Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dealing with someone who causes problems

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with an editor who introduces MoS-related errors into articles while attempting to remove errors? I've posted messages on the person's talk page (User talk: and undone several edits, but it has made no difference. The person continues to add things such as "from 1997-2015" ([1]) and use "it's" incorrectly (e.g. "with it's mother" [2]). I don't think it's malicious, but there's something wrong with about half of the person's edits, so action is required. EddieHugh (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Eddie, in the diffs you provided, the IP's edits are mostly helpful with a few—much fewer than half the changes—mistakes (which we all make on occasion). I haven't checked the editor's history though. We can't expect every editor to be familiar with the MOS, and the IP seems to have started editing a few weeks ago, though I agree the changes from "its" to "it's" and the hyphen issue are annoying. Maybe a note of thanks for her/his helpful edits and some good advice on the talk page, rather than the abrasive comments I see there at the moment, would help. Competence is required though; if it becomes more of a problem, a note to a friendly admin might be useful, and if s/he become a net negative (more disruptive than useful, which is not now), pop a note on the dramah board. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The person keeps doing the same things, despite having been told what's wrong and where to find the correct forms (in edit summaries as well as on the talk page). Some of the changes made are fine; I was hoping that revert notices would have an impact, so took to undoing changes even if some parts were not a problem. The person's just done the same thing ([3]), despite being told about this on the talk page four days ago, and yesterday, and in several edit summaries... I'll try a third time... EddieHugh (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
That didn't work! A few minutes after I posted another message, the same thing was done again! [4], [5]. I'll try the next step. EddieHugh (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added a note on the talk page; I see you've done the same. Thanks for that; I agree some intervention may be needed, though I'm going offline now but I'll be back tomorrow. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This may be trite, but it helps me when I'm in such situations:
Everyone has something to teach me.

Some people teach me patience.

I've learned a lot on Wikipedia.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm never certain of communicating with IP editors. The last time this happened to me (failing to get their attention with revert edit summaries and messages on the IP and article's talk pages), I requested page protection for a week (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). I'd hoped that, unable to edit the article, the IP editor would look at the talk page and respond. They didn't, though it held off disruptive editing for a while. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
SchreiberBike: I agree, however... one thing I've learned from others is that if someone does the same thing having been told repeatedly that it's wrong, then that person will be very difficult to change/stop. After a day off, the IP is back with a mix of useful edits and another "it's": "higher ratings than it's neighbours". No communication from the person either. Polite/abrasive/any messages aren't going to do it and I don't think patience will either. (Reidgreg: this person does a small number of edits per article and then moves on, so page protection wouldn't work, unfortunately.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

IP now blocked, having repeated the same actions. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Article quotes another Wikipedia article, with quotation marks

Polydipsia#Psychogenic_and_non-psychogenic_primary_polydipsia quotes text from Diabetes_insipidus#Diagnosis:

As discussed in the entry on diabetes insipidus, "Habit drinking <several lines snipped> the patient becomes dehydrated."

I don't know anything about these topics myself, so I hesitate to remove or change this info. I assume that the simplest thing to do is just remove the quotation marks and have this text repeated in both articles?

-- (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look at both articles and the polydipsia history, and can't tell if the source article was linked in the edit summary adding it to Polydipsia because I don't know when it was added. Per WP:CWW, the best thing to do would probably be to leave the quotes (and the in-text link, of course :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 15:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A clarification—I meant "leave the quotation marks" :-). All the best, Miniapolis 02:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the meaning of a {{GOCEinuse}} template?

I have been editing the article Pieve Vergonte and someone placed said template in the article. I'm a member of the guild, but I don't know what to make of the template. For me, it is saying that all guild members may be working on the article, but it may mean also that a single editor is editing the article and that I shouldn't edit. Also, the template may have been placed because I am working on the article. How should I interpret the template? In the guild, it says "Consider adding {{GOCEinuse}} to articles you are in the process of copy editing", but the template itself says, "This article or section is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed", which seems to be saying that editors who are not guild members should not edit, but guild members are working on it and are welcome to edit. It is kind of confusing the seemingly contradictory information. Maybe the template should specify instead the name of the guild member who is working on the article, so other members and editors would understand they shouldn't edit while it is up and avoiding issue if the template was placed earlier by another member? Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We're in the middle of a one-week blitz to eliminate the May 2017 backlog (currently down to one article) and request articles. {{GOCEinuse}} is placed to minimize edit conflicts by an individual copyeditor who's working on an article. Although you can certainly add the tag to an article on which you're working, I passed up a backlog article to which you were making many small copyedits but had not removed the {{copy edit}} tag. Feel free to propose any changes to the GOCEinuse template on its talk page. All the best, Miniapolis 23:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the documentation for {{GOCEinuse}} to explain its use more fully. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oldest backlogged articles link needs to be fixed


The link "Oldest backlogged articles" under the section "How you can help" has become a red link, needs to be fixed. Thinker78 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: That happens when all the copy edit tags for the oldest month are removed. If I'm not mistaken, you finished the last article from May so thanks for that! I've updated it to what is now the oldest month's maintenance category. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, that's the first time I've fixed that! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the link to the backlog list?

Is there any? Where can I find the backlog of articles? Thinker78 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

On the main page, there are links to the copy edit maintenance categories for each month in a table on the right under "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". At the bottom of that table is a category which lists all articles. Although, if you want to copy edit an article that'll count for this week's blitz, pick something from the Requests page. (The target articles are Requests and the last tagged articles from May.) Hope that helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul the default tutorial

I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA