Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2013

Organizing archives

I am interested in keeping tabs on all the articles we copy edit by request. Specifically, I'd like to see how they all progress and whether they make it through GAN and FAC with or without prose concerns after we handle them. I've added a key to help us get consistent codes for all the potential nominations, but I'm wondering if we should make a distinction between articles that are currently at a content review versus ones that are planned for such a review later on. Thoughts? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what happens to articles after they leave our hands too, but I think there are so many variables that keeping track of every article would be hard work at best, especially finding entries in historical tables if (say) an article the GOCE copy-edited in 2010 should gain FA status in 2013. Perhaps a  Done green tick could be added in the archive table if an article is listed as GA or FA and a  Not done red cross for a fail. It's not a job I'd relish though; YMVV! :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick read over

Would anyone be able to do a quick look over on God of War (video game) to see if there is anything weird in the prose? It failed its second FAC nomination because apparently, the prose is not of "brilliant and professional" standard, despite the fact it has had numerous copy-edits, and the last guy who copy-edited said it looked excellent (he copy-edited after the comment was made that the prose doesn't appear to be brilliant and professional). --JDC808 ♫ 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add it to the queue and wait your turn like everyone else. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Morgarten

Small article which needs a bit of help to achieve better consistency and to follow MoS.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done: please check that you are happy with my edits. The article probably needs some more references if it is going to progress to higher assessment ratings, though. I marked where I thought they are needed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

April Blitz copyediting (14 April). However, clarifications are needed.

• In the Background section of the previous edit - with the last broken sentence ("War eventually broke out between the two a dispute between the...") I've taken a copyedit stab at the meaning. Of course the "War eventually broke out between the two" could mean between the Confederacy and the Hapsburgs, or the Hapsburgs and Louis IV of Bavaria, as there is an indication of conflict both ways in the paragraph.
• In the Battle section, I have changed "butchered everything that moved and everyone unable to flee" as "everything that moved" is not encyclopedic unless it is part of a quote. I've taken a stab at "butchered retreating troops". If this is not the case, this needs to be re-edited.
• In the Aftermath section, where it says "peace treaty with the Habsburgs, which was extended for several years", does this mean that one peace treaty lasted for several years, or that the peace treaty was continually renewed ?

The previous CE was the day before the drive started Wikitime, so I was undecided whether to do anything on it, but then thought there seemed to be a bit of extra work to do. Acabashi (talk)

G'day, thanks for your edits. I made another quick run through. Please check that you are happy with my changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No probs here, nice one - it's looking as reasonable as it could do. l always have a blind spot with Habsburgs - my finger always seems to hit the "p" instead of the "b" :) Cheers, Acabashi (talk)

Pennsylvania Turnpike

This is a GA that is currently at WP:HWY/ACR and I would like to have a copyeditor go through and clean up the prose as I intend to take this to FAC in the future. Dough4872 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stopped and archived at #Extensions due to repeated reversions (including removal of alt text from images) by another editor. Maybe another copyeditor will have better luck with this one. Miniapolis 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove alt text. I did fix capitalization errors, word choice substitutions and removed unused parameters in citation templates. I also harmonized some of the page numbers because some newspaper databases add leading zeroes so their page numbers are all two digits, a practice which doesn't need to be copied into our citations. I've already encouraged Miniapolis to continue the work s/he has already started. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM said you did, and I had neither time nor inclination to go thru the history to see who did what, where and when. This is a 12,000-word article, and I had been copyediting it for several days when I began to notice it looked very similar to the way it did before I began. Long story short, everything we do here on WP is volunteer, time permitting, and I won't waste my time. Sometimes, collaboration means stepping back until another editor finishes their job. Best of luck, but I've done all I want to with this article. Miniapolis 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment was perhaps a bit vague, but I only meant that it added nothing to the article, not that Imzadi1979 removed it. That said, your statement is a bit confusing. How are we to know you're not done copyediting the article if you've already saved the page? Why wouldn't somebody correct something(s) you did incorrectly, even if you're not done copyediting it? Regards, TCN7JM 18:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

Like most editors, I copyedit section by section to avoid edit conflicts; surely you wouldn't expect anyone to copyedit a 12K-word article in one go :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Resuming copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Done—Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Dodo

I have copyedited halfway through the article. The article was quite well written to begin with, and my copyedit might still be improved upon in order to bring it to FA status. junglejill (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's pretty good. I changed a couple of things that weren't clear to me as I read through and I don't see any more outstanding issues. FAC are rightly strict, but I don't think the prose should be a problem. Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there seem to be some instances of WP:SAY and I managed to find some inconsistencies of American/British English. When I've finished copyediting the entire article, I'll ask an experienced guild member to go over it just to be sure. I have the most beautiful desktop background now thanks to this article. ʝunglejill 03:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Which picture did you use? And if there's anything in the text that's unclear, just tell me, I have all the sources ready. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Roelant Savery - Landscape with Birds - WGA20885.jpg ʝunglejill 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thought so! FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I must be very unlucky... Junglejill disappeared from Wikipedia shortly after volunteering to copyedit the article, and Uploadvirus, who took up the task after her, has not edited since August 22. The Dodo article is still in sore need of a copyedit, as it is now at FAC, so any help would be much appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• None of the two copyeditors mentioned above ever returned toWikipedia since. Anyone know what happened? I'm tempted to make the obvious joke that they went extinct, but it is rather puzzling. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Excessive requests

FYI: A couple of people have posted more than three requests on this page. I have assumed good faith and figured they didn't see the fine print at the top. I have posted notes on their Talk pages, asking them to remove requests of their choice to reduce their concurrent requests to three. So far, one person has done so. I'll keep an eye on the other person's requests, and if they are not down in a day or so, I'll trim them out and notify the person via a Talk page message. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Jonesey, I hadn't spotted it. I'll keep an eye out too. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This situation is resolved for now. If it pops up again, I'll tweak the instructions for requesters at the top of the page. That will catch the people who actually read instructions, which appears to be a much higher percentage of active WP editors than in the population at large. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Not quite: I've just spotted that (Redacted) has four listed. I've asked him to remove one. It's a problem that's cropped up before. Would a wl to the top placed at the foot of the page would help avoid this in future? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

He has now. That's a good idea. Maybe an edit notice as well? --Stfg (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an edit notice would work well too, thanks for the suggestion Simon. ;-) I'll have a go at creating one tonight, unless someone else would like to do it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Done—whaddaya think? I've held off adding a page notice; if the footer doesn't work maybe a page notice might be more effective. Feel free to edit the footer as required. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Nice and clear. --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Simon; I didn't know that template existed! :-D I tweaked the instructions text a bit too, and converted it to list format with bullet points, so hopefully it will work ok. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Álmos, Grand Prince of the Magyars - feedback

I am giving thanks to User:Baffle gab1978 for his/her bold and competent copyedit of the above article. I highly appreciate it. With his/her assistance, the article can be proposed to GA status. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Borsoka, it's most kind of you to say so, and it's great for copy-editors to get feedback, positive or not. :-) Good luck with your GA nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Tara Teng

I would like to submit this article for good status, but some concerns have been raised about the article and tags have been placed on it accordingly. A copyedit would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article can be helped with copy editing. It has major flaws and as the TAGs say it is an advertisement. Isthisuseful (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In what way do you feel that the article is an advertisement? I would be glad to clear up the issues raised in the tags, but I do not know what needs fixing. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's advertising and I've removed that tag, but much of the text is waffle and needs to be condensed and/or excised for it to conform to the Manual of Style and BLP policies. It's almost impossible to extract any useful or important information from the article as it stands. Therefore I think it needs to be dealt with by an experienced copy-editor whose familiar with these policies. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When does it make sense to copyedit a GA or FA nominee or potential nominee?

