Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:03, 15 November 2012

[REDACTED] WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tag

I did check the talk page, but for some reason didn't see the discussion. Sorry. Op47 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I, of course, never make mistakes. ;O) (olive (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of John Hagelin

The article John Hagelin 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 10 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:John Hagelin for things which need to be addressed. Tomcat (7) 10:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, I'll start working on this today.(olive (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Help talk:Archiving a talk page

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hi Olive. I'm working on the bibliography for Hagelin GA. At this point I'm just capturing the refs from the text, and trying to do it in a way that will expedite creating a proper listing using the cite template. It looks like it'll take an hour or so. I did a little now and will work on it in the morning, hopefully. TimidGuy (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TG. I was dong this in a different more tedious way so thanks for taking this on. I'll be watching to see how you do this so I can do it myself next time.(olive (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your help with the bibliography. I was just studying the Kafka article as a model. I see that "harv" is only used for books, and that the other types of sources simply stipulate the ref code, using this convention: {{sfnRef|Believer|2006}}. This answers the main question I had about this approach to references, especially as it relates to online sources. I think we're pretty close to having a correctly formed bibliography. The next step would be to add harv or sfnRef to each of the entries. All the book entries use harv in the Kafka article. The journals use harv sometimes and sfnRef sometimes. It appears that if it's a journal that uses the standard volume/issue convention, then harv is used, and sfn is used for everything else. News and online entries appear to exclusively use sfn. I can quickly use search and replace to put harv in the appropriate entries, but we'll have to put in the sfn by hand. Once we get the bib ready, then we add it to the article. Then we go through and change each of the citations to the sfn convention. I'll go ahead and start adding harv or sfn to each of the entries starting tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TG. I'm still wading through the refs attempting to make them consistent and removing .com and .org as part of the publisher per the reviewer request. (olive (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

I added harv to about 20% of the entries using global replace. The rest will need to be done manually using sfnRef. Will take an hour or two. Then we can add the bib to the article and gradually go through the article and change the refs to sfn. As we do so, the Reflist will gradually disappear, and the Notes will gradually grow. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

My diff

I hope my showing the diff did not upset you. I was doing it to save you both time but if I had known that the material was already duplicated elsewhere I would not have bothered with the diff. As I said, I did it with best intentions and hope you were not too annoyed over it. ~~<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonty Monty (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not upset at all, no worries at all, and thanks.(olive (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Recruitment policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Recruitment policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know

I'm following your example in having nothing further to do with the Prem Rawat article . However you might be interested to know that, just like I said, Momento is now having a field day removing a ton of well-sourced material - all critical. Is this really acceptable? PatW (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just can't get into a fighting match with you as has been the case in the past. If Momento is making edits you don't agree with engage him, but if you do engage in a way that is an attack nothing productive will happen. I don't have the desire in anyway to get into a contentious article. In reading the article It seems to have a pretty balanced feel to it, but I did not look at sources. Some of the details which I noticed Momento had removed really add nothing to a neutral article. Clearly to me, someone who has no involvement with this topic, I get a sense of both the positive and negative aspects of Prem Rawat in a balanced way, but again I have neither the time nor desire to check all of the sources to get a sense of the mainstream view. What must come into it, seems to me, once a source has been vetted is to look at weight. Some of these little details have very little weight and don't add anything to an article. What a clever editor can do is add in a lot of these tiny seemingly neutral details which will in the end add pejorative colour and tone to an article subtly shifting balance. I see some of that in the PR article. Content must be more than sourced to remain in an article especially a BLP; it must reflect the mainstream. Once again, if you don't like content removal engage the editors in a civil way. I won't take sides and I won't become involved again. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

I'm afraid you're wrong. I don't believe anyone can 'engage' Momento - as Guy correctly evaluated - he is 'uneducable' as are all highly religious people when it comes to challenging their irrational beliefs. You assumed that those "tiny seemingly neutral details" that "subtly shift" an article's balance are done mainly by people who want to 'perjure' Prem Rawat. I put it to you that, had you studied the sources and subject as much as I (and many others), you would see that the opposite is historically more the case. Not that some have indeed tried to twist the article against Rawat in an inappropriate manner. That's true too. But I was not one of them! and they were simply challenging the followers who attempted to dominate the article by foul means :-) I tried only to retain ALL the facts not twist the meaning of sources. However the sources speak for themselves and I would humbly suggest you are not familiar enough with them to make a clear judgement on this very complex topic. Anyway I'm very pleased that Blade has banned those people who I consider ethically unconscionable religious revisionists. The fact I have been banned is an acceptable price. I have a clear conscience and am delighted. PatW (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hope my response answers your concern. The main point is that Th Blade of the Northern Lights has in fact topic banned these users today. DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied on the PR talk page.(olive (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

Your original unnecessarily aggressive challenge of my assertion that they were topic banned without checking, the lack of recognition or apology that you badly got that wrong when the actual position was made clear, your continued snide insinuation (in your 2nd TP post) that I have some sort of POV and your strange misunderstanding of BRD is deeply unimpressive. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I asserted they were not topic banned in reference to the edits you were reverting which is correct. You suggested in your edit summary that a reason to revert was that these were banned editors, did you not? I am not snide nor was I. I actually don't have any evidence that you have POVs on the topic although in looking over the content you reverted not all content was pejorative to Prem Rwat. I don't like what you did plain and simple and I don't like the edit summary which did not in my mind describe the situation accurately. If I have offended you, I apologize. My intent was to comment on the situation as I saw it. I did as well assume you were acting in good faith. And I admit to being somewhat ticked off which may have rubbed off on you. I'm sorry about that, if that's the case.(olive (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

Just to be absolutely crystal clear: it is quite legitimate and quite normal to revert an edit on the ground that the edit was made by a subsequently topic banned editor and the edit was part of the reason for the topic ban. My edit summary was correct and precisely accurate. I have nothing more to say to you. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you did. But we can agree to disagree.(olive (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC))