This is an archive of past discussions with User:Margin1522. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
^This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
I didn't recall this edit. Checking, I see that the proximate reason was the editing of "A Real Volunteer" of the Real News and a series of edits by a (now blocked) sockpuppet. Hadn't visited page in 2 yrs. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Capitalismojo: Thanks. Checking again, it looks like a number of single-purpose editors were briefly active on this article four or five years ago. But it's kind of hard to tell who they were. The promotional stuff is gradually being weeded out, so I think it should be OK to just leave it up with the tags that it has now. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.
January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).
February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.
Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!
Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."
Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Margin1522. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Partly because I get the impression that replying to the main point you were making in context would give the impression of repeated disruptive arguing on the project page, when in reality I get the impression we are simply talking about different things. But more because what I really want to address is something related to what you wrote but not to the main topic of that discussion. I think parenthetical roman numerals on articles like that are a bad idea, as it gives the impression the two names are identical in Japanese. Essentially the same issue was recently addressed at Talk:Emperor Xuanzong of Tang (9th century); that emperor of Tang China is apparently sometimes referred to in English as "Xuanzong II", but the Chinese is clearly different. Asukai Masaaki is another identical case that by sheer bizarre coincidence I was involved in within the past month. Dates seem like they are generally the way to go in such cases. Although I may be completely wrong about all of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I agree, it's not a great idea. I don't remember who did that, whether it was me or not. In this case the names of the two guys from Odawara are exactly the same, which I guess is why I and II. Using dates does sound like a better way to go. Maybe I should go back and fix the non-displayed red links of the guys from Karasuyama.– Margin1522 (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Shit -- I misread your comment. I didn't notice the Karasuyama ones. Anyway, I think you accidentally clicked on the second one twice but didn't notice because "II" is only one letter off from "I" and your eye was automatically drawn to the kanji such that you didn't notice you were reading the wrong article, since it appears that "I" is actually 忠由. It's an understandable mistake, and actually underlines why inclusion of kanji in the leads of articles where that information is peripheral trivia (even though this is not the case for the daimyo articles, as they actually were Japanese). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88:Yeah, it was a long day yesterday. I think I'm going to take your suggestion and change the red links of the Karasuyama guys to something simple, like (d. 1661). Just to prevent linking to the wrong daimyō. Then let whoever actually writes the article decide what they want to call it. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your good work on the Senju-ji article. How about splitting it in two articles (as is done with many other Japanese temples that go by the same name)? Or do you think that the two temples are so closely connected that it should stay in one article? If there is a chance that the article might be split, I think it would be better to link (e.g. from the National Treasure lists) to Senju-ji (Tsu) and make that page (for the time being) a redirect to Senju-ji. bamse (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bamse: Hi, and thank you for your work on the National Treasures. That is a tremendous resource. About splitting the article, the two temples are pretty closely related. The 本山 site has a page on the 本寺, and the abbot of both is the same person. But I agree that it's confusing. If you recommend splitting, it should be easy to do. Why don't you go ahead and redirect Senju-ji (Tsu) to Senju-ji? Then sometime next week I will convert Senju-ji (Tsu) to the article on the 本山 and create an article on the 本寺, leaving Senju-ji as a disambiguation page. Aparently there are quite a few affiliated temples （別院）with that name. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This was just a thought and I don't feel strongly about it either way. Since you are more familiar with the topic, I'll leave it up to you what to do with the article. bamse (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen.
Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year.
March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.)
April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words).
May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words).
June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words).
2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated!
July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words).
August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words).
September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words).
October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words).
November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words).
2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating!
Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi. I noticed that you made several professional contributions to Stan Greenberg article and decided to ask for your help with The National Memo article. Greenberg is a frequent contributor to it so I assume that you know this media (and the liberal press) quite well. The article has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for your assistance in editing/improving this article.
I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor. At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding some well-referenced info. The article started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.
A lot of what is going on around this article is plain nonsense. So if you are interested in the subject / in improving the article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share. Thank you in advance.-- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.
Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!
End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.
January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).
February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Regarding I've mentioned elsewhere my belief that once you get beyond dates and facts the same thought in different words is a different thought. I think I've seen this thought expressed elsewhere on-wiki, but usually as a caricature of an opponent's view, not a sincerely held belief by someone who's been accused of close paraphrasing. But I'm curious how you can translate (which your user page says is your profession) if you think changing the words necessarily changes the thoughts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Right, I don't imagine it's a very popular idea. It's what the poets will tell you, but who reads poetry? And yes, I think there is tension between the ban on plagiarism and the ban on OR. The policy acknowledges it. You're supposed to get your ideas from elsewhere, but put them in your own words. Easier said than done, especially once you get past the level of verifiable facts. Which IMO is one reason why 90% of Wikipedia consists of verifiable facts. E.g. our article on Motoori Norinaga. Inadequate on his ideas, although I guess also because that part would be hard regardless.
About translation, very roughly, at the two poles, you can try to sound natural or try to be faithful. I'm the latter. For example, I also do editing, and when I get a text by a European architect I will check that it's grammatical, intelligible, and accurate. But I don't try to make it sound like a native English speaker. If it sounds a bit strange, that's OK. It should, it was written by a foreigner. Translation is the same. It's the author's voice, not mine.
Anyway, it's not very often that a word gets the full Wikipedia treatment. But sometimes it does. For example, earlier this week I did a text that had a section about Bernard Rudofsky's distinction between vernacular architecture and what my author called 様式建築. The straightforward translation for that would be "style-architecture". But that term is owned by Hermann Muthesius, in German since 1902 when his book Stilarchitektur und Baukunst was published, and in English since 1994 when a translation appeared. So I downloaded the original and translation (both free) and checked the context of every occurrence to see whether his usage was compatible with Rudofsky and my author's. It was, so I put the word in quotes, mentioned Muthesius in the text, and got permission to add a translator's note citing both editions. I guess if I can do this in a translation I can do it on Wikipedia too, and make Tony and Curly happy.– Margin1522 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
