User talk:Stfg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I no longer accept requests to carry out copy edits, though I may make very rare exceptions for classical music, sacred music and music theory articles that interest me. For topics other than these, I recommend using the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page.

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

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

Revisions and WP:BIRDCON[edit]

Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Revisions and WP:BIRDCON (version of 19:08, 18 August 2014) and make any appropriate changes to User:Stfg/Sandbox4, remembering the exceptions that I mentioned, and also "Yellow-billed Kite", which I was unable to move. If no such changes are needed, that is fine; I am not looking for recognition. Generally, I did not revise letter case in sections "References" and "External links". Also, I was unsure about how to manage categories using capitalized inverted names of birds after a pipe symbol, so I did not make revisions there. (I am adding this page and User:Stfg/Sandbox4 to my watchlist.)
Wavelength (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC) and 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wavelength. When we want to move a page and there already exists a redirect from the desired name, if the redirect has had an edit since its creation, only administrators can perform the move. We request this by placing the {{db-move}} template on the redirect page. For the yellow-billed kite, I've done that with this edit.
I agree with you about References and External links, at least when the name is part of the title of something we're linking to. I wouldn't worry about the categories. The important thing is consistency in what readers see, as opposed to Wikipedia editors.
User:Stfg/Sandbox4 was created to help people keep track of which articles were done and which were still to do, but I'm not monitoring the exercise, and I'm no longer doing updates myself. You are most welcome to edit that page yourself as other people are doing, marking any order/family/genus/species you are working on with the {{working}} template and changing that to {{done}} when you've finished. Although the page is in my user space, I welcome anyone contributing to the exercise to edit it.
Yes, the people who advised using Sandbox4 rather than the categories are right, because categorization hasn't always been done consistently, whereas the order/family/genus articles for birds are mostly rather complete, as far as I know.
All the best, --Stfg (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests page hijinks[edit]

Thanks, Simon, for the flag on Equilibrium (film); I took a quick look at the copyedit, and it looks like there's some ... er, active editing going on. I have my hands full as it is with MirrorFreak, whose gas pedal is stuck to the floor :-). Have you ever seen such an influx of newbies (see the thread above yours on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators), or am I just cranky? Don't know where they're coming from (I'm mentoring two, including MirrorFreak), but there's a lot to keep track of. Thanks for the note on TheQ Editor's talk page. All the best, Anne Miniapolis 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Yes, it's definitely related to the thread above. I've always been leery of offering barnstars for requests, for exactly this kind of reason. Well, Baffle has reverted it to NBF's version, which I think is the right move. I await events :) Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Anne. I'm worried about your chappie too. Take a look at this, his complete copy edit of that article, for which he has declared the request done. Compare this, which our colleague Demiurge1000 has found to do since. Your chappie currently has two requests marked as Working. Honestly, I can see this blitz turning into a nightmare. --Stfg (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Stfg. I must defend the "chappie" by pointing out that about a third of my tweaks were stylistic, the sort of thing I would change to prepare an article for FA, not for GA (which was what was requested). OK, the original copyedit was not ideal. I've left a lengthy note on the copyeditor's talk page, asking them to review my changes either in toto or individually. It's also clear (they posted on my talk page) that they saw I had made changes. This is perhaps a learning experience for the copyeditor, not a reason to descend upon them with fire and smoke. If Mirrorfreak is currently allocating themselves an article or two per day to copyedit, then of course someone should ask them not to do so. Be nice about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Demiurge1000. Sorry if I'm coming across as "fire and smoke", but we do need to address the problem that we're attracting people who just dive into the blitz and do inadequate work. I've looked at two copy edits by different editors this evening, and both were totally inadequate. It matters because it's unfair to editors who do major work on articles trying to get them to GA or whatever, and who rely on our help because they admit to weakness in their own prose. This consideration trumps being nice about it, imo. "Not ideal" is quite an understatement: the copy edit was almost vacuous. The only thing done beyond the lede was a single comma in the first post-lede sentence. Thank you for doing a good one yourself on that article. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

