User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2018/June

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

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News

Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days.

Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed.

March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words).

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words).

May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words).

Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June.

June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

>>> Participate in the June elections! <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Heroine copy-edit revision

Hello,

I know the message I left on the Guild of Copy-Editors/Requests was abrupt and vague. To be brief, I nominated the article because I felt it had enough information to pass the review. I did some editing but the article was already complete by the time I got to it. Unfortunately, the user who reviewed the article provided no revision points and it left me puzzled as I knew this article needed a lot of work. During the time I requested this peer review, I was working on the Melodrama article which just passed its review a few days ago. Now, I am focusing my attention on Pure Heroine and its flawed edits. I will try my best to fill in the sections that need work, but for the meantime, I ask for a day, at most two days of waiting so I can give this article a more polished face. Regardless, I know my edits will not be the best so I want another person's opinion on them as well.De88 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I outlined my copyediting plans for July, and if I don't get to this article another copyeditor will. Perhaps, though, you should have waited to request the copyedit. Miniapolis 00:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized that was a mistake on my part. I was not expecting a review from this article and thought the request would end being buried underneath the old ones. The good thing is that the article just needs a heavier lift. De88 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just finished editing what I thought were the messiest parts of the article. Feel free to finish the copy-edit request. Thank you by the way! De88 (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I don't think I'll be finishing it because I'm working on another request now and will be doing backlog articles in July. I'll clarify that on WP:GOCE/REQ. Miniapolis 13:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long before the article gets sent to the backlog? I was really hoping for this copy-edit review. De88 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requests don't get sent to the backlog, which is articles with the {{copy edit}} tag. I don't understand why you wanted me to wait shortly after I began the copyedit, several weeks after you submitted the request. It looked to me like you were dissatisfied with my work, but that's cool; it sometimes happens, and when it does I move on to another article. I have limited time available for WP, and if someone doesn't want me to do something I'll help someone who does instead. I added the {{partly done}} tag to make the next editor's job easier. Miniapolis 17:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. You have it all wrong. I really wanted your help and was thrilled when someone picked this up for review. As I said, I made a request for a copy-edit a while back and focused my attention on Melodrama. I had no idea it would take me so long as the GA-review for Melodrama was about a two week process (plus days of waiting and tidying up the article). So when I saw your contributions, I wanted to stop you, only because I was going to remove information from those sections that I knew were already messy and poorly written. Basically, I was going to clean it up and wanted an extra helping hand with my edits since I know they also need polishing. I hope I cleared the air with this and I apologize if my messages came across as unsatisfied because that was not the intention at all. De88 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a misunderstanding, then, but I'm hard at work on Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 (an FAC) and after that I'll be vacationing with the backlog for July. In future, it's best to just let a copyeditor work (and to finish working on an article before requesting a copyedit). WP has no deadline, and cleaning up "messy and poorly written" prose is how we copyeditors help. Miniapolis 17:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross staff

Thank you for ce! Hidden text: What if the translator has "Cross" capital, as she has "God" capital? (probably because it's not some cross, but the Cross?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. Although "God" is always capitalized in this context, the cross on which Jesus was crucified is generally not capitalized in English. I changed "Soul" to "soul" because I don't have access to the source; again, "soul" is not capitalized in English unless it's used as a philosophical concept (which it might be in that sentence, depending on the source :-)). The article is very good, and I'm enjoying copyediting it. All the best, Miniapolis 15:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not my decision, but the sources, for Cross, no. "Soul" is an allegoric figure, and should be capital as such. The article is a failed FAC, and I'll let you know when a PR comes up, probably not this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll fix "Soul" (and a few German hymn titles I italicized by mistake :-)) ASAP. Miniapolis 18:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]