A query[edit]

Should I only record Requests and May copy editing here? Or all, as for a drive? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only Requests and articles from May 2017. Blitzes are typically focused on a specific subset of our copy edit tags and requests. You are welcome to edit additional articles, but they do not count for the blitz stats. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What number should I put in the brackets when I complete the edits?[edit]

The project page says, "Article word counts go in round brackets (): use this script to get the page's word count. Count the words in the version of the article that existed before you started editing. These brackets should not contain anything other than this number." What this tells me is that the same number goes when working and when completed, is that correct? Or what number should I put when completed? Thinker78 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number that goes inside the parentheses () is the number of words in the article before you started editing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I include totals from before I signed up but from this week?[edit]

I was editing the same article I intend to work for the blitz when I found out about the blitz. Can I include the edits from the time the blitz started that were done before I signed up? Thinker78 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as it is an article from our Requests page or from the May 2017 backlog month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017 backlog month is done[edit]

In case you're wondering where the May 2017 backlog month went – it's done! Nice work, everyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's done pending my completion of Pieve Vergonte, which is another one of those machine-translated-from-a-foreign-language-into-gobbledygook wonders that so often get a copy-edit tag, but require so much more than mere copy-editing. I remove tags from articles as I start them, to prevent others from wasting time being steered into looking at them when they've already been taken, a practice I believe is fairly common here. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do the same (as Stfg advised me years ago); it saves the step of having to check an article's history. All the best, Miniapolis 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing also that article as you can see in the history. I find the use of the "taken" template a little controversial though, because probably an editor won't be editing the article for 24 hours straight, and others could help. I for example edited for an hour or two and came back the following day. When I saw that you posted the template I didn't keep editing out of courtesy, although next time I see the template I will check the history and if it hasnt been edited for two-three hours I will edit also. I think a better and more fair use of the template than it is in the documentation is to take it down when giving the editing a pause of more than just going to make a sandwich, answering a call or going to the restroom, that way other editors can help editing as well. This is specially true in our case, since we just copy edit and are not trying to shape the whole article in a certain way or plan to include sources in unsourced materials, etc. Btw, I have to mention that I stopped editing also because I realized that almost all the material is unsourced, so anyone can really remove most of the article and make it a stub, so all that copy editing can go out the window. Thinker78 (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw your activity after I had been editing for awhile. Previous to my involvement, the most recent edits were by 5 different editors other than yourself. I would not have taken on the article had the {{GOCEinuse}} been up. That is one reason for the template, to keep other copy-editors from taking on articles during Drives and Blitzes, not just to keep everyone else out, although it could serve that purpose as well (how much of the editing between your last edit and my first wouldn't have been attempted had it been up, making it easier for me to see your considerable contribution, although I might not have recognized you as being there on Guild business, since you aren't a copy-editor of long standing). The article is potentially sourceable, as so much of the material must have been gleaned from historical records. Were anyone to come in and strike out whole sections, I would revert and ask that {{citation needed}} templates be placed instead. The main problem with the article, besides its poor wording, is the possibility of the material being irrelevant (e.g. too much general history of the area) or of undue weight (e.g. the list of names of soldiers of the Socialist Italian Republic killed by partisans). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78: One of the reasons for the "in use" templates is to prevent edit conflicts, which are no fun for anyone. If you see an "in use" template on an article and the article has been edited within the time frame stated in the template, the best thing to do is to go work on a different article. In my experience, trying to "help" another editor with an article (when you haven't been invited to do so) often leads to problems and frustration for one or both of you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Thinker78 started editing first, and it was I who was, unwittingly, the "helper". Dhtwiki (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your revert wouldn't work. WP:UNSOURCED is very clear, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." That's why I placed the template in the talk page. I made the mistake of copy editing unsourced info. Lesson learned and wanted to warn others, including you. But maybe no one removes the info, who knows. But someone in the talk page of the article already was calling for removing unsourced portions. I don't know if he will do it though. Thinker78 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95 That's why I think it's best to place the template when actually editing and removing it when taking a break and not expecting to be back within the hour. Not sure why leave it for 24 hours. Thinker78 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]