Jump to content

User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2016/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

3rd Indonesian Choice Awards

[edit]

Why does 3rd Indonesian Choice Awards need copyediting? If it does, consider 2nd Indonesian Choice Awards and 1st Indonesian Choice Awards are much the same as the 3rd. I suggest removing the copyediting tag.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the tag (anyone can); in a quick look at the page history, I don't even know who placed it :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You speak for me

[edit]

Regarding [1], you speak for me on the issues of the battleground mentality and it being a massive timesink.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh, Guy. MH seems to be one of those editors who thinks the last word wins the argument. I've never interacted with him before, so don't know if he's always been like this (hard to believe in an admin, even an old-school one) or is off the rails for some reason. Anyway, I'm done interacting with him. All the best, Miniapolis 13:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? - featured article candidate

[edit]

Hello. Thank you again for c/e the article, as you made a lot better than the original. I was wondering if you could provide some feedback on my FAC for that episode: "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?". I know this is outside of your field of interests, so I completely understand if you say no or are too busy. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link; I'll take a look ASAP. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 01:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The review seems to be going well; since I copyedited the article, I can't comment neutrally on the prose :-). FAC is tough, but if your sources are okay you should be good. Miniapolis 01:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I apologize for any inconvenience. I always feel really awkward asking people for help. I really appreciate your copyedits (you always make the article a million times better than I previously wrote it lol). I hope you have a wonderful day, and if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know :-) Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)

[edit]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 6, August 2016

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • New featured article: Borscht, Good Article nominations
— View by clicking [show] —


For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts.

Article alerts

— View by clicking [show] —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking [show] —
7 new members!
MikeHikes
They Terk Err Jerbs
Zefr
sdlsy37
bclavellina
dtoled1
Discott
The project currently has 117 active members.
— View by clicking [show] —
Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking [show] —
Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 15 31 53
FL 2 2 4
FM 140 140
GA 18 31 76 278 403
B 56 232 344 716 86 1,434
C 77 404 993 3,559 526 5,559
Start 22 329 1,675 12,027 3,901 17,954
Stub 17 543 9,014 4,955 14,529
List 12 71 115 535 23 277 1,033
Category 8,919 8,919
Disambig 218 218
File 3,022 3,022
Portal 811 811
Project 440 440
Redirect 10 72 640 2,867 3,589
Template 1,044 1,044
NA 8 8
Other 202 202
Assessed 185 1,103 3,833 26,802 17,694 9,745 59,362
Unassessed 14 1,965 1,979
Total 185 1,103 3,833 26,816 17,694 11,710 61,341
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,283 Ω = 5.12

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

[edit]

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

baiting

[edit]

I am sorry that you thought I was baiting you. The fact is I wanted to presume you were innocent of claiming to speak for other users. If your account is somehow jointly owned, you could say "we", referring to those joint owners, and then you would not be guilty of claiming to speak for others.

You said "we get that", meaning yourself and some other users. But the user I was addressing clearly did _not_ "get" the point in question. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CfD close

[edit]

Thank you for closing one of our oldest discussions here! WP:CFD/W works via bot, meaning that after a discussion is closed, an admin must list each individual category being swapped over so the bot can go through and actually complete the merges. We don't just list discussions there. If you'd like, I can format everything the right way via AWB in my sandbox so you can just copy and paste it over. It's very easy to format for a single category but a bit of a pain for the mass noms. Since I was WP:INVOLVED in that discussion, I don't think it appropriate to list the categories on that page myself, since it more-or-less constitutes an admin action. ~ Rob13Talk 15:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how things should be listed, by the way: link. ~ Rob13Talk 15:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for teaching me how to fish. I'll change them, so my brain will be branded for next time :-). All the best, Miniapolis 15:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Request for CfD

[edit]

Hello Miniapolis/Archives/2016, a discussion regarding a new bot task related to WP:CFD is open at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 2. I thought you may have some insight that could help the discussion. If you are interested, please stop by and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ahaha...

[edit]

Thanks for defending/backing me up a few months ago! It's been a rough few months and the stress of school, ACT/SAT, working on college apps, exams, combined with my anxiety became WAY too much for me to handle (and wikipedia, while awesome, became collateral).

I've been a long-time lover of Wikipedia, but just don't have enough time to learn infrastructure/specifics of the Encyclopedia in such detail. Ofc, I know the basics, I know the guidelines, and I've read through a lot of the essays, but things like GOCE were new to me and I suppose I bit off more than I could chew.

I start school on Friday; I'm a great procrastinator, so I'll probably try and get back in the swing of things this weekend. If you could give me some pointers it would be greatly appreciated.

again, thanks!

ɯɐɔ (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good hearing from you again and yeah, WP is sometimes weird. WP:GOCE/REQ can get nutty; editors often cheerfully disregard instructions to nominate for GA/FA/whatever after the copyedit and show up in a lather, unaware that copyediting is a specialized skill and not Mr. Fixit. If you still enjoy copyediting (I do it to relax :-)) and like a low-stress environment, backlog articles are good. At this stage of the game, though, school comes first; WP will always be around. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being marked by the ORES tool

[edit]

Hi Miniapolis, I am not sure which administrator to contact, but since you have been so helpful to me in the past with copyediting, I wanted to contact you about a concern I have. My edits to the following pages: Nadia Comăneci and Nina Davuluri have been flagged on my watchlist by the ORES tool. I am not sure why as they are minor edits. I have been an editor on the Wikipedia for almost 11 years and have always worked to follow the rules, so I'm not sure why the bot was flagged. Could you please help me to resolve this? Thank you -Classicfilms (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I've never heard of the ORES tool (and don't know what you mean by "the bot was flagged"). Looking at each page's history, I see no reference to an ORES tool and it's not on the bot list. Try not to look for trouble until it finds you :-). All the best, Miniapolis 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha—see WP:VPT#Deployment of ORES review tool in Englis Wikipedia as a beta feature. Now I just have to find out what the damn thing is (and does :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the ORES tool is a beta feature, if you have "Automatically enable all new beta features" checked in your preferences you may want to uncheck it. Miniapolis 20:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies- I should have said that it only appears on the watchlist, not on the page history. That is what I meant by flagged. I will check your suggestion when I am in front of a computer later. Thank you!-Classicfilms (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed; you did say that the problem was with your watchlist, and it took a while for me to figure it out :-). At least one other admin has cited problems with that tool as deployed. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 22:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed - I went to my preferences and unchecked "enable all new beta features" - the tag or flag (I red colored text) is gone. However, you may want to mention the following to other admins that you talked to about it - I just logged in and looked at my watch list. Interestingly enough, recent edits to two articles I had worked on Bart Conner‎ and Nadia Comăneci‎ made by two different editors - one a registered editor, one an IP were also flagged by the ORES tool -and both were fair very minor edits. So I haven't a clue what the ORES tool is monitoring. Anyway, your solution worked, confusion is ended. Thank you! -Classicfilms (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I love a happy ending. From what I've read, ORES is designed to flag potentially-problematic edits for recent-changes patrollers but is currently much too sensitive; it seems to be going to town on IPs in particular. It sounds like a useful tool, and the devs will work out the bugs (which is why I avoid beta-testing like the plague :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, I'll keep my eyes out to see how ORES develops. It would be interesting to know why these edits activated it since they were all minor tweaks. Thanks again for your help.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zppix Edits

[edit]

Hello:

I noticed that this "editor" made edits to two articles in a matter of minutes. He's done this in the past and caused problems both at the GOCE and elsewhere. I had a quick look at them both and have made some grammar corrections etc... I then had a look at his/her talk page and notice that you have been having a discussion about this and he's thrown in the towel (thank goodness). If you like I would be glad to run through them both more thoroughly tomorrow. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, I also wanted to reassure you: this happens at intervals at GOCE, and the "copyedits" are always minimal: mostly formatting, maybe a bit of spelling or a phrase. Someone has to go clean up afterward, and there's always the insistence that the editing was just fine, even when it fails to address specifics in the request. The last time was during May, when Landcruisin' (May 9) and From Dust (May 17 and 18) were taken, and before that were two around the beginning of March, ‎WCW Light Heavyweight Championship (leap day into the next; cleanup was by Baffle gab1978) and Fertility factor (demography) (March 3 and 4) were the problems—since at DYK I'd advised that a GOCE request be submitted, I was naturally dismayed at the initial result before Jonesey95 took it in hand. So it's a perennial problem by someone who cannot see that it is a problem, both at GOCE and, as Twofingered Typist noted, elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "someone who cannot see that it is a problem" I know its a problem, but the problem is I DO spend time, I miss somethings, I'm human, I'm not a bot. If I were to look through your c/e edits I bet I would find errors in yours as well... Don't act like your perfect... Instead of trying to drive people away from projects how about you just be bold and fix them yourself... I edit boldly, I use common sense. I do take my time, I do stuff at a faster pace... just because I do stuff differently then you, doesn't give you the right to judge me and/or my edits. When I'm on enwiki I'm usually also doing alot more tasks then just c/e, I put in the same effort on c/e that I do anti-vandal, and volunteering my help on IRC.Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix, the issue isn't whether you want to help, but whether what you're doing is helping. Do you understand what the requests page is for? Most of the requests are from editors interested in a GAN or an FAC, and the prose requirements for both are high (especially FA, where the standard is "professional"). If you're interested in article cleanup (which, believe me, is relaxing; usually no one is looking over your shoulder :-)), I linked to our backlog on your talk page. Miniapolis 22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks both; yeah, as a former GOCE coordinator I'm used to stuff like this and vaguely remember Zppix's name coming up. I just didn't want the requests to be archived without "ordinary effort", as we baseball fans say. I think he has issues; had I known about them sooner I wouldn't have come down so hard, but he seems to be skirting WP:CIR and we owe something to the requesters who wait weeks and then get a "copyedit" like those. Thanks, TT, for offering to do the job right. All the best, Miniapolis 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix, in both articles, you did a minimal amount of cleanup, apparently using scripts. You are welcome to perform those edits, just do not call them copyediting. We have provided links to descriptions of copy editing. It means editing the prose of an article to ensure that it is clear and grammatical, and that it follows Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Your edits simply did not meet any of those criteria. Marking an article as copyedited when you have clearly not fixed the prose is a violation of Wikipedia's guideline on disruptive editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nice review of Austen

[edit]

Following your nice review and copy edit for Jane Austen I then did submit it for FA assessment. The interest now at the current FA assessment following your nice review for it has now moved to the references and citations format with some comment that they were developed by 6 different editors over the last 7 years including the late Wadewitz. Most all of the references are formatted and serviceable to readers needs, though the formats do vary given the number of editors and years involved. Could you glance at the FA assessment to see if this is large concern and if there is a GOCE approach to the references format in use there which can be applied. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the FAC page now. Lingzhi's point (that WP needs a standard referencing template) is a good one, but as things stand now GANs and FACs are expected to have a consistent citation style (whatever that style is). According to WP:CITESTYLE, "Citations within any given article should (my emphasis) follow a consistent style"; what I don't like about the GA and FA processes is the large number of unwritten rules in addition to WP:GA? and WP:FA?. Although Jonesey95 has very kindly offered to help make the citations more consistent, unlike a copyedit this isn't just something you can turn over to the GOCE. If I were you, I would work with him but not expect him to do the heavy lifting; it's your nomination, not his. Sorry I can't help, but I'm busy with other things. FWIW, in my experience submitting an FAC with a deadline (in this case, the October publication date) tends to put editors off but that may be just me. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 19:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me on this. It looks like its about 95% done now and almost there to full cite consistency for the full article. I just noticed that someone there during Talk page debate has removed your nice GOCE template review template from the Talk page announcement without first checking with you. We sort of liked your template there and it let people know the nice efforts of GOCE all around Wikipedia. Did you notice that your GOCE template announcement was removed from the Austen Talk page by someone, could you glance at this. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the prose doesn't seem to be the primary issue any more, there's no further need for {{GOCE}}; it's mainly to alert GA and FA reviewers that the article has already been copyedited. All the best, Miniapolis 14:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For a thorough and speedy copyedit of the Gabriel Pleydell article. The quality of your prose knows no bounds! Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thanks; I was just going to ping you! Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis

[edit]

The username caught my attention! Are you just a fan of Minneapolis, Minnesota? I just had cheese curds at the Minnesota State Fair. I hope you get a chance to check it out if you haven't ever been! -- Dane2007 talk 03:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess, because of the old Mary Tyler Moore Show and my enjoyment of cooler climates :-). No direct connection to the Twin Cities, though; the spelling is an old family joke. Glad you enjoyed the fair—one of the best things about state and county fairs (besides the agricultural stuff) is the food. All the best, Miniapolis 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2016/August&oldid=1071619054"