Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2020

Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya

Hi all, this one escaped my radar for some reason... the article has templates for accuracy and original research. The text looks fine until about a quarter down, where I find lots of large block quotations and some confused text that might have been auto-translated. @Jasphetamine: accepted the request and did some work but hasn't edited some 26 Dec, which alerted me to the state of the article. I think it needs more substantial work than a GOCE copy-edit (perhaps CLEANUP could help) so I think we should decline the request for now, without prejudice to relisting once it's in better shape. Also courtesy pinging the requester, @Willbb234:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at Talk:Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya, I think we should decline it for now, at least until Rosguill or another editor has worked through it and removed objectionable material. It doesn't make sense to copy-edit material that should really be deleted or significantly rewritten. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree to decline for now – Reidgreg (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both; declined without prejudice to relisting once it's sorted out. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this. I didn't want to be a nuisance pinging people for guidance, nor did I want to appear to have abandoned a job I nominally took. I fully support the conclusion that this article is not in a place to benefit from CE. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg

Hi all, I've just placed this request on hold because the article is being extensively edited (11 edits excluding Gog's one on 11 Jan, some being major additions and rewrites), which is to be expected for a subject who is very much in the news. I suggest waiting a few days to see if the article settles down before a major c/e goes ahead. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two aspects of the editing spur: one is the news, which is fortunately (for us editors) in a bit of a lull currently. The news shouldn't push the article in a very different direction in the coming weeks. The second one is some further reordering and other improvement by @Ex nihil. Ex nihil, I'm not planning big edits anymore. What is the optimum hold here for you, considering we're not in a hurry? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Four of five days of stability (no major changes) is usually enough to avoid edit conflicts. Major copy-edits don't usually remain for long in very active articles and those editing resources can be used more productively elsewhere. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As the article is written chronologically, I do think that most of the edits will stay a while, with edits focussing on adding news instead of amending old section. Even if they don't, they will probably be read by millions of people, as this article attracts over a million per month. Of course, I don't want to pressure you at all into spending time you don't think is useful. I'll withdraw if Ex nihil is planning to improve the article significantly still soon. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Albert Camus

Albert Camus has been requested by an IP editor who does not appear in the article's history. Our current instructions say "No request by an unregistered editor will be accepted unless the IP has done significant work on the article." That does not leave us much room for flexibility. I have two questions for my fellow coordinators and anyone else who works on Requests regularly:

1. Should we decline this article based on our inflexible rule? It is a level-4 vital article, currently rated C-class, but can and should probably become a GA with some attention. I scanned it and noticed that it needs some minor attention in the areas of italics, quote marks, and dashes. I didn't look carefully at the prose. The talk page says that the GOCE copy-edited it about seven months ago; it has had 200+ edits since then.

2. Should we modify this rule a bit to make it more flexible? I recall a discussion and will try to dig it up if people think it is worth discussing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Oops, I just declined it without reading this, I didn't notice it was open... should I retract that? I personally think we should decline it because of the firm working of the policy, but I can be flexible... Sorry! Puddleglum ^2.0 16:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've put the request on hold while it's discussed here. The IP rule is a bit inflexible but nothing we do here prevents any editor from copy-editing the article. IIRC, that rule was designed to stop IP editors flooding the page with requests. The article has had major edits in the last few days (9-10 Jan) so a wait would be called for to see if it settles down. It could be tagged with {{Copy edit}}. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, thanks for being on top of things. We often discuss potential declines on this page, primarily to maintain a collegial working relationship among the coordinators and other Requests regulars. I have found over the years that being a coordinator works well if you sweep and mop and take out the trash without being asked, but consult with others before moving the furniture. That also keeps me from doing dumb things (as often).

I have marked the article with a ce tag in the event that we decline it here. I lean toward declining but am not averse to someone adopting the article for a few hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you for telling me, sorry about that! Puddleglum ^2.0 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(←) The discussion about IPs flooding REQ is here in 2017. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I see that I had roughly the same opinion there and was comfortable with the consensus text that we settled on, so I withdraw my suggestion that we discuss changing it. I have  Declined the request without prejudice toward resubmission by an editor active on the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Anthony Barr (American football)

I was just about to notify the requester of this c/e when I found, as of this morning (UTC) s/he UCLAgirl623 (talk) is blocked for sockpuppetry (see user's talk page). I've thus put the request on hold. We've declined these in the past, and I would AGF for most other block reasons. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

We should decline requests from sockpuppets. Someday I will be old and wise enough to stop wishing people would just behave themselves. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Since we're busy enough, I see no reason not to decline this one. All the best, Miniapolis 14:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Declined and I'll also decline Pixar Pal-A-Round from the same editor. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Amanda Show

Hi all, the notability of this article's subject, a children's television show, has been questioned and the article lacks references beyond amazon.com and a blog post. It's also full of cruft. Much of the text is liable for removal so I've put it on hold and suggest decline. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree that we should decline. All the best, Miniapolis 14:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm the one who tagged it for notability, with a hidden comment of "There are no references to traditional, reliable secondary sources". I did a cursory web search for sources and found basically nothing. I don't think we can reasonably copy edit this unreferenced article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both; I hadn't checked the history (I will do now) and also added uneffed-section tags there. Declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi

IIRC Jonesey95, the co-ord Laser brain said nothing about expanding the article, only improving the prose. Since he gave comments only about the "Music" section (which I addressed post-FAC) but not the other sections, I have no idea what else to rewrite. That is why I listed the article here so that you guys can do a far better job than me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It does look like some or all of Laser brain's comments on the prose have been addressed; nice work. It is typical to see responses to such concerns from the nominating editor, but I see that you were blocked temporarily for a related issue, so you might not have been able to respond in a timely fashion. No problem. If the copy editor who takes this request happens to read this note, I suggest that they raise any further questions about unclear content on the article's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I see many articles are now getting edited just 10 or 11 days after being submitted here. Therefore I hope someone will pick this up soon so I can return to FAC afresh. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Excess requests

I've removed two excess requests from REQ here and posted them on the requester's talk page here. This appears to be the former IP editor who has added Singapore-related super-requests and excess requests in the past; not a big deal but I'm noting this here for future reference. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The requester is now blocked for unwelcome behaviour; see this ANI thread. I'm willing to AGF but I won't object if other coords think they should be declined. Baffle☿gab 22:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In light of the indef block and because they have two in the queue already (which we should copyedit, IMO; to do otherwise would be gravedancing), we should probably decline these two. All the best, Miniapolis 01:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've argued before, and still think, that requests from blocked editors should be declined. If the articles are in bad shape, then adding a CE tag is fine, but otherwise I feel our labors would be best spent on the backlog of requests from active editors who can collaborate with us. But it's a free 'pedia, so if someone finds it in their heart to improve those articles, I won't hold it against them. Tdslk (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but this editor seems to be a noob with issues and I'd rather not bite them. AGF and all that; deserved or not, they got a pretty good going-over at ANI. All the best, Miniapolis 03:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the requesting editor (who has been blocked for essentially stalking another editor) has not edited the requested articles. The articles have been heavily edited by the editor who was the target of the stalking that got the requester blocked. Since the requests are directly related to the interaction that led to the block, I think that we should decline for two reasons (connection to the block, and lack of edits on the requested articles). GOCER should not be a venue for continued negative interactions of this type, IMO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! Given that, I vote for a solid decline. Tdslk (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yikes indeed. The requesting account is very new and I should have checked article histories etc. In light of Jonesey95's comment above, my good faith went out of the window and I agree we should decline the remaining two requests. I've put them on hold for now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have marked both requests as Declined. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Vulgata Sixtina

CC-BY-SA; text below copied from REQ here by me, Baffle☿gab 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for c/e for GAN on behalf of Veverve (talk) here. 23:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Please be thourought and do not be afraid to make important changes. I have written most of the article, do not be afraid to ask me any question you would have. Veverve (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 21:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 On hold, until Veverve finishes their revisions (and stops edit-conflicting with me ) Miniapolis 15:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done (the lead and the Council of Trent section at the top of History): What I thought were revisions was the reversion of a time-consuming section. Veverve may not yet understand how we work. Miniapolis 16:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that my edits are a "reversion." I am sorry, as I told Miniapolis, if those edits created an edit conflict, and will refrain from editing while a copy editor is working on an article for which I requested copy editing. Veverve (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

: Working I'll have a look. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi all! (Especially coords) I was wondering - do we copy-edit articles that don't have any DyK, GA, or FA nom planned on the future at the Requests page? There is now at least one request that I see where it's just asking for a copyedit without plans for any nom. Instead of requesting here, should one instead slap a copyedit tag on the article so that this page different get clogged with very low-priority requests? It might just be me, but I imagined the Requests page as a page to request articles that are preparing for a nomination, whereas the backlog was a place for articles with just bad grammar. Thanks for your thoughts all! Puddleglum^2.0 04:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We copy-edit all Requests, with most of our exceptions described on the Requests page itself. People have their reasons for placing Requests, and we assume good faith. Our backlog used to be very long, so putting a copyedit tag on an article meant that it might be a year or more before it was edited. Even now, the backlog is a few months, so the Requests page gives faster results. The two-article-per-requester limit was put in place to prevent the Requests page from getting too full, and it has worked pretty well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question! :) Puddleglum^2.0 13:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity

CC-BY-SA declaration: text in this section copied from REQ here by Baffle☿gab

As you can see from Talk:Climate_sensitivity#Bad_prose? it would be great if this article could be made a bit more understandable to people who are not scientists. If you don't understand something yourself in the article please ask rather than assuming. Thanks in advance for doing your bit to save the world.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1, are you in the right place? It's unlikely most copy-editors here are climate scientists (I'm not) so it's unlikely many of us will understand the article (esp. the maths) well enough to translate technical terms into plain language, which goes beyond general copy-editing. Baffle☿gab 21:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I don't see why it needs to be made simpler on this language. The depth of the subject appears to require a decent understanding of meteorology and relevant fields to properly convey its information. Does it have an article in Simple English? If you want laypeople to understand the subject it's better to go there. Now if you want us to take a look and see if it is clear of ambiguities, that's something we can do. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all of you for responding so quickly. I am not a climate scientist either but Femkemilene (who wrote much of the article) is so if there is something we don't understand between us we can ask her. Having read it a few times and written a very short Simple:Climate sensitivity I think I understand most of it so you might want to ping me first as she is no doubt busier than me. Please don't hesitate to ask even if the question seems stupid as it is definitely a tough subject so we don't want any mistakes to slip in during the copy-edit.Chidgk1 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Baffle☿gab 06:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mindie Burgoyne

I've put this request on hold because I have concerns about the subject's notability, having looked through the list of refs. Most of the refs are to regional or local US newsapers; the titles indicate the article's subject isn't the main subject of most of the texts used as references; which is the case with the Washington Post ref. I've accordingly done a clean-up of some of the trivial text and marked it with {{Notability}}. For the text I've removed, see its talk page. I know it's not our place to pronounce on notability issues but after I've cleaned it up there's not much left to do so I suggest declining. Courtesy pinging the requester @TJMSmith:. Baffle☿gab 07:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Since you've already copy edited the article isn't declining it a moot point? The article has been around since 2018 when the requestor created it, and as you point out, it's not our place to decide notability. You've preserved the "trivial" text on the Talk page, I'd suggest giving it a GOCE tag and archiving the request. Whichever group deals with Notability tags (if there is one) can take it from here. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, TT. I put the request on hold and brought the issue here for process because declaring it done would be inappropriate. Doing just a tidy-up and removing some off-topic text to the article's talk page isn't a copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Baffle, IMO the article's subject just meets WP:GNG. As I understand the guideline, a (an?) RS can be regional or local; it just needs editorial oversight and independence from the subject. All the best, Miniapolis 01:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Miniapolis; I'll take another look at the article. I've cleaned up the article to the best of my ability and removed the hold notice. Someone else can do the requested c/e. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies ... I should have looked at it more closely. I'll run through it. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for improving the article! TJMSmith (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Andaaz

FWIW, I see no reason why Andrewwinn3 should not continue with their copy edit of Andaaz. I had a look at what has been done so far and apart from a couple of minor things, it looks fine. Krish! should not assume an editor with experience on Wikipedia is a good editor, or the contrary. One of the coordinators can check it when it is done and offer the appropriate suggestions if necessary. What say you? I've put a note on Andrewwinn3's Talk page. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @Krish!:

That was my view as well after looking at the first set of edits. I saw a few errors introduced in Andrewwinn3's copy edits, but overall improvements. I do recommend a review by a coordinator or other experienced copy editor when Andrewwinn3's edits are complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If everyone can be patient, I see no reason not to let Andrewwinn3 run with it. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree the c/e should continue, though I've not checked Andrewwinn3's copy-edits. Krish doesn't get to choose who copy-edits the article and if he disagrees with something the c/e does he can discuss with the copy-editor in the normal way or bring it here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist, Jonesey95, Reidgreg, and Baffle gab1978: I wanted to add that his copy-edits were fine. It's just I was unsure about his history (less than 30 edits over 7 years) that's all. I have no problems with him copy-editing the article. Now it seems he is offline again for god knows how long. That's what I meant when I wrote made that suggestion.Krish | Talk To Me 02:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Krish!: Please re-read what you wrote on the Requests page, and see if it is consistent with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please wait for the copy edit to be completed before judging the edits. If the editor who accepted the request is idle for a long period, the coordinators will handle that situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for being absent for the past two days. I plan to finish up the copy edits today.Andrewwinn3 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Improperly deleted request

Back on March 20, I submitted San Michele Arcangelo ai Corridori di Borgo for a copyedit on this page. There were significant issues with the article at DYK, and I thought it would be helpful if the guild gave it a copyedit. Some days thereafter, someone else stopped by and gave it a copyedit, though I thought afterward that another pair of eyes would be useful, and a few places could use more work, including those with impenetrable prose studded with wikilinks of technical terms every few words.

On April 1, Alessandro57, who created the article and had nominated it at DYK, deleted my request from the Requests page, without consulting me, despite it not being their request. I thought I should let you know, because the deletion messes up the archiving, and because it was my request that was deleted. Rather than restore it myself, I'll leave it to the coordinators to decide whether it should be restored or not, though if it is restored it shouldn't have to go back to the end of the line. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @BlueMoonset:, I've restored the request to the top of the list. I don't understand why it was removed without discussion (perhaps the removing editor will explain) and I'm sorry I didn't notice the removal. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I jumped on this article and had the pleasure of copy-editing it over the last hour or so. Sorry for the mixup. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hallo @Baffle gab1978: I explained my action on the talk page of BlueMoonset: Johnbod, the editor who actually asked for the copyediting (but without formally writing the request, which was filled by BlueMoonset), suddenly did himself the copyedit, and gave green light for the review at the article's DYK page. I noticed his message on the DYK, and supposed that the copyediting at this point was superfluous, so I deleted the request. Now I understand that I should have at least pinged BlueMoonset and asked him to do so. My fault, sorry! Alex2006 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alessandro57, thank you for explaining. It's usually a good idea to discuss any issues with the requesting editor or to leave a message on this page and ping the requester to the discussion. Still the mystery is solved and the article has had some extra attention so all is good. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95; the article reads better now, and the issues noted can now be clarified by Alex2006. I hope it finds a DYK reviewer soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Romania

Note to Editioneer re request.

Hello:

I see that you have asked for another copy edit of the article Romania. It appears from your request that you expect the editor to fix all of the questions the reviewer has about the article's content. That is not what we do at the Guild of Copy Editors. In my earlier note to you I suggested that the article needed updating and the GA reviewer has found other issues with the article's content which need to be addressed. I would suggest that your request for a copy edit is premature until all of the content issues are addressed.

If you agree, you can withdraw your request on the Guild's Request page.

Best wishes moving forward with the article.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran

Hi all; I've placed the c/e request for this article on hold because it is about an ongoing event and is being heavily edited. I suggest we decline this without prejudice to being relisted when the article is stable. Courtesy pinging @Saff V.: to this discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support placing on hold. The coronavirus articles see a lot of traffic everyday and are being updated everyday with new numbers and information on the timeline. While past items on timelines generally don't see much change it would be aggravating to edit the article only to find that an edit conflict occurs every single time someone decides to go publishing changes and adds more content that might need to be copyedited. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• It has 100 edits in the past week, and given the questions about the reliability of death counts (a situation not unique to Iran), this article will probably not be stable any time soon. I suggest declining without prejudice to future submission when the article is more stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Except my edits that I am just trying to make the best categories for material, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran is not edited by users extremely, for example, you can see that on 9 April there were just 3 edits! The rate of visitation is high but the rate of editing is not! please see this section, it really needs copy edit. I hope to give it try.Saff V. (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., the point is that it's still being edited pretty frequently in the past few days. There's no point in doing a copyedit if there's a high chance of being interrupted by edits and dealing with edit conflicts while revising. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 07:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Eh, I'll do it. I agree that we wouldn't normally review an article in such a state of flux, but people are pretty urgently searching for information on the topic right now. To the extent that I can help Wikipedia help people get good information when they need it, I'll consider it as worth my time. Tdslk (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• These are the edits in the past 5 days. That is a lot of change, including significant restructuring. Thanks, Tdslk, for taking it on. I think that giving highly visited articles like this a quick cleanup can be valuable, since so many people are reading them. Just don't get too attached to the idea of your edits becoming semi-permanent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I can live with that. If my edits are all gone in five days, they will still have gotten more views than most articles I edit get in years! Tdslk (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi

I was about to start a c/e of this large article when I saw it has an {{Under construction}} template and has been heavily edited in the past 24 hours. I'm willing to wait a few days for it to settle down so I've placed the request on hold while the work goes ahead. Courtesy pinging the requester, @25 Cents FC:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi mate, thanks for the consideration. You can start CE. I gave up and have no intentions to improve the article so far. As it seems user Jonathansammy doesn't like the article to be improved. Good luck.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 17:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, 25 Cents. I'll be happy to remove the hold notice in a few days when it's fairly stable. Hold notices are purely advisory; we can't stop anyone editing if they wish to. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Make sense. I will start working on it once it's done with CE. Thanks for the response mate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 13:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hold removed; there's been no edits in the past 24 hours so I've struck my hold notice. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for Aramaic original New Testament theory

As a formality, I've put the request on hold for now. Added to the lack of refs, there's a mass overuse of quotations and much essay-like text. The article needs a cleanup rather than a c/e. I suggest we decline this request without prejudice to relisting once the problems are fixed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, especially since the requester seems to be okay with our declining. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 13:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs cleanup, including paraphrasing and/or shortening of the very long quotes in order to allow them to illustrate a point rather than just being a huge text block, before copy editing. The lead also seems pretty long to me. When I wrote the message below, I had only given the article a cursory glance for obvious issues like cn tags. Pinging Veverve for comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the refusal. Veverve (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all; request declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Aramaic original New Testament theory

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this subsec was moved from the Requests page by me, Baffle☿gab 10:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC).

No deadline. Veverve (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Veverve, thanks for this request. It would be great if you could clear up the "citation needed" tags before a copy edit starts. It can be challenging to copy edit unsourced prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: sorry, I cannot fix it. If it is not possible to copy edit, then feel free to cancel my request. Veverve (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Medical cannabis request

Medical cannabis

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this subsec was moved from the Requests page by me, Baffle☿gab 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am making this request as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration's content improvement drive for April 2020. I also participate in WikiProject Medicine.

I am only requesting copyediting for one section or one lead of an article.

The section Medical_cannabis#Society_and_culture is heavy on perspective of the United States. There is also an article Medical cannabis in the United States. I propose to replace all of that "medical cannabis" with the lead of the "Medical cannabis in the United States" article.

The copyediting help which I request is any of the following:

1. post to either talk page with comments about how to prevent this content WP:FORK and reconcile the content
2. edit the lead of "Medical cannabis in the United States", being mindful that we should reuse some or all of this text as a subsection in Medical_cannabis#Society_and_culture
3. If it seems challenging then I will resolve this based on comments and suggestions, if it seems easier, then please just shorten that United States section in Medical cannabis and I will check it

Thanks from WikiProjects Cannabis and Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Blueraspberry:; I've given that paragraph and the lead of Medical cannabis in the United States a copy-edit pass, so if you're happy I'll declare it Done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, If someone's willing, I'd like to see other sections reviewed as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, you already have two requests on this page. If you wish to take over this request from Blueraspberry, you'll need to remove one of them and discuss it with BR. Please reply at REQ talk, where I'm moving this discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, No worries ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(←) No replies to talk page messages and pings so I'm declaring this request Done and will manually archive. Baffle☿gab 22:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixing ping for Bluerasberry (no "p" in name) so they know they've been queried. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Tuqaq

Hey Team,

At the moment I put Tuqaq on hold, instead of declining it as I wanted consensus. The article only has 503 words. I do not feel there is enough information to warrant a ce. Any consensus before I notify the user of the declination?

Thanks, Galendalia^{Chat Me Up} 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Galendalia. I don't see a reason to decline this article. Short articles can be fine, and also in need of copy editing. The subject died over a thousand years ago, so it's not surprising that there's little information about him. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tdslk Galendalia^{Chat Me Up} 23:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Tdslk. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 00:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Idiot Wind and GA reviews

@Galendalia: Please be aware that Idiot Wind was placed on hold for a GA review on 28 April. You may want to hold your copy editing for now, to avoid edit conflicts as the article is undergoing changes.

GA reviews have been happening pretty quickly, as they're in the middle of a two-month drive. Like GOCE, they are set to entirely clear their backlog by the end of May. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha I would have known that had they put the tag at the top of the page like they are supposed to. I removed the GOCE tag and category. Galendalia (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Before copy editing an article, it's always a good idea to: (a) check the article history for recent edits, and (b) check the article talk page for notices. There are a lot of acceptable ways to edit and show that you're editing. Not everybody likes banners at the top of the article, and bots will remove those if the editor is taking their time between edits. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha! It was just next up on our list so I grabbed it. I’ll put that on hold later today and find a different one. Again thanks for the heads up! Galendalia (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: - I see you already tagged it. Thank you. Galendalia^{Chat Me Up} 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Galendalia^{Chat Me Up} 22:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Help:Introduction series on hold

Hi all; I've just put this request on hold because it's not an article and the request is essentially a super-request to c/e the entire series of introductory pages. I understand these pages should be written as clearly as possible but we don't generally work on non-article pages. I suggest we decline this request, though I've no problem if someone wants to work on these pages. Courtesy pinging the requester, @Sdkb:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 11:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is if someone feels something is wrong, they should specifically list the pages and what seems wrong as this is a lot for people to be Baffle gab1978. Galendalia^{Chat Me Up} 22:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn. I don't have a philosophical objection to editing a non-article page if it is useful to Wikipedia as a whole, and it's the kind of project where I'd be inclined to take it on myself if others don't want it. But we are pretty swamped right now, and it looks like a lot of pages. Maybe if they only asked for two at a time? Regards, Tdslk (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tdslk; it would be good for us to do eventually, but not now. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the fundamental question is: Should the Requests page be limited to articles? I'm surprised that this hasn't come up. I think the answer is yes. One of the GOCE's strengths is limiting our scope of work. Limiting our work to articles seems like a good choice, since they are the core part of Wikipedia that contains prose intended for reading by regular non-Wikipedia-affiliated people. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, and we have enough to do as it is. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The series is (at least to my eyes) in pretty good shape, so no worries if you decide not to take it on. Regarding the more general question, I'm obviously an outsider here so it's not up to me to decide, but my view would be that there could certainly be cases where copy editing a non-article page would be more useful than an article. For instance WP:About (which isn't ready for a ce yet; it needs a massive overhaul from the ground up) gets tens of thousands of views a day, more than many FAs. But yeah, as you descend into the realm of essays, you're going to quickly reach the point where the only reason something might seem important is that, as editors, we have a bias toward the areas of Wikipedia meant for editors. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, while I think we should formally decline this request, I have copy-edited all of the pages except those related to the VisualEditor, which I do not use. I believe that much of the VE content is redundant with the Wiki markup content and should be transcluded rather than duplicated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(←) Thanks all for your comments, and for Jonesey for doing the decent thing, :) Declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Set up a link between WikiProjects

So Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events is basically a shorter version of this WikiProject, excepts it deals with the articles in Portal:Current events. From experience editing the portal, a decent amount of articles added to the portal can be stubs, as the information in the article might have happened a few hours earlier. Should a link be set up from this WikiProject to the Current event WikiProject as they are so closely related? (More of a vote than a question) Elijahandskip (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. Current events tend to be edited rather frequently which can make copyediting frustrating if an edit conflict occurs or if new information that also needs copyediting is inserted. It would be better if it were stable (as in relatively few edits are being made to it over a period of time), but that usually happens when the event becomes not so current. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

With over 60 requests, the Drive and the backlog, I think we have enough work to do at the moment. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. I don't understand how copy editing and improving articles about current events are related any more than copy editing and improving articles about football or chemistry are related. Copy editing is topic-independent; if it has prose, it can probably be copy-edited. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Elijahandskip due to responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Jonesey, Baffle and Tenryuu. Sorry, but this would not be a good fit at all. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm more willing to copy edit "newsy" articles than some around here, but I'm not sure what the the idea behind a link would be. There's already a "Current events" link on the left of every page if we want to review articles in the news. Were you imagining something different? Regards, Tdslk (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for William Morrison's copyedit to be re-opened