I saw the discussion around Peninsular War, which is currently on the Requests list. Multiple copy edits have been requested and performed by our Guild. Since the article was placed on the Requests list, it has had 150+ edits, many of them substantial. Which led me to a question to which I have not seen an answer in the short time since I joined the Guild: At what point does a copyedit make sense in the GA/FA nomination? I would think that the article should achieve some level of stability before going to GA/FA nomination, otherwise our copyedits could be overwritten with poorly written text and detract from the GA/FA eligibility of the article. These changes might then lead to another copyedit request on our Requests page.

Am I making sense here? Has this discussion happened before, and I just haven't found it? What has your experience been with copyediting an article that is heading towards GA/FA and is also subject to active editing/expansion/improvement? Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly making sense, and I can't remember this discussion happening before. A few thoughts: GANs often get quite inadequate prose reviews, and such articles are often still worth copy editing even if they pass to GA. FAC, on the other hand, is very thorough, so when an article is sent to FAC while awaiting a requested copy edit, I get the feeling we're being bypassed, and might perhaps decline the request, at least if it's not very near the top of the queue. But if the FAC reviewers have suggested an independent copy edit, we shouldn't decline that. Occasionally when the circumstances of an article changed, I used to message requesters to ask if they still wanted the copy edit. Sometimes they did, but quite often they didn't, and a few had forgotten they had requested it.

Otherwise, different "customers" behave differently, so it's hard to generalise. One requester with very poor writing skills and a habit of prolonged tweaking often makes requests and then, as soon as we've done it, tweaks away again and munges it all. On the other hand, another regular here is always very appreciative of the work we do for him, respects the changes we make, and if his request states that he plans a FAC or a GAN, then he reliably launches it as soon as the copy edit is done.

In the case of Peninsular War, the January copy edit appears not to have been a request, and the February one was requested by a different requester. My view is that we should accept the present request. --Stfg (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Peninsular War

A nice article which could reach the GA status with a bit of copy-editing help, especially a coherent citation style. Gywon (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Note: Guild members have already copy edited this article, in January 2013 and again in February 2013. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Note: Gywon, what exactly has been going on with this article? Have edits like this one, which basically removed every word ending in "ly", plus a few other small changes, improved the article? Has there been discussion on the talk page about what exactly is needed to improve the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Note: The last copy edit was requested by a different requester, and quite a lot has happened to the article since Fubruary. The edit that Demiurge links to was made by a fairly new editor who appears to be making an effort to remove redundancy and editorializing. He may be overdoing it, but I think he has a point, actually. Might be worth checking with Gywon as to his future plans for the article, but I think the request is valid. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Working—this will take a while to c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor 'Gwyon' turned out to be a sockpuppet of 'Turgeis' (or vice-versa); see here and here and here . Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edit request for User:AspieNo1/sandbox

I have some reservations about this request. Specifically:

• We're being asked to copy-edit a draft in a third-party editor's userspace without being made aware that the third party has either requested this copy-edit or is aware of it being posted here;
• The article has been deleted via AfD for subject notability reasons;
• There seems little point in copy-editing an article that's in the process of being rebuilt;
• Although there's some overlap, the GOCE isn't the Article Rescue Squadron or Clean Up.

So how should this request be handled? I've asked the requester for his comments. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I don't think it makes sense for us to poke our noses into someone else's sandbox, especially at a third party's request. The main editor of this article also appears to be finicky about using "Hiberno-English dialect and spelling", which I know nothing about. Unless there are circumstances we don't know about (I have read the article, the AfD page, and the main article editor's user talk page), I think we should politely decline to edit this article while it is in user sandbox space. The Article Rescue Squad or other helpful and patient editors should get this article sourced properly for notability, then place it in article space, and then request a copy edit. I welcome other opinions; I'm just one (mostly neurotypical) person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As requestor I have no difficulty if you turn the request down. I was not confusing you with the rescue squadron, though. What I am trying to do is to help this lone editor in difficulties by providing some sort of help to achieve what s/he is trying to do. I was expecting any offer of help to be made to them directly prior to anyone's starting to provide it. If you do choose to turn it down (valid), please take some time to consider how we as Wikipedia might help the editor better. I think the article topic has notability, but the editor keeps concealing it under fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 07:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How about we offer a ‘rain check‘ for whenever the article is ready for mainspace, per Jonesey? I‘d volunteer, being sympathetic to the writer‘s situation, but am not as active as some others here—still, feel free to ping me when you feel the content issues have been sorted. (I’m Canadian, but the ENGVAR pond seems a little narrower from here than it does from further south …)—Odysseus1479 09:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea, and I think we should accept Odysseus' offer. Copy editing should follow resolution of content, which I don't think has happened yet, but this way has a positive and helpful feel to it. --Stfg (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

On reflection (after a long walk): Declining a request for some article doesn't mean that we'd never do it, only that it is unsuitable at the moment, so in a sense that "rain check" is already there by default. That said, I agree with Baffle and Jonesey: the article is in no fit state to copy edit right now. So I think GOCE should decline the current request, without prejudice to a future request if the right things happen. --Stfg (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; I certainly agree that a decline shouldn’t prejudice future requests when circumstances have changed. To clarify, though: by “rain check“ I meant an advance commitment from one or more specific editors, who’ve acquainted themselves with the background here, to take it on. I just felt that adding a small element of predictability to the situation might be reassuring to a new editor who, having just been through an AfD & whatnot, is likely experiencing some confusion & stress.—Odysseus1479 01:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments here; I'll decline the request for now but if Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle wishes I'll be happy to copy-edit a draft in either my userspace or his (unless someone else wants to). You could then show the creator the draft and see what s/he thinks to it. It could then be either moved into article space if its ready or to the creator's userspace if further work is needed. I think that's probably a good way to avoid unwanted intrusion or offence. Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle, I think it's great that you're mentoring another editor, and I appreciate your motives in coming here to do so. Please feel free to request again once it's stable in article space and I'm sure we'll do our best for you. Once again thanks to all; feel free to continue the discussion if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I will use your talk page to discuss this with you. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Árpád - feedback

Dear Dear Baffle gab1978, your assistance is highly appreciated. Now the article can be a GAN. Please keep working on WP articles. Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Boroska, I hope your GA nomination goes well.:-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mai Shiranui

Failed the last GANs due to prose issues. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits reverted by Niemti, who causes edit conflicts by editing the entire article; impossible to continue. Miniapolis 01:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "revert" anything, only manually corrected naming mistakes. --Niemti (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)--Niemti (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are disingenuous; I've had a look at your history. Miniapolis 02:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mai_Shiranui&diff=576372695&oldid=576363756 Pfft. --Niemti (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the article's history. Your editing history. Miniapolis 02:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, and what about it? And all you had to do was to ask me to hold on, or to just return tommorow once I was done with my own cleanup (and I told you I corrected only your naming mistakes, so you were perfectly well informed and had no reason to invent some stupid "edits reverted"). Talking about being "disingenuous" (and for no apparent reason whatsoever). --Niemti (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to drop a note here to say a very appreciative 'Thank you' to the GOCE for the work you all do, especially User:Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978 who has just finished a terrific copy edit on Pitfour estate. The article is vastly improved! SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC) PS: You are all wonderful!

Thank you for your copy edit of the article Harur Vinoth88 (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)vinoth88

Edda Renouf

Regarding Fiddle Faddle's request here for the above article, I suggest a decline. The tags at the top indicate that this article has more problems that a GOCE copy-edit can solve. FF also tells us that the article's subject edit-wars to prevent changes. If edit wars over contentious material are ongoing perhaps we should at least put this request on hold until the article is stable. The large tag on the article indicates that this has more problems that a copy-edit could deal with. GOCE is not Cleanup. Anyone? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be a shame to decline it outright since members of the GOCE are the best equipped to knock the article into GA shape. The lady does not edit war, but she seems unable to understand how to achieve what se so obviously wishes to achieve. I am stressed in real life right now and am not the best suited to assist her understanding. If you are tending towards a 'decline' might I suggest you invent a new category called 'observe and consider' rather than just 'hold'? Fiddle Faddle 23:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Baffle on this one. Renouf may be notable, but this article is basically a resumé plus a plug for her husband. Copy editing improves prose, but just improving the prose and tidying up the references here would still leave us with a resumé. Imho, in its current form this is nowhere near a GA prospect, but rather a case for WP:TNT, and that requires access to sources, which puts it closer to new-article-request territory. Tim, there are a gazillion articles like this on Wikipedia. Why this one more than any other? --Stfg (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Because, out of the gazillion, this is one that caught my eye, for no decent reason; you know how that happens. Taking off your GOCE hat, so to speak, do feel free to have a crack at TNT on it. A great deal of the rubbish needs to be torn down. Fiddle Faddle 00:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know how it happens. But it's not so much what needs to be torn down as what is needed in its place. To see this, consider if this were an article about Vincent van Gogh. How much of it would you retain? How much more would still need to be written? What is her subject matter? Her style? Who influenced her? Who has she influenced? What do independent experts say about her use of colour? Brushwork? Perspective? Esoteric abstraction or social commentary? Instead of which, we're reading all about where she has exhibited and who wrote the accompanying music. Sorry if I seem to be ranting, but COI editing is rather a big deal just now. --Stfg (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've placed this request on hold while discussions continue. FF, please don't misunderstand out intentions; this isn't a formal category, it's just a note saying, "please wait—there may be ongoing problems with the article or request that make copy-editing difficult or impossible". If someone wants to copy-edit it—under the GOCE or otherwise—they are fully entitled to do so but I'd sooner they were aware of the problems. That way, less confident copy-editors may avoid getting into a mess and abandoning the request or the GOCE. Thanks for discussing this, it's appreciated. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy. I just know I am the wrong bloke to do wheat and chaff sorting for this one. Stfg makes valid points, too. Fiddle Faddle 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I am awake I will borrow Stfg's comments, sans rant, and place them in a copyedit tag and on the article talk page. The more I read them the more they make sense. Actually, I may well use them to concentrate her mind and consider a PROD with that as the reason, suggesting that the article is an advert for her and her hubby. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, gang, the creating editor blanked the page and it has been deleted, along with her talk page being blanked. If it is of any iterest you can see the PROD I placed there by looking at item 56 in October 2013 here. I think one could construct a valid article about Renouf, but, somehow, I have lost my enthusiasm. How fleeting is fame! Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the request and following text below, archived and blanked. Thanks Fiddle Faddle for letting us know and thanks to everyone for your comments. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Baffle gab1978, for sterring this one through the obstacle course -- very skilfully, I think. --Stfg (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edda Renouf (moved from request page)

Created as an autobiography, this article has the potential to read GA status once the creating editor can be persuaded to leave it to other people. She has immense challenges understanding citation mechanisms, and I suspect this may be a language difficulty. Ms Renouf appears to be a notable artist, and we would have a far better article had the artist herself not created it. Qute a swathe of text needs to be torn down. In this article less will truly be more. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

On hold; see the conversation on the talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Article blanked by creating editor and deleted. Ah well. Fiddle Faddle 18:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Colin Farrell edit

Thanks! I've looked these through and only caught one thing you might've forgotten about. Thanks also for the note about Company magazine link. Will fix soon.--Aichik (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

Hi all, I think this talk page is getting overdue for archiving. I'll set something up in a few weeks; I'll probably do it manually unless anyone thinks an automatic time-based archive (or another style) would be more appropriate. Does anyone object to this page being archived? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are so right (and thanks for moving the above thread from the requests page) :-). I've had good results archiving my talk page with ClueBot III; it's a lot more convenient than manual archiving, but that's up to you. All the best, Miniapolis 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. Yes please. Based on the current contents, we probably need only annual archives (e.g. 2010, 2011, 2012), at least until the volume picks up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Done—I manually archived the pre-2013 conversations and added an archive box at the top. Please feel free to adjust, improve or automate this arrangement; I may automate it myself per Miniapolis' suggestion when I have more time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a ClueBot III script per Miniapolis' suggestion and have set it to archive sections inactive for 180 days (4320 hours). I'm leaving the existing archive box, which links to the existing archive page, alone until I know how the bot will behave. I can then merge that into the bot's archive page. My aim here is to create a setup that needs minimal maintenance and can be used by anyone. I hope it's useful; feel free to fix things if I've cocked it up! ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• CluebotIII did it's thang today and found some extant archive pages linked from the archive box; I didn't know these pages existed. I've copied the threads I moved to those pages and created a page for 2010 threads. I'm not an expert on archiving and couldn't shoehorn the 2010 page into the archive box so I've linked it above. Are the current arrangements satisfactory and easy to maintain when I'm not here? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Molecular diagnostics

I'm trying to clarify what's happening with the c/e request for Molecular diagnostics. The requester Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle has marked the article done because a new editor Drianmcdonald has been working to expand, reference and clarify it independently from the Guild and the requester. I've been discussing this with Fiddle Faddle here and with Drianmcdonald here. Fiddle Faddle seems to be happy with the result and if further expansion is imminent I think it might be best to decline the request; otherwise I think the article needs work to make it more reader-friendly for non-experts. What say ye? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I commend the discussion on my talk page to you. I am an innocent in the world of GOCE, I'm afraid. The article has been moved from awful to acceptable. If a GOCE editor can move it from acceptable to wonderful Wikipedia would be grateful. I knew it was a notable topic, but I had and have not the slightest clue about how to enhance it. Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Baffle's take on this. The article has been substantially improved; a further copy edit could do yet more; it would be better done after any expansion, since prose tweaking should follow content generation. The main question is whether there are plans to expand it. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be standard practice, but you could move it down to the October requests list with a note summarizing the above. Then when an editor gets to it in November or December, it may be ready for a copy edit. That way we won't lose track of it and will respect the original request for a c/e. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Jonesey; I think requests would be normally placed on hold until the content has stabilised. Moving it to a later section might not be a good solution because copy-editors can and do accept any request; they don't have to take the oldest articles as I do. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. Drianmcdonald has now clarified the situation on my talk page; he intends to take the article to GA standard and thinks that a non-expert c/e might help but says he isn't currently planning to further expand the factual content of the article, so I now think we should accept the request. Fiddle Faddle, if it's OK with you I'll strike your done and amend my comments on the request page. Thanks again everyone! :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Go to it with a will! I apologise for creating confusion. Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise; you did what you considered appropriate and your note drew our attention to the nature of the article, which is an important point for copy-editors when considering what can be done to improve it, and introduced a potential copy-editor to the Guild. I've struck your text, but left it in place. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If the GOCE can get this to GA status I will be more than pleased. It will make a pleasant change from the great swathe of deletions we have to initiate daily. Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional c/e, Baffle gab1978 :) Ian McDonald (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Triaging" requests

An editor of an FAC was dismayed that it took six weeks for them to get a copyedit after they'd been improving the article for about a year. We may have a problem; while it may be desirable to cherry-pick intended FACs and GANs from the list and do them first, editors whose "undeclared" (no stated intentions for GA or FA) articles languish at the top of the list have a legitimate gripe. Since the requests list is pretty long and few copyeditors are working on it, I suggest that we encourage editors (in the instructions) to leave a {{copy edit}} tag on articles they have no GA or FA aspirations for in the foreseeable future; when they're getting ready to nominate, they can always remove the tags and add them to the list. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's set requesters' expectations accurately. Maybe we should let people know right on the Requests page that we tend to take the articles in the order they are submitted (if indeed we do so — if we take FAC noms more quickly, we can say and do that), and that the typical backlog during 2013 has been about 6–8 weeks (or whatever the actual backlog has been; I'll do the math from the Requests Archive if we care about precision).

As you said to that editor, there is a presumption in FAC nominations that articles are stable. If waiting 6–8 weeks is a problem for an article, it's probably not that stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm uncomforatble about this idea. Editors who are making an effort have a reasonable case for asking for our help in a decent timescale, even if their aspirations fall short of FAC/GAN. I don't see why it should be reasonable for an editor to expect us to jump to, just because they are trying for FAC. Isn't there an essay somewhere about there being no timescale?

I do have one suggestion, though: reduce the number of concurrent requests that an editor can have on the queue from three to one (maybe two, but I think one is better). That would shorten our lead time, wouldn't it? --Stfg (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Providing some data: The earliest current request is from September 14. I took all requests made from December 1, 2012 to September 12, 2013 that appear on the Archive page and crunched the numbers. The average completion time was 41 days. The median completion time was 43 days. The longest wait was 90 days, and that was not an outlier; 36 articles waited 75 days or more. We archived 435 requests (it's possible that some completed requests didn't make it to the archive, but I suspect it would be fewer than ten).

Just eyeballing the sorted list without doing a formal correlation, there does not appear to be a significant correlation between the FAC/GAN/empty "Purpose" note recorded in the archive and the article's waiting time. Instead, the waiting time changed through the year. It spent the first half of the year in the 20–40 day range, crept up to the 70s mid-year, and then got back down into the 20–50 day range after our August blitz and some dedicated work by a few editors, and one editor in particular, during the rest of the year.

Request wait times, 2012-12-01 to 2013-09-12

Days	Number of articles
0	8
1 to 10	43
11 to 20	34
21 to 30	40
31 to 40	80
41 to 50	91
51 to 60	42
61 to 70	46
71 to 80	43
81 to 90	8

I couldn't figure out how to indent the above histogram, but it sure was fun to make. I agree with Stfg that reducing the number of requests from three to two should help shorten the wait time a little (there are currently 7 three-request editors on the page by my count, out of 56 current requests). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I like Miniapolis' about encouraging the use of {{copy edit}} tags, but I don't think we should favour FAC or GAN requests over others. I also think we could be more proactive about filtering articles that aren't ready for c/e to WP:Cleanup—that project's remit is more suitable that ours for that task. That said, we're all volunteers here; requesters who want c/es done within a certain timeframe have unreasonable expectations of us. WP:Deadline is the essay you wanted Simon. Perhaps we could have a page notice saying something like, "Requests generally spend around two months on this list, though they may be dealt with sooner during drives and blizes".

I and Minapolis tend to work the oldest articles because they've waited longest but I don't want to compel other editors to do the same. If a editor cherry-picks articles s/he's interested in that's fine and still helps clear the list. To answer Jonesey95, yes stability is important but so are improvements, and changes aren't always a bad thing (some like to edit-war to keep "their" version intact, and "their" version isn't always the best version). Copy-editing an article which is being fought over isn't much fun though. But generally, I think the list runs quite smoothly and I see no reason to change it much. Considering the quantity of stalled Wikiprojects on WP I think we're doing very well! ;-)

Drives/blitzes focussing on the requests page have helped in the past; maybe the December drive could be more request focussed (just suggesting). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey95, that's very useful data. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Drop me a reminder when the last of the December 2013 requests have been completed (probably sometime in February 2014), and I'll do this analysis again for calendar 2013, make it real pretty, and add it to the top of the 2013 Archive page. And just to emphasize how well we're doing, we copy-edited 435 articles during the period analyzed above (284 days), a rate of 1.5 requests per day, or 45 requests per month. Pretty good, considering the length and complexity of most of these articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; that would be a great idea. I think we should display the data on the GOCE home page (I thought my text above was a little forward so I removed it; it was probably the home-made blackberry wine talking!). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bisexuality in the Arab world

I'm considering declining the request here for this article, which is mainly unsourced and has a single reference, which means that the existing text may be removed without notice. The requester is also asking the GOCE to expand and reference the article, which is outside our remit. The article has already been posted at ARS. I've discussed this with the requester on his talk page and he accepts my rationale. I've placed it on hold while it's discussed here, and done a brief c/e to the text. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK with me. This article is not ready for copy editing and does not particularly need it. It needs to be expanded and referenced if it is going to continue to exist. During that expansion, any copy editing we may do now will be changed completely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Stfg (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing I value most about coming here is that, even in rejection, good ideas appear. I have now had the time to pick one of those ideas up and run with it, making sweeping edits to the article. Having edited it I can se more clearly that its topic is probably too narrow. I've posted a discussion point here for those who wish to deliver an opinion, and I invite members here to do so. Fiddle Faddle 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that certainly turns it from a rambling essay into the beginnings of sourced, factual coverage. Would it make sense to archive it now, recognising FF as the copy editor? --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll do that this evening unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks all for your comments; for once it seems that our accept/decline discussions have produced an effective result. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Toy Story 2

Mediran wants to do this article's GA review and has remarked "Closed/Not done" on its request diff. Should we put this on hold until the review's done? I can see no reason to refuse a copy-edit but I can see how it would interfere with the review process. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting the request on hold makes the most sense. I don't think we should close an editor's CE request without permission from that editor or a compelling justification.

Here's a link to the relevant GA nomination. A copy edit will probably benefit the article after Mediran's review is done and any requested content is added. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Done; thanks Jonesey, I'll keep an eye on the review and open it up when Mediran's finished. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting the request on hold is a great idea. BTW, thank you for those CEs who are interested in copy editing the article. My review may come maybe around this or next week. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 09:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have opened the request as the GA review is finished. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 04:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Canoeing and kayaking

I've placed this request on hold and have suggested that the requester moves it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates. I'll decline and remove in a few days if it's still here, unless anyone objects to my actions. Please see my comments on the requester's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's not a copy editing job. The template's talk page has a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Kayaking, whose talk page may be the best place for Jamesmcmahon0 to raise it. --Stfg (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a copy editing job. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bring it up at WikiProject Kayaking and WikiProject Templates Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply James; I'll decline the request and archive it. Thanks to everyone for your comments above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

John Henry Warne, Jr.

I've placed the request on hold because the article is essentially unreferenced and has been nominated for BLP PROD, expiring on 4th December. I think it should be declined; if it survives to should probably be stubified. I did a quick Google search and the subject doesn't appear to be notable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment whether this gentleman is notable, the BLPPROD was applied when it was not allowed to be applied. The rules state that ANY reference, even a lousy one, is sufficient to disallow nomination. I have thus declined the BLPPROD, though other deletion routes are open to editors should they so wish Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm, looking through the refs there I gathered that they were incidental to the article's subject and therefore the PROD is still applicable. Which reference there even discusses this character, let alone notability? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed an ordinary PROD, or an AfD are each suitable. The issue was the rules that prevent a BLPPROD being deployed however atrocious the alleged reference if there is a reference of any sort in place. Arcane? Yes. Fiddle Faddle 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it says; "the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography". So which ref supports the article's subject? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? No idea. The issue here is the ability for someone to interpret any of the alleged references at the time the BLPPROD was issued as a reference of sorts. The BLPPROD rules are not self consistent and reflect the weird way consensus works here when the process was mis-designed. We not only have angels who stand on the head of a pin, some actually dance the Viennese Waltz. I suggest one PRODS the thing as non notable in more cases than one BLPPRODS it when refs or pseudo-refs appear. Fiddle Faddle 00:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding, it can't be re-prodded so it will now have to go to AfD. I'll nom tomorrow when I've had a chance to check it over properly; in the meantime it's the witching hour and curses are half-price, so watch out for vampires dancing the The Cuckoo Waltz on pin-heads... :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have inspected the references in detail, and flagged their woeful inadequacies. The two book ones are those that disqualify from BLPPROD (assuming they actually mention him at all). However they are vanity published material and thus fail RS. I've flagged it for CSD on the basis that the gentleman has no inherent notability. Good lord. I remember being careful never to watch that alleged comedy series! Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gone now; thanks for the CSD nom, it's appreciated and saved the bother of Afd. You know we could have done this a month ago but I don't often check articles unless the requester posts about problems with them... I kinda remember that series, but didn't pay much attention and probably couldn't have cared whether it was funny or not! Alas, alack, Tempus fugit etc. I'll archive and delete the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Outlaw Run

Earlier this year I requested Outlaw Run be copyedited, prior to me nominating it for a GA review. The article received a small copyedit by JaykeBird back in July. Whilst I understand requesting a copyedit by the Guild does not guarantee the prose will be of acceptable standard for GA/FA reviews, the reviewer has asked I get the article copyedited by a third-party. I figured this would be the best place to ask to see if anyone would be willing to take up a copyedit? Alternatively, if anyone could offer advice on what a better course of action would be for me to take, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Themeparkgc, I've checked out the c/e and I don't think it's adequate either. Unfortunately there's not much we can do and we can't check out every c/e before archiving or we'd get nothing else done. We have to take things on trust and in good faith. The copy-editor doesn't seem to be actively editing now. I'll copy your request to the requests page; hopefully you'll get a better c/e next time around. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have completed this copy edit. I normally like to take the oldest ones first, but I felt bad that this editor did everything right and did not get a reasonable outcome from the GOCE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jonesey95. Baffle gab1978, I completely understand, I was just unsure what my best course of action would be. Thanks for moving the request over. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my edit wasn't up to good standards. When I looked at the article, I didn't know what all I could do, but I was rather inexperienced, and since then I had stopped copy-editing. Glad to see it was looked at by someone more experienced. JaykeBird (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it worked out fine. You were bold, which is good. Sometimes it takes people a while to find something to do on WP that fits their skills, temperament, and desires. If copy editing is not that thing for you, you'll probably find some other valuable way to contribute. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Archiving codes

Hi all; on next year's archive page I'm planning to add the following codes to the key used in the "Purpose" box:

• ACN: A-class nomination
• ACR: A-class review
• BCN: B-class nomination
• BCR: B-class review
• Deleted: Deleted articles—suffix with the following codes:
  • CSD (deleted via WP:Criteria for speedy deletion; add code, A7 etc)
  • PROD (deleted via WP:Proposed deletion)
  • AfD (deleted via WP:Articles for discussion (wililink to discussion))
  • TfD (for templates deleted via WP:Templates for discussion (wililink to discussion)
• Declined: Any requests that are not suitable for copy-editing for any reason. Place "n/a" in the "Copy editor's username" box.

I've based this on things I've done with requests that I've encountered this year which fall outside the existing codes. Hopefully this will help standardise archived requests so that everything sorts properly in the sortable table. All discussions welcome; please suggest anything that should be added, anything that shouldn't be added, or if you can see a better way of coding the archives. Also, if you don't think I should add these codes, please say so. There's a mock-up in my user page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. Doubling the number of codes makes it harder to scan for the one I want. Would you consider alphabetizing them? I would be OK with "Deleted" and "Declined" staying on the right side, with an alpha list of the other codes on the left. I might also show the actual full "Deleted" codes.... This is getting too complicated. I implemented these suggestions with some minor copy edits at User:Jonesey95/sandbox2. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey, I like the idea of alphabetizing the codes; it does make the list easier to scan. Thanks for your suggestions and for doing that; your version looks neater than mine. I think BCN and BCR might be removed because none have been requested (though they might be one day!). I'll copying your version back to my user page and do some tests to see how the sortation works. Thanks again :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've populated the mock-up in my userpage using the codes to see how they work with the table; feel free to experiment with it and see if you find any potential problems. Mostly they sort consistently but I found the square brackets interfere with wikilinks, so I've reverted to rounded brackets on codes for deleted articles etc. I also wondered whether a code for templates is necessary; we've been asked a few times this year to fix or c/e them. Still you never know what's likely to be asked of us! ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. I played with it a bit and did not notice any bugs. Roll it out to the 2014 page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Has the heading of the "purpose" column become a bit misleading? We don't copy edit in preparation for a CSD, for example :)) I assume this means that the request was superseded by deletion. Is it worth bothering to archive those? --Stfg (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stfg. I like the A and B listings, and the declined, since it can be helpful to know if the article has a previous request, but I don't think we'd want to add redlinks to our archives. Just let those go down the memory hole. If the deleted articles ever are brought back, they would have to be substantially different anyway. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind having Deleted articles in the list. We could change the word "Purpose" to "Notes" or "Code" or "Type". I could live with a memory hole, but I prefer keeping the info. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think archiving requests for deleted articles allows us to detect patterns of activity and I think it's useful (and maybe for future wiki-archaeologists) to know what's being asked of the GOCE. "Purpose" is fine by me; but I see the mismatch it creates. How about "Purpose/Notes"? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Bald Eagle on hold

Hi all (again, too soon!), I've placed the above request on hold because the requester, Nurburgringer, has only asked for a small correction to the article's text. I think s/he asked us because his/her account is very new and the article is semi-protected and thus s/he cannot edit it. I've made the correction s/he asked for (hence done) and I've asked her/him to comment on either page to clarify exactly what s/he wants us to do with it. Of course I've no objection if someone wants to c/e the article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA and GDFL declaration; text below copied from requests page here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Bald Eagle

Incorrectly interpreted reference 123: In the "Population Decline and Recovery Section" it states "Recent estimates indicate that the total population consists of approximately 200,000 eagles today.[123]" However, if you follow the link in reference 123 it actually says "Today, under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, that number [of breeding pairs] is almost 6,000. Although promising, one would wonder how over 200,000 of these birds came to be on the brink of extinction in just a few centuries." The 200k number is clearly meant to have existed at some point, before humans started killing them off for various reasons. The current number of bald eagles is very difficult to precisely say, but extrapolating numbers of "pairs" since 2006 (last year state data was reported) from the US Fish and Wildlife service there could be 15-20,000 pairs, or around 30-40,000 bald eagles in the USA circa 2013. 200,000 is way off. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html Nurburgringer (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Done and on hold; I've made the requested change but I'm unsure whether the (very new) requester wants a full copy-edit. I've asked him/her to clarify this request on his/her talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The requester has only ever made two edits: this request and an almost identical post at Talk:Bald Eagle. They haven't contributed to the article, so I don't think we should accept any request to copy edit it over the heads of those who have worked on it. I guess this must be a misunderstanding of what we do, and I think we should decline this request in order not to tread on toes. --Stfg (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, not sure what my (lack of) editing history has to do with the accuracy of a Wiki entry. Do you disagree that the statement concerning current bald eagle population (i.e. 200,000 currently in the USA) is not supported by the given, or any, reference? I only desire Wiki's information to be as accurate as possible, which I'd think all here would also want regardless of who reports the error. Nurburgringer (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nurburgringer: That isn't what I said. Your statement about the accuracy of that specific detail seems convinving to me, and of course the article needs updating in that case. Your post at Talk:Bald Eagle was spot on. What I said was that GOCE shouldn't take on a copy edit at the request of an editor who hasn't worked on the article. A copy edit is a pass through the whole article to fix grammar and spelling, to improve the flow of the prose, and suchlike. The purpose of a copy edit isn't to bring specialist subject expertise to bear, nor to verify sources (though we often do that to clarify what poorly written text is trying to say, or to check on suspicion of copyright violation), nor to perform general cleanup. Editors request copy edits, for example, when they are preparing to put the article forward to become a Featured Article or a Good Article. Please don't worry about this -- no harm has been done at all. But I don't think we should take on a full copy edit right now, for reasons already stated. --Stfg (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Baffle - thank you for the reply. This is my first attempt to edit/comment a Wiki article so please forgive me for any protocol errors. Please note that I am not an expert on Bald Eagles, I only noticed this error and felt it was worthy of addressing since Wiki's Bald Eagle page is surely used by many thousands of students and casual researchers like myself.

As far as the proper edit, I would change the referenced source (#123) for current and recent Bald Eagle populations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife page and state something like "Obtaining a precise count of bald eagles population is extremely difficult. The most recent data submitted by individual states was in 2006 when a total of 9789 "breeding pairs" reported. This implies a total number of well over 20,000 bald eagles in 2013, assuming their population continued to grow as it did, steadily, from the 1960's."

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html Nurburgringer (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nurburgringer:, thanks for your reply. I know how frustrating it can be to be a newbie; we were all newbies once! ;-) I've replaced the text as you requested, except that I left our the third sentence because the extrapolated figure isn't given in the source article you provided and thus clashed with Wikipedia's policy of "No original research". Some articles are protected if they are frequently vandalised or otherwise compromised by anonymous editors. When you've made ten edits and your account is older than four days, you'll be allowed to edit protected articles; that is probably what Stfg was getting at. You can increase your edit count by editing the Sandbox, which is a page specially designed for practicing edits. The Tea House is a good place to ask lots of questions about editing WP. You can find more information by reading the guidelines on edit requests. You might get a quicker response by using {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page, or {{help}}on your own talk page..

For what it's worth, you did the correct thing by asking other editors on the article's talk page. Unfortunately some articles aren't monitored for changes so your request might not be seen by anyone for a while. I hope you'll stay around; feel free to ask questions on my talk page. Happy editing, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg:, I agree we should decline; this isn't a c/e request but a request to edit a semi-protected article. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page and archive in four days to give Nurburgringer time to reply, unless anyone objects. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

I have listed it for copyediting here. Since I have less patience, I request someone to quickly start the c/e and finish it ASAP (I will nominate it for GA immediately afterwards). ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to be fair to all editors, we typically copy edit requested articles in the order they were submitted. The current wait time is about six weeks. I encourage you to work on other articles while you are waiting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Taksony of Hungary - feedback

Dear Miniapolis, I highly appreciate your bold copy edit in the article "Taksony of Hungary". No I am brave enough to propose it to GA. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Telexfree‎

GDFL and CC-BY-SA declaration; text moved from the requests page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone up for an article about a corporation whose trading style is controversial? There are BLP pitfalls and other defamation pitfalls to avoid, and it is an article that may be here as part of a campaign against that corporation or may simply be giving generic and encyclopaedic information. I've had it on my radar for a while now, and see that it is notable, but that it needs some work, and I know I am not the man to do it. I'm not able to give it that work. I very much doubt this will be a GA ever, but who can say?

At present I think the editors have English as their second language, so they are doing a grand job, but the job needs to be a bit grander. Much of the referencing is in Portuguese, but that is no real obstacle.

What I am hoping for is a brutal pass to remove any BLP or POV issues, followed by a polishing pass to turn it into a decent piece of encyclopaedic prose. Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any POV or BLP into this article. Telexfree is a giant Ponzi scheme/Pyramid scheme. Janperson (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The stuff you cannot see has, presumably, gone, at least for the present. It does return from time to time. The rest, perhaps only in my jaded view, could do with massive editing and copywriting improvement. I come here for things like that because, well, where else would I go? Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A remarkable fact about Telexfree: this company was educating their 1 million "employees" to do aggressive advertisements on Youtube and social networks, an army of propagandists trying to convince the rest of the people that it was not a pyramid, that Telexfree was cool and legal. But the Brazilian Courts ruled that it was a pyramid. Janperson (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Bringing Up Baby

Is everyone happy with declining this request, per the discussion here? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, or someone could give it a quick once-over and call it done. I think it had a handful of tiny potential changes when I read through it. I also posted a note (a couple of weeks ago) on User_talk:Deoliveirafan#Bringing_Up_Baby, since that editor requested the first copy edit earlier this year. There was no response. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; I'll remove and archive the request and give it a once-over after tonight's festivities. Happy New Year; hope you all have an enjoyable night if you're celebrating. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter, King of Hungary

Many thanks for User:Miniapolis for his/her competent copy edit of the article. This is the fourth in the list of articles of the Hungarian monarchs which can be nominated to GA status with his/her assistance. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Caste system among Christians

I started copy-editing this article upon request of User:Bladesmulti (currently blocked). I was about halfway through when the article was renamed and my work was reverted by User:Mangoe. See the article's talk page. I've abandoned my c/e because the article is unstable and I wonder whether we should decline for now. I've invited both users to comment here; we should wait a few days until Bladesmulti's block expires. Also see Mangoe's response on my talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I am unblocked. And I will soon check. Well, i will talk to Mangoe if they have any objection. Seems like they do have, but with the title. Thanks for your copyedits once again. May I simply post on your talk page next time, if i need more copyediting? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti; I don't accept copy-edit requests directly, but feel free to add it to the Requests page, though it might not be me who does the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline; article not stable, copy edits will likely not be retained. Can you please post a new section on the article's Talk page explaining that a c/e was requested, that it has been declined because the article is not stable enough to c/e, and that the GOCE will be happy to return to c/e the article when it is more stable? If it reaches that point, an editor should return to the GOCE Requests page and post a new request at the bottom of the page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; I'll make a note over on the articles talk page then archive the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't log a completion; Archive search broken?

