User talk:Puddleglum2.0

Extended content
Please stay civil and polite. Please feel free to come with any issue, however minor. Please keep in mind I will respond to your message on this talk page. I will ping you. Thank you for keeping these rules. Puddleglum 2.0 23:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Planet Rock

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your enthusiastic contributions to Wikipedia. As one of the GOCE coordinators I decided to run through the copy edit you did for the article "Planet Rock". While some of your edits did improve the article, I'm afraid that after you finished the article was not even close to meeting GA standards because of its remaining grammar issues and the overall quality of the writing.

You might find it helpful to have a look at the edits I made to the article to see how much work was still involved bringing it up to GA standards. If you check here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet_Rock_(song)&diff=930146687&oldid=930033660) you'll see my first edits. You can then click on "Next Edit" and work your way through the article to see the edits I made. I am going to take one more look at the article tomorrow.

There were a number of basic issues that came up more than once: possessives like "Silvermans father house" should be Silverman's father's" or "songs sound" should be "song's sound" (MOS:POSS); correct verb tense—"group has previously recorded"—should be "had"; "8 hours" instead of "eight" hours—numbers under ten are spelled out (MOS:SPELL09); typos like "what they though of it" instead of "thought"; dates require a comma after the years "from July 24, 1982 Silverman stated" should read "July 24, 1982, Silverman" (MOS:DATECOMMA); incorrect word "Sources very" should be "vary" and so on. There were also many instances where the wording and the way the text flowed needed to be improved as you'll see when you go through my edits.

I notice that many of your contributions to Wikipedia involve reverting cases of vandalism, which we all appreciate. Since you are a new contributor to Wikipedia, you might find it worthwhile to hone your editing skills on articles tagged for copy edit which you can find at the Community Portal. It would also be useful as you do this to check the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to learn the preferred way to handle specific issues like quotations, date formats etc... It's also helpful to other editors to explain clearly the edits you have made in the Edit Summary box.

Those requesting a copy edit at the GOCE Requests page expect that an editor accepting their request will improve the article. I'm afraid this did not happen in this case. I hope you will take my comments in the spirit they are intended. We all make mistakes, but the more we edit, the better we get.

I notice that you are working on a request for the article 868-HACK. Already I see issues with the work you've done. I believe you added a "Citation needed" tag in the lead. Generally the lead should NOT include citations unless it contains a contentious statement (MOS:CITELEAD). A citation in the body for the time a program took to develop is all that is required. "10 months" should be "ten months". Your other edits, however, were improvements. As you work through the article, please ask if you have any questions. I'm happy to help.

All the best and thanks again for the work you do.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added shortcut links to Manual of Style (MOS) sections in Twofingered Typist's text above, if you're interested in seeing more examples or detailed explanations.

I find that copy editing is very detail-oriented nit-picky work and I feel that it's very important to take your time with it. Really look at the text and consider it down to every punctuation mark. If you're unsure of a style issue, you can usually find guidance in the MOS, various grammar articles, or ask at the GOCE talk pages. Just go slow, be thorough, and think about the reasons for the changes you make. With practise and familiarity, you'll spot problem text more readily. But you have to build competency before working on speed.

I'd also suggest working on shorter articles; they tend to have fewer kinds of issues, there's less to look at for consistency, and it won't take as much time to really analyze the prose.

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: and Reidgreg Thanks for taking time to tell me. I am sorry, I should have taken more time to review. It won't happen again. Thank you again for taking time out to look at my copy edits, it means a lot and I am grateful for your words. Thanks, Puddleglum ^2.0 05:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Awesome Job!

	Awesome Job!
	Thanks for undoing my changes on Typhoon Matsa. Teachers are always saying that wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can make edits. I wanted to test for myself on a page no one ever visits, planning on undoing it myself if it went unnoticed. It was less than a minute and my changes were undone. Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place. Djfslak;j (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I never got around to answering questions for the interview, though I saw you got a good number of answers from the others. AddWittyNameHere 18:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Oh, that's fine, everything's still good. It's not actually too late, if you would like to add your answers they will be added. Totally voluntary of course, but feel free to do so! Puddleglum ^2.0 20:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Added a bunch of answers. Didn't answer every question, and even where I did answer a lot of it is "what they said" but in a lot more words. AddWittyNameHere 21:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.