the English). Meanwhile, the stats.grok.se have revealed the article is read only 1-to-3 times per day (~100 pageviews per month):
There, I see no need to quickly "perfect" an article read less than 140 times per month. We see trends of that nature: a huge mangled article, which has remained hugely mangled because "no one" reads it, and it could just be re-tagged for correction by language-translation helpers. Trans-spam is not a true copy-edit problem, and it "steals" valuable edit time from fixing English articles which more people are actually reading. I say we should quickly re-tag those articles, as not {Copyedit} but {Cleanup} or such. - Wikid77 05:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Advice please.
I had 1515 rollover words from the March Drive to add into the May Drive. May Drive produced 10051 words, for which I gratefully received the 8000 word Star. Is my rollover for July calculated on the 1515 + 10051 - 8000 (3566), or on just the May (2051)?
Also I added June 11 copyedit temps to Dennis Elwell (astrologer) and Chris Newman (actor), two articles that I have recently edited ( one a major edit through an intercession request from two warring editors) for an opportunity to be independently reviewed by others during the Drive - I shall not review them. Although templated in good faith, I was wondering if this was a kosher thing to do or a conflict of interest. Acabashi ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I started to copy edit the Saul Ascher article as part of this drive, but I have found that much of the article is confusing and sometimes incomprehensible. Perhaps a fluent German speaking editor can look at the sources in German and make sense of this article. I improved the grammar at the beginning of the article, and added a good many links for places and people. I cannot take any credit for my effort as part of this drive. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 18:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My thanks to whoever is putting me, and perhaps others, into the leaderboard at the proper places. Keep up the good work! The table is a bit tricky, and I was reluctant to start updating it, but now that I am on there, I can update the numbers. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why the graphs are not updating. If you click on the picture, you can see that the graphs have been updated, but it does not update on the article page. I'm not sure if truncating the "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" cat box is causing this problem as the problem only started since this was truncated (in the last drive). Anyone who knows how to fix this, please help. Thanks in advance. – SMasters ( talk) 06:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
For example, you can place a special "page in use" tag when you are copy editing, and another tag on the talk page when you finish.
Please add these two tags to this sentence in the article. Otherwise, they are hard to find. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am giving up on this one. Can I claim the 208 for the one section done, or can I leave both to whoever does the following section? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I had just finished updating the Margret Green Junior High School as part of this copy editing drive, when I discovered that there is another article, Margaret Green Junior High School, almost the same as the one I did but not copy edited. The proper article name is with the "a" in Margaret. Now I do not know what to do, so I am asking for help here. Please make sure my improvements and copy editing is retained. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the stacking-up of numerous articles (one with 8) is happening again, while not putting the { {GOCEinuse} } at articles' heads, apart from the fact that I thought this multiple booking was discouraged - I was almost in danger of an edit conflict. Acabashi ( talk) 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The goal of reducing the backlog by 10% (about 400 articles) seems to be too difficult, based on the late start of this Backlog elimination drive/July 2011, and newly-tagged articles are raising the total backlog count. I would like people to think towards a lower, more practical goal (such as: "Complete 300 articles from the 2010 backlog"). Plus, we should seek ways to ease the task. Some (many) of us did not start editing articles until the end of the 1st week, and copy-editing of these articles is just as hard as ever, especially since we are meeting (huge) machine-translations of articles from languages we just barely know, and re-translating is not "copy-editing" so that situation needs to be discounted. Hence, see below: " #Retagging of machine-translations". - Wikid77 05:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We need to just re-tag large machine-translation pages (trans-spam), as not being {Copyedit}, and move on to fixing real copy-edit pages. I am ready to replace {Copyedit} with the broader {Cleanup} for non-English text. It is too frustrating to be guessing the mangled phrases from " Google Translate" ("Google Mutate"), especially for editors with only limited knowlege of the other source language of an article. Plus, new editors, who do not realize the twisted horrors of machine-translation, might actually "imagine" that copy-editing could, somehow, fix all the warped, convoluted text in those articles. Instead, those articles need to be fairly re-tagged quickly, somehow, to get the much-needed inter-wiki attention (some day later).
I have just finished "de-mangling" the machine-translation of article " Thorame-Haute" from the French Wikipedia, with an attempted "197 changes" just to make it seem readable, but knowing that some French phrases should have remained quoted in the original French wording, and that needs to be done, someday. Plus, to my horror, the French-version page had been nicely updated (newer revisions), with clearer details, which probably would have translated with more clues to clearly reword English text (Google-trans of the new French would help fix the English). Meanwhile, the stats.grok.se have revealed the article is read only 1-to-3 times per day (~100 pageviews per month):
There, I see no need to quickly "perfect" an article read less than 140 times per month. We see trends of that nature: a huge mangled article, which has remained hugely mangled because "no one" reads it, and it could just be re-tagged for correction by language-translation helpers. Trans-spam is not a true copy-edit problem, and it "steals" valuable edit time from fixing English articles which more people are actually reading. I say we should quickly re-tag those articles, as not {Copyedit} but {Cleanup} or such. - Wikid77 05:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)