I've left a message on A21sauce's talk page, but the request had been marked as being worked 2 weeks ago. Should that request be re-opened? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 04:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Correctly pinging @A21sauce: this time. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 04:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tenryuu, I'll check it out and remind A21 on his/her talk pageI see you've already done that, thanks. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A21sauce left a message on my talk page and stated that they will "attend to the article very soon." --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 18:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done--A21sauce (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

William Morrison (chemist)

I've just put this request on hold; it is being actively developed by the requester (last edit as of my timestamp 21:41, 5 March 2020‎ ) and received a c/e finishing on 27 February diff. @Doug Coldwell:, is there a particular reason it should be back here in little over a week? We like articles to be stable before we c/e them, otherwise the copy-editor's time and effort are easily wiped out by an active developer. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I'm finished with my development and will stop editing the article. I am interested in getting a copy edit since I have done substantial work from the last copy edit from GOGE. I am preparing for GAN. User:Reidgreg at 19:24 5 March 2020 (UTC) said that would be alright to list it again. Thanks for doing another copy edit. I appreciate it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. I must have looked at the request date rather than the completion date. (Plus we were running short on requests.) My cursory inspection suggested the article had had a 25% expansion (then some trimming) since the February copy edit. Certainly, we should be sure that it's reached a point of content stability before copy editing. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No problems and thanks both for your replies. I'll take off the hold note. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section copied from REQ here by me, Baffle☿gab 05:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from Talk:Climate_sensitivity#Bad_prose? it would be great if this article could be made a bit more understandable to people who are not scientists. If you don't understand something yourself in the article please ask rather than assuming. Thanks in advance for doing your bit to save the world.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1, are you in the right place? It's unlikely most copy-editors here are climate scientists (I'm not) so it's unlikely many of us will understand the article (esp. the maths) well enough to translate technical terms into plain language, which goes beyond general copy-editing. Baffle☿gab 21:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I don't see why it needs to be made simpler on this language. The depth of the subject appears to require a decent understanding of meteorology and relevant fields to properly convey its information. Does it have an article in Simple English? If you want laypeople to understand the subject it's better to go there. Now if you want us to take a look and see if it is clear of ambiguities, that's something we can do. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all of you for responding so quickly. I am not a climate scientist either but Femkemilene (who wrote much of the article) is so if there is something we don't understand between us we can ask her. Having read it a few times and written a very short Simple:Climate sensitivity I think I understand most of it so you might want to ping me first as she is no doubt busier than me. Please don't hesitate to ask even if the question seems stupid as it is definitely a tough subject so we don't want any mistakes to slip in during the copy-edit.Chidgk1 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you still working on this, @Jonesey95:? Your last edit there was 06:08, 25 February 2020‎. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There was a bit of a hullabaloo on the article's talk page, so I was waiting for things to settle down. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Requests completed by LegesRomanorum

Guild member LegesRomanorum has edited a number of articles from the Requests page within the past day. I reviewed one of these, You Go to My Head (film), and noticed several issues that might have been resolved with an additional read through of the article. I have suggested to LegesRomanorum at their talk page that they do this for all of their other Requests articles. In the meantime, I propose that these articles be marked as "partially done" so that they do not get archived by the bot. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

LegesRomanorum has agreed to my suggestion (and many thanks for showing a good spirit in doing so!), so I have marked these articles as "partially done" for now. Tdslk (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Tdslk - no problem. Is there anywhere you'd like me to signal when I've done that, or shall I just change them back to "done" as I'm going back through them? LegesRomanorum (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I've now re-read the first batch of about 4 shorter ones and marked them as Done again - you're welcome to spot check any of those if you want, I'll hold off on doing any more until tomorrow. LegesRomanorum (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please go ahead and take a second look at the rest of the articles. You're making lots of good improvements! Regards, Tdslk (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Checked What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?; left a note on LegesRomanorum's Talk page. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just to let everyone involved (especially Tdslk) know that I will be working a little bit more slowly over the next couple of days, so please don't worry if the last few articles aren't re-checked instantly - rest assured that a) I will take a second look at everything that's been marked Partially Done, and b) I will not copy-edit anything else until they have been re-checked first. Best wishes, LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You Don't Own Me and Islamic advice literature on hold

Hi all; I know it's rather snowy but the requests here for these two articles are asking for expansion rather than copy-editing, so i've placed them on hold. @Buidhe: already marked them with {{declined}} and I fully understand and agree with the reason but discussing it here allows consensus and discussion. Also courtesy pinging the requester, @Bookku:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think, per their comment on my talk page, that the nominator was a bit confused about the meaning of "copy editing" in English. buidhe 04:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If the requester is asking us to expand the articles for them, rather than copy edit, then it's clearly not a job for the Requests page. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, for inconvenience I was under impression that copy edit process includes update & expansion. I did not know it is limited potential. When I was scouting on user talk pages for support some one suggested me this project page and posted here. You can consider the request void for this project.

IMHO Wikipedia should have had a common project for update & expansion editors. On the individual project pages most request seem to go unanswered.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline these good-faith requests. A simple misunderstanding. Thanks Baffle for bringing the discussion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments and understanding; I've struck and moved my hold notes. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

WiFi Issues

I have serious WiFi issues and until these are resolved I will be away from WP. COVID-19 seriously limits places where I can access public WiFi.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hope they're fixed soon. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to limit requests

Hi all; the Requests page is getting rather full now, at 74 requests, including those in play, as of my timestamp. We have a limited number of copy-editors and process requests takes time. To keep the level of requests manageable, I propose if that number reaches 100, we should decrease the limit per requester to one request at a time, excluding those already listed. There could also be a point at which we close the page to new requests, I'd suggest around 150. We could return the limit to two once enough requests have been dealt with and we reach a threshold of 50 requests or whatever limit is deemed acceptable. And to think we were down to three requests just a few months ago. All comments are welcome. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that we should wait until after the blitz to see what the queue looks like then. We might make some progress. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a god idea. I hope we won't need to do anything. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

While I don't think it's quite a "god" idea, I also think it would be good to wait until after the blitz to see how things are then. :) Cheers, -- puddleglum^2.0 19:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

He Jiong

Hi all; the request for this article was made by an IP editor User:183.90.37.54, who has only made one edit there. The request is for GAN but other than a long, unreferenced laundry list of television appearances there's very little text to copy-edit there. I suggest we decline this request without prejudice to relisting once the article has been further developed. I will inform the IP editor of this discussion on his/her talk page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks, Baffle and all the best, Miniapolis 13:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Also agree. Tdslk (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all; request declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hua Chenyu

@Tdslk, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978: Also by the same IP is a request to copyedit Hua Chenyu - there's been some IP editing there recently from different ip's, but I don't see anything from 180.93. I've put on hold for now awaiting discussion, would appreciate some input. Cheers, -- puddleglum^2.0 20:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Puddleglum; I hope you don't mind but I've sub-sectioned this discussion. I agree we should also decline this one; we have enough requests without trying to parse poorly translated material. "His strong body language and singing style make him a luminous body on the stage. His voice is full of tension, the language of the whole body and the power of singing are perfectly matched, and the strength of the loud voice also has its layered sense. "—pure poetry! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Baffle (again ). Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and add the declined template. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha requests

I noticed that ArnabSaha has more than two requests open, maybe they are unaware of the rule? Posting here so that it can be dealt with. buidhe 23:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So they did. I removed their third (most recent) request and left a note on their talk page. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Tdslk (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tdslk, Buidhe sir, i was unaware of the rule. is it possible to remove Kolkata Suburban Railway instead of East Bengal FC? ❯❯❯ S A H A 05:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha: Done as requested. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: but sir you replaced it with Kolkata Metro, instead of the suburban railway article. ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha: Please go ahead and change it to the article you would like copy edited. Sorry for the confusion. Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Excess requests removed

Hi, I've just removed a "super-request" from REQ; diff here and note left on user's talk page here. This is an advisory note; there's no need to respond unless discussion is warranted. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Clicker Heroes

Hey all, not to familiar with our policy regarding requests from subsequently blocked users, so posting here for feedback. Total Eclipse 2017 (talk · contribs) (also a GOCE member) recently posted a copyedit request for the article Clicker Heroes, but today was blocked as a sockpuppet. Pending discussion, I've put it on hold, would appreciate advice. Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's really surprising. Total Eclipse had seemed like a good faith editor. I sure hope SPI didn't make a mistake! In any event, we've declined several requests from blocked users in the past on a case-by-case basis (you can find examples by searching the archives for "block"). I've argued that we should make that a general policy, but that's never carried the day. So I would support declining this request per my general perspective (presuming Total Eclipse does not appeal their block), but other editors may wish to argue for the article. Tdslk (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, Tdslk. No SPI, and AFAIK it's not a checkuser block. Transparency by the blocking admin (keeping WP:BEANS in mind) would be nice. All the best, Miniapolis 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well that's a surprise; s/he seemed like a promising copy-editor. Yes, we should decline the requests of confirmed sock-blocked editors as we have in the past. This account is only a suspected sock though, so it could prove to be a legitimate account. I think we should wait a week or so for the socking to be confirmed. Thanks for posting this, Puddleglum. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm also surprised. I agree that we should wait a week just to be sure there has not been some kind of "mistake". Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't CheckUser confirmation, but here is behavioral confirmation.

• Special:Permalink/962946448#Blocked
• Special:Permalink/6992515 {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Can I Log In; and since TE2017 has also admitted socking on his or her user talk page, I think we should Decline. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Miniapolis 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Creating a new subsection here because my reply will involve a new proposal. TE2017 has admitted on their talk page they were a sock and said they'll appeal in six months after editing on the Simple English WP, so I think I'd be inclined to decline the Clicker Heroes request for now, with no prejudice against it being brought again of course. As the subheader says though - what do we do moving forward? I feel like we should have a hard-set "policy" regarding requests from blocked users that would go along with where the policies about IP requests and everything are. Not quite sure where to put this proposal, so not opposed if this comment is moved to some other venue, but here's my proposal.

• If the user who requested a copy edit is blocked while the request is waiting, the request will be put on hold for seven days pending a successful unblock appeal. If no such appeal appears or if it is declined within seven days, the request may be declined, with no prejudice against a future request by the same editor (after being unblocked.)

The above will definitely need some rewording for clarity, but that's just my initial thoughts. I know this rarely happens, but I feel we should something to fall back to just in case. As always, input is appreciated! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 00:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a reasonable suggestion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(←) This has come up a few times in the past. A revelation of socking nearly always results in a decline of the sock account's requests. I'm usually happy to AGF for editors temp-blocked for reasons other than sock-puppetry and apart from the most obvious declinations such as this one, I'd prefer to have all problematic requests discussed here on a case-by-case basis before they're declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, I get where you're coming from, but I think this would definitely have exceptions for obvious spam and things like that - this wouldn't make it not OK to start a discussion for unclear situations, it would just make it a little easier to "clerk" GOCER IMHO. Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 03:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposal in general, but I do think that all declines should continue to be discussed here, for the record. In the case of a blocked editor, the discussion could be as simple as "Request X will be declined in Y days because the requester is blocked until Z. If you have objections or know of mitigating circumstances, state them here. Consensus to decline will be assumed unless objections are stated here, so there is no need to respond if you agree with declining." Or something more concise. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Baffle and Jonesey per WP:CREEP. Miniapolis 15:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A bit late i know, but I'd also say that this shouldn't apply for anyone soft-blocked (one possible case comes to mind for a notable individual asking for a GOCE review of the article on themselves, which I'd have no issue with) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nosebagbear; yes that has been our consensus for a while, see my link above and this one. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Are requests fungible?

Sometimes the submitting editor will change the requested article while retaining the seniority of the original request. I can understand that they would want to, given waiting times, but is this allowed? Or should the new article be placed at the end of the list, with the prior request being removed if the editor already has two requests? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen this happen over the years, and I've always been fine with it as long as it's a one-for-one swap. Requesters don't seem to be doing it maliciously or to somehow "game the system" (either our process or some other queue like GAN), as far as I can tell. I do check to make sure that the swap is being done by the editor who originally made the request; I wouldn't look kindly on Editor B modifying Editor A's request. Once a GOCE editor is actively working on an article, it's off limits for swapping, but I've never seen that happen, as far as I can recall. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with swapsies either, providing they're done even-handedly and aren't used to game the process. It doesn't seem to get the request processed any more quickly. I wouldn't want to see it become a regular occurrence though. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see no harm in this and recently advised a requestor to swap the article he wanted edited after misunderstanding which one he was asking about and making a hash of it myself. I don't think we have a "policy" on this (?). Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems to do no harm. I'm also a sucker for anyone who manages to get fungible into a conversation correctly. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Stats to May

Hi all, I was compiling the early stats for the Annual Report and I noticed we had received 93 requests in April! This could well be a record for the GOCE; certainly nothing in the previous two years' stats approaches it. Here's the incomplete table so far; enjoy. :)

2020 Month	Requests			Mean days to complete
	Received	Processed	Completed
January	82	73	66	xx
February	47	66	66	xx
March	80	56	56	xx
April	93	68	64	xx
May	72	83	77	xx

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Good information. It looks like the backlog explosion is mostly due to more Requests being made, not fewer Requests being completed. Tdslk (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We've been working hard as usual; 69 processed and 64 completed in June. Right now it feels like we're walking up the 'down' escalator! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting. The escalator analogy is very apt. :=) Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving misattribution?

I originally wanted to post this in the talk section of the archives, only to find out that it was the archives for this talk page.

On a whim I decided to check out the 2020 archives. For some reason the Squall Leonhart copyedit is attributed to me; I have never edited that article, which can be corroborated with the article's history. I've also noticed that an article that I edited for GA prep isn't on there: Deep Blue (chess computer), which I had completed for May 2020's backlog drive on 18 May. Any idea what's going on? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick check and every article attributed to me in the 2020 archives I remember doing, so the system is generally getting them right. There was probably a bug in the formatting that caused it to switch up the two articles you mention. Tdslk (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests&oldid=957623051 version of the Requests page, one change before the bot archives Squall Leonhart as done, the Squall Leonhart request (not marked at all) was just above the Deep Blue request (marked as done). I'm not sure how the bot combined the two requests into one, but something like that must have happened. Tdslk (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, Tenryuu! It looks like the requestor for Squall Leonhart hasn't edited WP since about the time the request was made, which is why we probably haven't heard from them, but I'll go ahead and re-add it to the Requests page out of good faith. I'll also manually change the entry in the Archives to give you the correct credit. Tdslk (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Tdslk, thanks! I was more worried that the article was completed and that the alleged copyeditor didn't get correctly credited. 😋 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't work out why the bot did that either; everything seems to be closed properly. IIRC, it did have a tweaks to stop it from archiving two sections where a <strike>tag was used to withdraw a request. The only thing following {{Done}} and the copy-editor's sig should be the next subsection. I've restored the original request text, date and sig to make sure the bot attributes it properly this time... Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive; c/e done. Baffle☿gab 06:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

misunderstanding

@Baffle gab1978: Hi. I requested the CE of not too late show with Elmo because I was unable to perform a CE. U couldnt think of any words that would have been different. I think you misunderstood my second request as a demand, or an order (special:diff/967513102). In the first comment, I posted the request, with explaining the issue of the article. I would have done it myself, but I am rarely editing wikipedia from a computer, and it was very difficult to CE that article from mobile device. The second comment made by me looks a little odd, I realised that now. I should have worded it better, I apologise for that. I was not asking you for doing a copy-edit. I accodentally left out an entire sentence: "would you tell me how should I approach the update?" I was asking for your help (or wanted to in that case). I later saw your comment, but did not understand it at all (even at that point I hadnt realised I had left out the sentence). Then I made changes to the article, and I thought asking someone for second look would be good. It wasnt about CE at all. I also wanted your opinion/guidance about the image/map/table placement issue. I was not demanding you to do it. I apologise for the confusion. This article came up in WP:RM, where I closed the discussion, and moved the article. I felt it was my responsibility to perform the "post move clean-up", which included that CE; thats why I was trying to do it. Again, sorry for the confusion, and apologies if I hurt your feelings. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, @Usernamekiran:; thanks for your reply. You pinged me four days after adding the request for Samannud, which I interpreted as an attempt to jump the queue, which is currently running at just over one month. I don't accept personal requests to c/e articles for that reason. Your comment that you found the article confusing made me tempted to put the request on hold but I delayed until I could check it out. I later deleted my reply (now restored) to your comment because I couldn't see it getting a useful reply.

My talk page would have been a better place to ask me about updating the article. To update it, you should use information from reliable, independent sources that are properly cited in the article. For what it's worth, I've done some minor cleanup tasks to fix the image placement problems you mentioned; I hope that's useful. There's no need to apologise for my feelings; they are quite resilient and were not hurt—but I find attempted queue-jumping unacceptable. Regards, Baffle☿gab 22:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Samannud

CC-BY-SA declaration; text below copied from Requests page (diff). Baffle☿gab 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A small, almost stub article about an Egyptian town. The article has been recently renamed from the town's historical name to modern name. Appropriate changes need to be done in the article. Thanks a lot in advance, —usernamekiran (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: this article is very small, but it was already a little confusing; and because of the recent rename, it barely makes sense. All it needs is a little CE/rewording. Kindly take a look into it. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:, if it barely makes sense to you, how do you expect it to make sense to anyone else? This is not a rhetorical question. Baffle☿gab 04:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

working —usernamekiran (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I updated the article. Would you kindly take a look at the article now? Also, the hieroglyphs, a photo from museum, and the population table are appearing at the bottom of infobox, after the article prose is over. I tried change their positions, but no matter what I tried, it always appears in the bottom; and not in the sections where there code is placed. I know this is not related to CE, but would you please take a look at it? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:, I don't owe you a copy-edit— requests can be taken by anyone at any time and there's no deadline on Wikipedia. I've restored my earlier reply for context. Further comment should go to REQ talk. Baffle☿gab 17:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh International School, Dammam

I've put this request on hold; I went to copy-edit this article and found around 75% of the text was unreferenced and rightly marked with {{Unreferenced-section}}. My edits are here and the article as I found it is here. I should have checked and brought it here for discussion weeks ago; it's probably a good thing it was me who accepted the request. I've marked the request {{Not done}} and I suggest a procedural decline for the archive. I'm sorry for not noticing this one earlier. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and no apology needed All the best, Miniapolis 02:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like I put those tags on there. I often take a quick look at Requests when they are first posted and give them a quick once-over for MOS issues, possible copyvio, and unreferenced claims. Probably too quick. My hope when doing this is that the requester will fix up the article before we arrive to copy edit it, but I have no data to back up that hope. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; MRC2RULES hasn't edited since June when he added the request; thank you for adding the tags, they were useful. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with a procedural decline. Tdslk (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments; request declined without prejudice. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nagpur

Hi all; I've placed the c/e request for this article on hold; the requester Majun e Baqi is checkuser-blocked for abusing multiple accounts. @Can I Log In: (courtesy ping) placed a decline template but it should probably be discussed here first. See SPI here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline. I don't see a reason for an exception from my usual view that requests from blocked users should be declined. Tdslk (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. All the best, Miniapolis 02:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both for your comments; I've restored the decline template. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Lalo Salamanca

I'd appreciate if someone more experienced performed copyediting like Bafflegab or Miniapolis since it is evident the last copy editor is relatively inexperienced. Additionally, he hasn't performed a complete copyedit. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Kailash29792:, thanks; I agree this was a poor c/e effort [ (diff). I've marked the request with {{Not done}} and referred comments to this page. I cannot promise to c/e it myself. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dim sum

Hello. The GOCE copy editing was completed and GA Nomination was made. The feedback below was provided. Can suggestions and guidance be provided about how the article can be improved? I will review the Good Article Criteria and the MoS in more detail as well. Thank you. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dimsum GA nom

Hi Renewableandalternativeenergy, I have boldly withdrawn the GA nom you made for Dim Sum. From a brief look, the article is very :short and lacking coverage in many areas, has significant unreferenced areas, lacks an appropriate lead, and has an undeveloped :consideration of image placement and captions. It is thus quite far from meeting a few different WP:Good article criteria. I hope these :points help with further development of the article, CMD (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Renewableandalternativeenergy, the reviewer (?) explained the problem areas, including but not limited to article length, insufficient citations, and unsatisfactory image placement. These unfortunately don't fall within the purview of the Guild. Have you taken a look at WP:BETTER, WP:MOSLEAD, and Help:Introduction? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Thank you for explaining and for providing some additional references for review. --Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Barelvi

After checking this request I've placed it on hold for discussion. This request was added today diff. The requester, Glasgow's peter, has never edited the article and the adding of this request is that account's first and only WP edit. The account was created at 10:33, 21 August 2020, seven minutes before this edit. I suspect something odd going on and suggest a decline in this instance. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See also my comments at Materialscientist's talk page. Baffle☿gab 20:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a diff of the most recent 200 edits. For 200 edits, many of them substantial, there is very little overall change to the article's prose. It looks like the edits are mostly editorial disputes among editors, with very little discussion on the article's talk page. I recommend that we decline this article for instability and lack of edits from the nominator, but put a {{copy edit}} tag on it and get to it during a drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, Baffle, and I agree with Jonesey. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Jonesey's plan. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments; I think the article itself seems to be in good condition and well-referenced. I've declined and tagged two later sections where I think prose could be improved. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Martung

CC-BY-SA declaration: text in this section moved from Requests page by me diff. Baffle☿gab 01:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just needs a quick work of the lead as copyvios shows. The language there is a bit odd though and could use a kick anyway. This gnome would appreciate it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Jerodlycett, is it just the lead that you want looked at? Looking at the article's history it seems there had been some edit warring going on, though it appears to have calmed down now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this article contains virtually no citations I have tagged it. I would suggest this request be declined. Thoughts? Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree; with so few sources, IMO a copyedit would be a waste of time now. Miniapolis 23:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Declined With this ragequit, we're unlikely to get feedback. Miniapolis 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(For the record, the text in the lead is basically unchanged since 2010, and the page linked in the copyvio report exists in archive.org only as far back as 2017. This doesn't prove anything, but the text on the linked page is likely to be a copy of Wikipedia, meaning that we would not be hosting a copyright violation.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Baffle☿gab 01:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Community film

I recommend declining this request per our "Requests may be declined if..." text at the top of the Requests page, without prejudice to resubmission once the article is returned to article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi all, I've just put the request for the above on hold; we are being asked to "rescue" a draftified article, which is not immediately in danger of deletion. The GOCE is not Article Rescue Squadron. I'm happy to wait a week or so for the draft to be returned to mainspace. The article was sent to draftspace after an AfD discussion here. Courtesy pinging @Evrik:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

On hold is fine with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep it on hold unless there is no sign of a forthcoming {{subst:submit}} within a reasonable time. By the time an AfC reviewer actions it, this requests is not the oldest. It's draftified so it won't get AfDed or G13 (well for now). Can I Log In (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with keeping it on hold; we have enough to do as it is . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) Two weeks later, this is still in draftspace and hasn't been edited since 5 Sept. I'll leave a note on @Evrik:'s talk page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I could, I would move it from the draft space. Can anyone here move it to the mainspace? --evrik ^(talk) 03:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  It has to be reviewed by AfC reviewers and accepted and move to mainspace. Then your copy edit request is eligible for accepting Can I Log In (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) The draft now has now been flagged as a copyright violation and nominated for speedy deletion. I am therefore boldly declining the request; coordinators, please feel free to revert my decline. Thanks all for your comments here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Well things went south all the sudden. It's a 9 year copyvio of this!  Declined. Can I Log In (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The document at academia.com appears to be a copy of the Wikipedia article from 2011, not the other way around. The decline is fine, however; this request is welcome here if the draft makes it back to article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy

CC-BY-SA: Text in this section copied from Requests page by me; further discussion should occur here. Baffle☿gab 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

This physics article is a recently-failed GAN, which I reviewed. The science in the article is very accurate, but also detailed and technical. It is not yet at GA, but a lot of work has been done on it, prior and during the review, and it now meets all the six criteria (WP:GA?) except Criteria 1. The help of an experienced copy editor would be very much appreciated here. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The subject sounds interesting. I could possibly help out with simplification and copy editing, though I do have some questions:

1. Amitchell125, I generally work with someone who has significantly edited the article and knowledgeable in the topic. As you are the reviewer, would it be more appropriate to contact Ponor about collaborating on improving the article?
2. I notice that a copy edit request was fulfilled by Baffle gab1978 this July, who left tags that were removed by Ponor. Baffle, is there anything else of interest that interested copy editors should know about? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Tenryuu:, as someone who knows nothing about spectroscopy, my advice is to ignore the technical content and mathematics markup unless you understand it, and simply improve the grammar, spelling (non-technical), sentence structure and flow. The "unreferenced section" templates I added in July have been adequately dealt with; I think it's still a bit too complex for most readers but it's not the GOCE's task to fix that. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Tenryuu:, I have enough knowledge of physics to help with the article, but the mathematics in the Theory section is now beyond me—Ponor is the expert, and it would be best to work with him. The advice above on leaving the technical content alone makes sense to me, as it is impenetrably dense. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll hold off on this for now until later on in the month. If any copy editors are interested in doing this, go ahead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(←) Hi all; I've placed this request on hold. Having started the c/e, I've been asked by a major contributor to stop because technical information needs to be corrected; see my talk. I'll be happy to see the request made when the article is ready but for now I think we should decline the request. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 11:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, let me first thank you for your interest in this article. Just today I became aware of this discussion; I don't know why your pings never reached me. I appreciate @Baffle gab1978 and @Amitchell125's diligent work, I really do. I'm relatively new here, and obviously not a native speaker, and have learned a lot from both. I understand none of this is your area of expertise, so some errors were inevitable. The fact is, very few physics graduates will be introduced to ARPES, especially to its theoretical details (our article covers only, like, ten percent of it). Very few general readers (whatever that means) will ever stumble upon ARPES. That's why I though I should write the article for physicists like me (15 years ago) who are looking for insider information ("common knowledge") that they won't find in published sources, nice public domain pictures they can use in their presentations, and pointers to most relevant literature. By watching @Amitchell125 do his work, I realised my writing style is way too dense (prob. because of many years of sci-lit conditioning), and I am going to try to fix that. His meticulous tracking of all the symbols and terms was astounding, many thanks for that! Along the way, some blatant errors were made, let me mention just two: the meaning of "structure of the electrons" so far from "the electronic structure" that studying the two belongs to two major branches of physics (electrons are structureless, afawk; but they /their energy levels/ do make structures); another editor fixed "lens modes" to "lens models" (one lens can have different modes... of operation). I chose to not fix these (and many others) immediately, because I wanted to see the magic the "too technical" templates do. As you may have noticed, I am totally against those; I think they serve no purpose but to scare people away (plus they're ugly, and tend to stay on articles forever).

I took some time off to start with the article afresh. I thank you for your patience and your hard work. And I hope we'll meet at ARPES again. Best wishes, Ponor (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Make sure that "web" is checked in Notifications of your preferences so you get pings. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 15:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem Ponor; your diligence does you credit. It was me who added the "too technical" template on my last c/e, so I'll remove it . I agree we need to be very careful around technical language and mathematics; I don't understand mathematics so I tend to leave it alone. The article gets as average 60 views daily (check) so I think here must be some interest in the subject. Your approach is understandable but it is required on English Wikipedia that information must be cited with reliable, third-party sources. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies and also means anyone can check the article's accuracy, expand the page and fix errors. You're always welcome to request a copy-edit once the article is rewritten. Thank you for taking the time and patience to explain the problems at hand, it's most appreciated. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(←) Thanks everyone for your comments; I've declined the request for now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Now United on hold

I put the request for Now United on hold because: "The article is tagged with "more citations needed" due to lack of citations. If additional sources are unreliable, that would further reduce the utility of a copyedit, which is usually for well-sourced, stable articles." Courtesy ping the requester, Nkon21. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The article certainly lacks citations; BLP rules apply to much of it as well. I'm currently neutral on declining; I'd like to see whether the missing citations are forthcoming shortly. Thanks for checking this article, Buidhe. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Self-advocacy on hold

Hi all; I've put the c/e request for this article on hold. I think we should decline the request because the article is currently marked with templates {{Essay-like}} (January 2008), {{more footnotes}} (April 2010) and {{Refimprove}} (September 2020)—the latter and the refimprove-section templates are my doing. There are also inline templates indicating problems with non-specific citations and uncited material. The requester @KamillaŚ: (courtesy ping) says "it needs a deeper rework" to eliminate these templates; I think the work needed here is article development rather than copy-editing, which I think would be quickly removed.

KamillaŚ, I think some of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page might be more helpful with article development than the GOCE. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I put this request on hold, the article has been trimmed down and is now more focussed, though it still has the Refimprove template. If any coordinators or regulars wish to remove the hold, please go ahead. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 13:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note for archive: copy-edit done. Baffle☿gab 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hold Kerala Blasters FC

@Baffle gab1978: I request you to hold Kerala Blasters FC for a copy edit for a week .The article is under a split discussion. Thanks WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @WhiteFalcon1:; thanks for your note. I've already started the c/e but I haven't yet reached the "Support" section, which is proposed to be split. It will take me a while to reach that section. If you wish, I can continue and avoid that section. Otherwise, I can stop completely but I can't see how the removal of "Support" would affect the rest of the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi@Baffle gab1978: ; thanks for your reply. You can continue copy editing sorry for trouble.WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

CC-BY-SA; this conversation was copied from the requests (diff) page by me. Further comments should take place here. Baffle☿gab 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

This article is a failed FAC, so it needs a copyeditor who is experienced with getting articles through FA. The review is here. Please pay particular attention to the last batch of comments from Graham Beards. I did not get a chance to respond to those before the review was closed. Some of the comments on matters of fact are just plain wrong (or at least confused) so please speak to me before changing anything of that nature. SpinningSpark 15:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Spinningspark:; If you wish, I can put this request on hold while you make your corrections. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that. Most of the criticism of the final reviewer were copyediting issues. Those that aren't are largely misunderstandings (which may also boil down to copyediting at heart). The other big issue for the FA was verifiability (see Laser Brain's comments) particularly of the Kieve book, the major source for the middle section of the article. This came about because at the time I wrote the article Kieve's book was hard to obtain. I got it on inter-library loan, but by the time the article got to FA it had long been returned. Meanwhile the article had been chopped about and citations had to be moved to new places "blind" and couldn't be rechecked directly. During the course of the FA process, Kieve's widow helpfully made the book freely available online, at which point a large number of citation errors were discovered. However, I am confident that this is entirely a technical citation problem and little or no text will need to be changed as a result. It's just a matter of correcting page numbers, or at worst providing additional sources. SpinningSpark 09:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad the major source is online, it's good to be able to check unclear and contradictory text, and correct from source. Thanks for your reply and for clarifying. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Acamptonectes

CC-BY-SA; this conversation was copied from the requests (diff) page by me. Further comments should take place here. Baffle☿gab 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Acamptonectes

To prepare for GAN and FAC, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Working My apologies if my edits to this article in future remain unsatisfactory to the individual responsible for the request; please inform me of all unsatisfactory edits, for the purpose of further discussion and resolution, upon my talk page. SurenGrig07 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@SurenGrig07:, what's the problem here? I don't see any reverts from the requester in the edit history, or any comments on talk pages. Baffle☿gab 08:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I stated the aforementioned as a matter of principle; the statement remained that if criticisms remained identified, I would remain open to discussion.

Hi, thanks for taking it up, SurenGrig07, but it seems you are completely restructuring the text and removing links and words, even removing text formatting, instead of just improving wording? The request is not for restructuring and changing meaning of the existing text, but improvement of phrasing where it may be deficient. Could we have a discussion about this before you continue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, @FunkMonk:, if my edits remain excessive; you may revert them at your discretion. I shall halt the performance of significant edits and exclusively alter the phrasing of text; thank you for informing me. SurenGrig07 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it is a difficult topic with a lot of details, so massive rearrangements can change the meaning and accuracy. Can I suggest reverting the last two edits and trying again with less dramatic changes? But thanks for doing it, it is not meant in a slighting way, I do realise it is a difficult article to edit if one is not too familiar with the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The recently produced revision, responsible for massive edits to the initial paragraph, remains reverted; I do not regard the most recent revision as excessive, but if you disagree, I would remain open to reversion. SurenGrig07 (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks much better, with many helpful links. Also, if something is difficult to understand or you are unsure of the meaning, which might happen in the more technical sections below, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page, as some copy-editors often do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer; if necessary, I shall gratefully accept. SurenGrig07 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:, I would primarily like to inquire concerning the edits produced via the individual with username Lythronaxargestes; if one inspects the revision history of the article, it remains particularly obvious that the aforementioned individual remains responsible for numerous massive edits to the internal structure of the article, under the ostensible justification of copy editing. Do these edits remain acceptable to the author? I am primarily inquiring due to the fact that this user remains responsible for numerous copy edits within sections which I edited; numerous edits which I produced remain, within effect, reverted via this user. I would appreciate a response within a small quantity of time; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a co-writer of the article. They noticed some problems in the CE, notably that explanations in parenthesis have been removed for some reason. Those are crucial for letting readers understand the article, so I'd like to know why they have been removed. I think this might be a bit too complicated an article for a first try at CE, and should perhaps be left for someone with more experience (as has been suggested on your talk page). FunkMonk (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Now that the article seems to be regularly worked on by Lythronaxargestes, should we consider the request to be withdrawn for the time being? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lyhtronax is a co-writer of the article, so we would really want a competent "outsider" to do the CE with fresh eyes. But the article is becoming a bit messy, so I'll ask my co-writers for what to do next after I've compared versions. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lyhtronax would also like this to get a copy edit by an experienced copy editor before we nominate it further, so if possible, can it stay in its current position on the list? FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In the light of the above; I'd suggest if @SurenGrig07: is having difficulties with this request, SurrenGrig07 should mark his or her c/e abandoned and leave it for a more experienced copy-editor. There are plenty of shorter, less-complex articles listed here. SurenGrig07, if you feel confident enough to continue with this complex science article; please;

• don't alter any scientific information (dates, species names, order of events etc);
• be careful not to edit in any way that changes any meanings of text per above;
• stick to improving grammar, sentence structure and flow, and fixing typos, ENGVAR errors (Use British English, non-Oxford), markup errors, etc.
• don't be too tardy; although there's no deadline on Wikipedia, we like to get copy-edits done fairly quickly.