() I agree, Simon (and thanks, Demiurge, for helping out in a sticky situation). The Guild's reputation (which has, IMO, been pretty good) is at stake here. While I'm all for welcoming newcomers—we all were, at one time—AGF is not a suicide pact. We should take a middle ground, constructively encouraging newcomers while informing them of our standards in no uncertain terms. I still don't know where all these newbies are coming from, though, and wonder if someone is beating the bushes for new copyeditors without our knowledge. All the best, Miniapolis 23:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: exactly. And having slept on this, and this morning seeing this contribution to Wikilove on the part of "chappie", I no longer feel the least sympathy. Actually, I rather resent being accused by Demiurge1000 of "fire and brimstone" and told to "be nice" to this person, to whom he even gave a Barnstar of Diligence (of all things!) for that copy edit. We aren't a nursery school, for heavens sake! Yesterday evening, to be "nice", I undid my Red XN on chappie's blitz section and, at Demiurge's request, credited him for that copy edit in the archive. My bad. I don't feel I can reverse these myself, but if you, Anne, or any other coordinator wanted to do so, I would have no qualms. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Well, their heart's in the right place, at least Face-smile.svg, and I think Demiurge is trying the carrot approach. You bring up a good point; when I joined the GOCE several years ago, I received no hand-holding and expected none. I think of this as the Teahouse effect; dumb things down enough, and people race to the bottom accordingly. Oh well, it'll work out. Thanks for keeping an eye on things; I know Diannaa's busy with other things, but wish she'd pop in occasionally also. All the best, Miniapolis 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well I'm not here on WP to be "nice"; if my c/e reviews bruise someone's ego, so be it! If any coordinators (or anyone else for that matter) disagree with my reviews, feel free to remove them. I'd rather an independent reviewer was reviewing c/es , but they ain't. I've just replaced some requests and unarchived them, and I suggest archiving editors at least check the c/es before archiving them; if s/he isn't happy say so on the request—I know it's a PITA but can save time later. If they don't improve the article, they don't deserve credit in the archives IMO. At least some of the new editors seem to be shaping up well and I hope these stick around, but we shouldn't have to pander to egos just because we want to retain decent copy-editors. It's not rude to say "no, that's not good enough". :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Baffle gab1978, my feelings exactly. Yes, there are some good new arrivals, too. (I've never seen the PITA abbreviation before. It must stand for Pain In The Neck, doesn't it?) --Stfg (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Anne is right that some copy-editors need no hand-holding when they first join... but many do. I don't think this is any sort of Teahouse effect, though (which was intended to help make a friendlier atmosphere for female editors and anyone else put off by rudeness, not to dumb anything down!) The only likely role the Teahouse may play is directing people in the wrong direction - like "no you can't be an admin with only 20 edits, why not try something simpler instead, like copyediting?" Not that I've seen it in those exact words, but I have seen, even in the last few days, "no you can't have the Reviewer right with so few edits, why not get experience in RCP or new page patrol" (my emphasis). Ugh! Copyediting is seen as simple, but it is not simple for those with limited grasp of English, nor easy for those in an editing phase where what they want to do is button-mashing. Not that anyone discussed may be either, of course.
When people do need some hand-holding (which is very apparent in one case mentioned, and maybe it's worse than I thought, I've not had chance to review other copyedits), I stand by my approach of pointing out to them that this is what they could or (slightly more aggressively) should have done as a copyedit... that is something they can learn from (and perhaps will, in time, or not), whereas red crosses and archiving things back and forth isn't quite so constructive. Though it's fine if the workflow you're working through is to put red crosses in places where red crosses go, etc.
I've seen a fair few editors similar to MirrorFreak, and I do mean similar in every respect mentioned here and more. Not all of them end up at GOCE or cause problems at GOCE. Many of them get blocked. About 10% turn into great and valued editors with far more edits and far more peer reviewed articles than I have. Hence my patience. I do know most people don't really want to put up with the other 90%.
As for the outburst on some vandal's page - already apologised for - what worries me is that surely, to "redirect profane pages to kids T.V shows" would be far less problematic than the opposite? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No offense meant to the Teahouse; I was venting exasperation. The requests page is currently a mess; one requester had about four articles listed, one after the other, which Valfury (that's why I'm here, Simon, since you checked their first article) and Wilhelmina Will were knocking off at a pretty fast clip. Is it me, or is whatever system we have being gamed? And with all the babysitting we now have to do, how exactly do the articles on the list get copyedited {really copyedited)? I've never seen anything like this, and honestly don't know what to do. I joined the Guild to copyedit, not grade papers. All the best, Miniapolis 00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too, and thus; I usually copyedit one article from the Requests list per copyedit drive, and I guess small pieces of work like that are how articles on the list "really" get copyedited. In the particular instance I encountered, I happened to see a particular editor taking on a Request and wasn't confident it would go well, so I watchlisted the article then tidied up once he or she had finished. If I chose to spend my time watching the Requests page around the clock and, as you put it, "grading papers", then I might get annoyed with spending so much of my time grading papers! Why choose to do something you don't enjoy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Demiurge1000: To answer the last question first, we may enjoy doing copy editing to the best of our abilities and then feel obliged to do some checking if we want to look after the reputation of the Guild. I'd have thought that this week amply illustrates why. Checking other newbies' copy edits is like paying taxes: I don't want to do it, but I do want to keep the NHS.
I did perhaps a bit more than my fair share of checking during 2012, and it's clear enough to me that there are different ways that newbies can go wrong: (A) they have language skills and diligence but haven't yet learned enough; (B) they may or may not have language skills but they don't make a serious effort; (C) they don't have enough language skills and should not be copy editing, or at least not the requests page. I'm fine with treating (A) with a bit of slack, especially if an experienced editor is willing to take the time to guide them. In the case of (C) it can be a bit painful, because these are very often nice, good faith editors, and there were times when I and other coordinators emailed one another to discuss what to do. But in the end, with grown-ups, we either have to be honest with them and ask them to stop, or put up with lapses in quality. In my experience, most editors respond like grown-ups when we ask them to stop. In case (B), which wp:civil and wp:npa always apply, I don't feel any need at all to be all sweetness and light. With four-year-olds, when they make any little effort and accomplish some little thing, we signal approval -- we don't expect stamina from four-year-olds. But editors here are assumed to be adults, and slap-dash work, short-changing the requesters, doesn't deserve that treatment. That's what I meant by the nursery school allusion, and why I think that giving MirrorFreak a Barnstar of Diligence was treating them like a four-year-old, and why I think it undermined our QA efforts.
The request which you re-edited has been returned to the requests page, and I see a few small things I'd like to do to it. If it's all right with you, I'll do them and then archive the request as done by "multiple editors". Is that OK? --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As you were on that last one. There are big things that need doing to it, especially removing verbosity. I've got so far, but won't continue (noted on the requests page). I don't need credit in the archive for this. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)