I've just finished copyediting Hukbalahap Rebellion, after a long hiatus. I don't think I originally tagged it with the "Working" template when I started (back in October!). It's listed under Category:All articles needing copy edit. I've added the GOCE template to the Talk page, but when I type Hukbalahap Rebellion in the Archive search box on the Requests page, I get

The page "Hukbalahap Rebellion prefix:Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/" does not exist.

It looks like the search mechanism is broken. Help, someone? Please {{ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Looking back up this Talk page, I think User:Baffle_gab1978 may be the one to fix the archive search. --Thnidu (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Articles with the {{copy edit}} tag on are different from requests. You did the right thing by removing the tag, and nothing else needs doing. By the way, requests are sections within Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, not subpages of it, so a search like that would never work. You can see all requests (as opposed to tagged articles) by going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and doing a text search. Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stfg. I think I've got it now. --Thnidu (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Maalavika Manoj

CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from request page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Need to change all quoted material into normal text. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)  Done @Kailash29792: I changed some of the quotes and copyedited. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

No not yet. I expected the CE to happen long later. I also happened to find some content from this, which is hard to reproduce in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Well this is the Guild of Copy Editors... -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Yes, and one editor from the guild told me they edit in an order and not randomly. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's one user's opinion. Not everyone needs to start from the top. And, are you Maalavika Manoj Why'd you add all of that first-person stuff to the article?

A clarification from a Guild Coordinator (i.e. me): our most frequent "Requests" editors choose articles from the top of the list, but editors may choose any articles they wish for copy editing. Tastes and practices vary. Thanks!

P.S. This request will be archived (removed from this page) in the next day or so. If you are in the process of expanding the article substantially, you can post a new request at the bottom of this page when you are done. Not too soon or too frequently, please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok the final thing: I have hidden some quoted material in the article under the name "religious views". Pls finish copy editing that, and the request here can be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out by another editor, she is not a religious figure, and her religious views are not notable. In any case, since it was written in the first person, the source you took it from must be a primary source. Wikipedia is not a social networking service. I have removed the HTML comment containing that copyright material. --Stfg (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)

I suggest we decline the request for the above article here (see conversation); the requester indicates that s/he plans to expand the article and therefore it isn't ready for a copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There are still 14 articles pending. U may edit Kalidas after them. That's all I said, and I can expand the article within that time. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Baffle; it's not fair to other requesters to put the cart before the horse like this, and IMO you should finish your expansion and then relist it. Miniapolis 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)

CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from Requests page hereBaffle gab1978 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoping to take it to GA, and eventually FA status. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Working: although I note that significant changes were made to the article since its recent GOCE copyedit on 12 January 2014. - tucoxn\^talk 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please place on hold. Once the previous article's CE's have finished, this can have it's CE. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:, this looks fairly stable (one change by you since 29 January) and I can see no reason it shouldn't be copy-edited right away. If you are making major changes that will affect an ongoing copy-edit, you can remove the request and re-add it to the bottom of the page when it is ready for a proper c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am due to add more sources to the article. Once it is on the top list, active copy editing may continue. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest we decline this request because the article is clearly not ready for a proper copy-edit. I've opened a conversation at this page's talk page here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have finished expanding the article. You may start the copy editing now. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See requester's talk page here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

House of Lancaster

Many thanks, I just wish I could have written it like it now reads :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a competition

I have noticed that some editors just do one or two edits on articles and then put them up at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014. I think it would benefit all users and the Wikipedia itself if users involved in this project did not see it as a compeition to add as many articles as possible to that list each day. But instead focused on doing great edits on the articles that has been requested.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Rhythm Nation

A reminder that copyediting is not cleanup—on January 8, User5482 (ahem) greatly expanded this article, expanding it further six days later. The next day (January 15), George Ho requested a copyedit with the comment that "the article may be too long to edit" (which made me wonder why an edit was being requested but hey, I'm game). However, at 24K words the present article clearly violates WP:TOOLONG. Since it seems to be equally about the song and the music video, a split into two shorter (much shorter—it's pretty padded and has POV issues) articles—one on the song and one on the video—is in order; for that reason, I'm declining the request. Please keep in mind when re-requesting that an article should be stable before a copyedit request (as it would have to be for GA and FA). All the best, Miniapolis 17:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline. I agree and I note that George doesn't appear to have been actively involved with this article, and we're not here to sort out everyone else's mess. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the article would qualify for a separate page on its overall influence and/or music video, but regarding its length I definitely agree that its necessary. Its lengthy due to its significance and impact within popular culture and entertainment, I've also seen several other related topics which are split into separate articles for influence, etc. for the same reasons. I'd like to make a separate page for its music video and also for its influence if possible. I'll try to split and condense them asap. Regards, User5482 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me, and would make both sections more readable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sarat Ubaida Governorate

CC-BY-SA declaration: moved from the Requests page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be translated from Arabic. Several chunks have been commented out by someone as unintelligible - suspect they are not. Likely worth referring to the Arabic original via Google translate or similar. -Arb. (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing is not cleanup. If you don't understand what those things mean, chances are that neither will we. I recommend tagging it with {{Rough translation}} and following the instructions on the resulting boilerplace to request a translation of the original article. That is, if it's notable -- the current article has not a single source. I recommend GOCE declining this request. --Stfg (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can copyedit the existing visible text and leave the commented portion for subsequent editors. A rough translation template, with a note that there is commented text in the article, would be appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it. Working. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly abandoned GOCE request acceptances

For a while I've noticed that sometimes editors accept copy-edit requests which they don't complete or mark as done; this can be through forgetfulness, waning interest, sudden departure from WP or the intervention of real-life affairs. I see this mostly occurring during drives. Sometimes the copy-edits are completed but the accepting editor forgets to mark them as done. I've recently been pro-active about checking and asking about progress (or lack of). So I'd like to suggest that the GOCE adopt a formal policy or process by which accepting copy-editors are politely reminded after (say) a fortnight of apparent inactivity on the article after checking the article's history to see whether any activity by the accepting editor has occurred. If no reply is received after a week, the article can be returned to the queue or marked as done if appropriate. This would benefit the project by avoiding old requests lingering in the queue unnecessarily. What do the coordinators and other copy-editors think about this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea (and am grateful to Baffle gab1978 for doing something like it in recent months). The issue is particularly acute when requests are at the top of the queue and might have been taken on by other copy editors were it not for the lingering {{working}} tag. In those cases, I think the timescales could be even shorter than 2+1 weeks. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. We could cut it to a single week, because if an editor is taking a request, the point would be that they have time to do it pretty immediately. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a good solution, Baffle; I agree that the "grace period" should be shorter (say, 1+1 weeks), and if there's no guidance on the requests page about what to do if you can't complete a copyedit I'll add something. All the best, Miniapolis 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 1+1 weeks, along with the addition of guidance. Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. 1+1 seems a plenty reasonable timeline, given that a stale {{GOCEinuse}} is removed much more quickly than that. We don't want to rush editors, but as you say, we also don't want others dissuaded from fulfilling requests. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions; I'll leave it to the coordinators to implement as you wish. I agree that a week is long enough to wait before checking and asking if the accepting editor hasn't started by then. Some articles do take a while to work through though, so I think checking is important. Anyway I'll leave it in your capable hands; thanks for considering this idea. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, I've found I've needed to ask several editors recently about the status of their copy-edits and I'm thinking of making a template to save typing. My suggested text is:

= GOCE copy-edit of [[ARTICLE]] == (if I can work out how to do section headers!)

Hi {{PAGENAME}}, you accepted a request at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests|GOCE Requests page]] to copy-edit [[ARTICLE]]. What's the current status of your copy-edit? It's been seven days since your last edit at TIME (GMT/UTC) on DATE, and you haven't declared the copy-edit '''done''' on the Requests page.‎ Can you please let us know whether the request is completed so it can be be archived, left alone or returned to the list so another editor can do the copy-edit? If no update is received in seven days I'll strike your acceptance and open the request for other editors. Thank you for your time. ~~~~

Would other GOCE editors or coordinators find this useful for maintenance of the Requests page? Are the text and formatting acceptable or does it need changes? All suggestions welcome. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Where do I say that i'm still working? I was just sick. 75* 16:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to us, Sɛvɪnti faɪv. Just add a note to the request saying you're still working on the article, or renew your signature there. You can remove the template from your talk page if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exceeded requests limit - two editors gently notified

Two editors have each posted a third simultaneous request after the March 16 change to a limit of two requests. I have posted gentle notes on their Talk pages letting them know about the change and asking them to remove one of their requests.

I have processed the whole list as of this writing. There are a few editors with three requests, but all of those were posted prior to the limit change. I found only these two editors with requests in excess of the limit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have been asleep on the job! I've thought about writing a template for that purpose if it becomes a common occurrence; do you think it would be useful? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My mistake guys. Sorry for the inconvenience. Might I suggest a 1 request limit at one time. To limit the work load for you all. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We may consider that in the future, but imo we should see how the current limit works first. The change will take a while to feed through anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A template would be nice (but knowing myself, I'd probably forget to use it). Feel free to work from the text I posted at BabbaQ's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Indef-blocked account apparently of banned user has c/e requests pending

The editor Theparties has been blocked for being apparently a sock account of banned user User:23prootie (see Sockpuppet investigation). The requests are for the articles Fernanda Lima, Imelda Marcos and Imelda (film). Does anyone object to the removal these requests, which are in the February 2014 section? I'm happy to wait a few days to see if the account has been identified thus in error. Meanwhile I've struck them with a note so that innocent editors don't waste their time working on them. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've refactored your comment slightly, as Imelda is a disambiguation page. The request title is a piped link to Imelda (film). Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in the SPI aspect of this, so I will defer to others on whether WP culture recommends ignoring/declining requests from SPs.

As for the articles themselves, Imelda (film) is short, already a GA, and should be a quick edit. Imelda Marcos is longer (3,000 words) and has been nominated for GA status by the blocked editor. The GA nomination has not begun; I started a review page and recommended that the review be closed if appropriate. Fernanda Lima was nominated for GA status and quickly failed for reasons that would require significant changes to the content, so the article is not yet ready for a GOCE copy edit.

I propose, unless SP editors are to be treated harshly (which would be fine with me; I just have no experience in this realm) that we give a quick copy edit to Imelda (film), since we owe our readers GAs with good prose. I think we have valid grounds to decline the other two requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a good one, Jonesey. Theparties has been on my watchlist since I twice had to remove his/her fourth c/e request. Unless Theparites has been misidentified, the sockmaster is site banned and we're allowed to delete or revert his/her contribututions (banning policy; "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good". I'll have a quick go at Imelda (film) tonight. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I copy-edited the film article, but I'm not going to officially record it or claim it for the drive. I'll archive them all as Declined since there hasn't been any evidence of misidentification. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Maílson da Nóbrega and Partido da Imprensa Golpista

I've put these requests on hold because of Paulmnguyen's comments on the requester's talk page and the requests page here and here; I've invited Paulmnguyen and Rauzaruku to comment here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If nobody wants to do copyedit, ok. That's not my problem. I was trying only to evolve the article.Rauzaruku (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be offended. I'm sure that many copy editors would love to copy edit articles on those subjects. But as Paul rightly pointed out, there's no point making the prose wonderful if the content is going to change anyway, so we need articles to be relatively free of major content issues and disputes before we work on them. The requests are only on hold -- they are still there to do when the articles are ready. --Stfg (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My impression of the articles is that Maílson da Nóbrega looks as though a c/e would be helpful in clarifying the text. Partido da Imprensa Golpista seems to be based upon a term popularised by a blogger an used by Brazilian journalists. The article wanders miles off-topic into a coatrack piece about press censorship and freedom, Hugo Chavez and politics. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You can cancel it, if you want. I'm not offended. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rauzaruku; I'd like to see whether Paulmnguyen or anyone else comments here, so lets wait a few days. I might do a clean-up of Partido da Imprensa Golpista. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Maílson da Nóbrega could use some work in the text; a lot of this may be due to the fact that it was translated from Spanish wiki (in May this year)... I read Spanish and Portuguese so between that and common c/e sense I should be able to clean it up. I would still be wary of tackling Partido da Imprense Golpista at this point, though. --Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Paul; I'll return that one to the list. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

This article needs copyediting. Several COI editions made by a partial editor. This article needs a big cleanup and review. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly needs work. Punctuation could easily be improved, and I found what seems to be evidence of poor translations into English from Portuguese. It seems the content may be unstable... the article was recently protected against edit warring (immediately following this request at the end of October), and throughout the year has seen numerous edits, blanking, section deletion, all on controversial grounds. I therefore move to postpone a copyedit at this time. I am willing to help improve the article when the text settles. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 10:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

On hold until we know what's going on with this article. See the discussion on this page's talk page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've declined this request, but have done a clean-up job, which I have not recorded in the archives, on it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maílson da Nóbrega

This article needs copyediting. Several COI editions made by a partial editor. This article needs a big cleanup and review. A bunch of unreliable sources like Observatorio da Imprensa (a famous leftlist blog), Revista Brasileiros (I never saw this "magazine" in any place), Sindigas (a syndicate site!!), Teoria e Debate (unknown blog) and another partial blogs who looks like serious sites, but aren't. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, as with Partido da Imprensa Golpista requested above, this article is also the subject of a content dispute and edit war between you and the same editor. It also contains grammatical issues that would warrant a copyedit, but such work is not well-invested before the article reaches a stable point. I've tagged the article for copyediting and unreliable sources, but also move to postpone that to a later date. Note that the issues you raise (and likely rightly so) about unreliable sources, are not the subject matter of copyediting - that is a content and research question to be resolved in other departments by competent editors. Thank you. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 10:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

C/e done;(Redacted). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)