FunkMonk, thanks for your patience here. I hope the request can be fulfilled shortly. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I appreciate the attempted copy-edit, but it is probably not the best kind of article to start practicing on. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've left an {{GOCE-ab}} template on SurenGrig07's page. I'll leave it to Baffle gab1978 or someone else to determine when to consider the status of this request to be abandoned and re-released for someone else to look over. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tenryuu; I was going to let this request and attempted c/e sleep quietly for a while until it rose up the list! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive: c/e done by me. Baffle☿gab 08:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jiz Lee

While there's nothing wrong with the article itself (save for a {{POV}} template), the requester, Right cite, has since been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Should it be declined or considered viable with the block of the requester? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 05:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not the first time this has come up. I've supported automatically declining requests from permanently blocked users, although that hasn't prevailed as a policy. I think the last time it came up, though, there was agreement to automatically decline when the block was for sockpuppetry. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the last discussion of the issue was here. It looks like at the time Puddleglum2.0 proposed:

• If the user who requested a copy edit is blocked while the request is waiting, the request will be put on hold for seven days pending a successful unblock appeal. If no such appeal appears or if it is declined within seven days, the request may be declined, with no prejudice against a future request by the same editor (after being unblocked.)

And Jonesey95 responded:

• I do think that all declines should continue to be discussed here, for the record. In the case of a blocked editor, the discussion could be as simple as "Request X will be declined in Y days because the requester is blocked until Z. If you have objections or know of mitigating circumstances, state them here. Consensus to decline will be assumed unless objections are stated here, so there is no need to respond if you agree with declining."

I'm not sure if the discussion was sufficient to establish that as a policy, but the only objection raised was that it shouldn't apply if someone is soft blocked. Tdslk (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(And further for the record, since I somehow seem to have not participated in that conversation, I would support the proposal.) Tdslk (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(←) Decline; per previous consensus on sock-blocked editors here. That editor in particular should know better. I've placed the request on hold and as there were no intervening edits, I have reverted the requester's additions per WP:EVASION. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see that Cirt (once a trusted editor) is still socking; for the life of me, I dunno why they don't wait six months and accept the standard offer. For that reason, decline. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 17:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(←) I've declined the request; feel free to revert if necessary. I also reverted Right cite's edits on that article since there were no major intervening edits there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there GOCE consensus to decline requests from blocked editors?

Above, there is a question of whether the GOCE has established a consensus to decline requests from blocked editors by default. Let's revisit this question one more time, in a more formal way.

I propose that GOCE coordinators (both present and former) and frequent editors of Requests, along with other watchers of this page, if they have strong feelings, express their opinions about the following statement (I have used capital letters to indicate WP or GOCE terms of art):

GOCE copy editing Requests from editors who are blocked after submitting their Requests should be put On Hold and discussed on the Requests Talk page, with a presumed consensus that the Request will be Declined unless there are sufficient mitigating circumstances. After the Request has been under discussion for three days, it should be marked as Declined if the initial presumed consensus still applies. A blocked editor may resubmit their Request after their block has expired.

I could probably make it more concise, but I think you get the idea. Comments welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Miniapolis 17:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment:; I think the earlier consensus to decline requests from indef-blocked sock accounts is here (2019), here (2019), here (2018) and here (2017); I'm not sure if we have earlier discussions archived. IIRC, the consensus I mentioned in the earlier thread is to decline requests from indef-blocked sock accounts. In the case of the article Maureen Wroblewitz, a banned user was using accounts and IPs to make requests and spam users' talk pages so frequently I asked for a consensus to remove and ignore them. That *was* an exceptional case though.

My thoughts on this remain the same; I'd prefer the requests are discussed here before they are declined—each case is different and editors get blocks for all sorts of reasons; one size does not fit all, though I'm less inclined to AGF if the requester is blocked as a blocked / banned editor's sockpuppet. Then again, Guild coordinators aren't expected to be sock detectives and there are (almost) always plenty of requests to work on... ;) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Question: What would the status of denied requests become if consensus has been reached in that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances for the blocked editor? Should they be procedurally kept on hold, worked on, or still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis?

Leaning to support. I'm concerned that if a blocked user's requests are still going to be worked on, they could set a precedent for sockpuppeting users to game the system. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In answer to the question, the Request could be kept on hold until the requesting editor's block is removed (in the case of a short-term block), or it could be put back into the regular queue to be worked on like a regular Request. The outcome would depend on the circumstances as determined by discussion on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my long-standing view. To quote myself from a previous time this came up: "I would argue that anyone who is permanently blocked should get their requests declined, whether or not they were blocked for the reason of being a sockpuppet. I like to think that there is at least a hypothetical collaborative component to requests. Usually the requestor is actively revising the article, and will review our work when we are done and answer questions we may have. Otherwise, there is nothing different from the articles in the request list and any of the millions of other articles. So if an editor is permanently blocked, we should remove the article in preference to requests from editors where there is at least a possibility that they can respond." Tdslk (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Agree with Tdslk Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral; I'm happy with our current approach of hold --> discuss --> decline / accept, which seems to work quite well, as it did in the case of Right cite above. Some formal guideline *is* needed to avoid copy-editors' time and mental resources being wasted on socking editors though, so I see merit in the proposal. I just think declining a request from an editor who has a three-week block is different to declining one from a socking editor like Cirt. And I'd sooner be copy-editing articles than playing wiki-police. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

REQ record year

I've just been crunching some numbers; unless I've over-crunched them, GOCE copy-editors have processed 693 requests so far this year, including 18 from last year. The previous record is 668 completed in 2018. There should be a good Xmas bonus this year! :D Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping track, Baffle! Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 14:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this! It does feel that the list isn't getting any shorter. Remember March? As I recall we were down to a handful. Stay safe. Cheers! Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The list is long, but that may reflect the trust the community has in us. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 16:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, back in March, I was about to suggest allowing three requests per-person again when the first lockdowns happened; it feels like it's "pile-on" time again! The table so far is on the Annual Report page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing punctuation for request templates

Recently, I used the markup from the request-page-heading "Copy editors: please update the status of the request with these templates", which inserts bullet points before the "working" and "done" templates, whether copied-and-pasted or clicked-on. The bullet points apparently confuse the archiving bot, which didn't archive my recently completed request until I changed from bullet points to colons. It that's the case, we should consider adding further instructions to, or changing the punctuation in, the heading. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting; I wonder why that would happen. It might be a useful way of preventing unwanted archiving though. I don't think I've ever used asterisks to mark requests working or done; I just followed the prevailing culture. The instructions current say: "When you accept a request, place an indented  Working template immediately beneath the request ..."; there's nothing about bullet points / asterisks there... but that was written pre-bot. Otoh; WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS come to mind... :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Further note: the bot archives 24 hours after {{Done}} is added... according to your timestamp, your done was added at 00:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC) and the request was archived here at 00:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC), which is right on schedule. So it seems the asterisks didn't weren't there to affect the bot but we'd have to test that out to be sure. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tito–Stalin split

I had a look at this article to check @Canadianhockeyfan79:'s copy edit work. I found they had made only two minor edits and felt the article needed more work. @Baffle gab1978: agreed and struck the "Done" tag. I will now undertake the copy edit and go over any changes I make with this new-to-Wkipedia Guild member when I'm done. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Baffle gab1978: and @Twofingered Typist: for your help here and I'm so sorry for causing both of you more work, that was not my intention. I'm super grateful for any help you guys can offer and will gladly accept it. Canadianhockeyfan79 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Canadianhockeyfan79; WP is one big learning curve . Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 00:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Canadianhockeyfan79 You haven't caused us extra work. No need to apologize. I'll go through and work on the article now and show you any Manual of Style issues that might have arisen. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)