Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2021

Crusading

I noticed this request was made by an IPv6 anon editor who doesn't appear to have contributed to this large article. Short of putting it on hold, I've left a note on the request and directed comments here. It's possible one of the major contributors made the request while logged out; i note couple of IPv6 edits in the history. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Baffle gab, it's very likely that the two recent IPv6 edits (December 25 and 26) are by the same editor as the requester; the first four sections of the IP address are identical. They added a new Propaganda section, and made an edit in another section. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The CE makes sense to me as a significant editor and I have noted this on the request. Is this enough to get it to move forward BlueMoonset, Baffle gab1978? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem; I'm happy to strike my note. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bot hiccup

I don't wish to make a fuss but the archiving bot just (correctly) archived a done request but did not include article title in its edit summary. here. There's nothing out of the ordinary in the request's subsec. It did include it in the archive page ES here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The bot is still omitting the article title in its edit summaries at REQ; I've added a note to Zhuyifei1999's talk page here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The bot is now fixed; see Zhuyifei1999's talk page for an explanation of the problem. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Jamshedpur FC

I was about to accept this request when I noticed the requester Shahoodu has since been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet account; see this SPI. I've placed the request on hold pending discussion here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Decline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to decline the request. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Me too. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 14:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline for SP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Megan Phelps-Roper

User who requested the edit reverted part of my CE and left a note on my talk page saying that they were concerned with the changes, specifically a typo in the name, and asked to pause the CE. I placed the request on hold, assuming that was the proper response (it may not have been, as I'm getting back into the Guild after about 6-7 years). In terms of my involvement with the CE, typos happen, which is why I tend to do a final pass after making broader changes. I explained this to the requesting party, and haven't yet received a response. I'm not thrilled with the reaction that I received, however, and think it may be better for a different editor to handle this one. Kncny11 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, it seems to me that there's miscommunication as to how your process works. Many copy editors on here (as far as I can tell) usually only do one full pass (or one pass broken up into sections). There's not much to do beyond waiting for the editor to reply to your message at this point. As a suggestion, it might benefit requesters to send them a description of your process before you begin; for example, before I begin copy editing an article for the first time, I leave my template, {{subst:User:Tenryuu/process}}, on the requester's talk page, which links them to a section on my user page describing my copy editing process. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This works, but a simpler method is to use the GOCE in use tag which is not removed until the c/e is completed. (My process varies depending on the article.) I have asked the requestor to let us know here what issues they have/had with the c/e. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, I recommend engaging on the talk page to discuss your process, then reinstating your edits (with the name typo fixed) if other editors are willing to let you go through your process and let them know when you are done. When I am working on a long or contentious article, I sometimes post a note in advance on the talk page asking editors to post there before reverting unless I have done something really egregious. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, I'm glad you're back after a sabbatical although, frankly, your username isn't ringing any bells. Since GAN and FAC requesters are hoping their articles will be promoted, the copyediting bar is higher than for other requests; you may want to ease back into copyediting. FWIW, too, I've never understood the sense of copyediting an article in a word processor; it seems to make an already-tricky process more cumbersome. Articles can be edited real-time in small bites (by section), which also minimizes edit conflicts. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 00:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their advice. @Miniapolis:, I used to edit under a different name, which is why this one is unfamiliar. I did CEs on a couple of articles that were clearly in bad shape, and chose this one because I saw several areas for improvement regarding sentence flow and clarity, as well as eliminating repetition. In this particular instance, I am still uneasy completing a CE for someone who reverted an edit, contacted me, and contacted a coordinator all within 22 minutes of my first paragraph edit. The requester offered to list their myriad concerns with my work, which I think signals a fundamental incompatibility between the improvements I believed were needed (again: flow, clarity, repetition) and the work that they see the article still needs. I would rather pass this one off to a different GOCE member. Kncny11 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable, and mostly like a misunderstanding. I will take this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(←) Kncny11, I don't blame you; sometimes requesters forget that we're volunteers. FWIW, I don't think that editor is a regular at GOCE/REQ. All the best, Miniapolis 20:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing chronic typos

Hi fellow copy editors - Another editor at the help desk pointed out that "Institute" is misspelled 92 times as "Insititute". Here's the post. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Insititute_Institute_92. I confirmed and fixed one. The poster was directed to seek help at the language reference desk. I wonder if this is more a copy editor guild project, or perhaps could be a simple global search and replace bot for a programmer. Or is the guild more focused just on individual tagged articles? What's the best way to handle this? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, we could take a look at it (though it'd be nice to tag it for the backlog), but the Typo Team might also be able to handle this. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks - I added it to Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/I. I didn't see a way to flag an edit request at the typo team site - will have to keep digging. Or maybe adding the item will flag and set into motion an network of avid copy editors? I'll post on their talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I posted a request on Wikipedia talk:Typo Team but noticed a request from July last year about a prevalence of its' (with the apostrophe) was unanswered. Perhaps the 1,119 Typo Team members could merge with the Guild? I've participated in Guild editing drives and have been editing for over ten years and have surprisingly never heard of Team Typo until today. At the very least, perhaps in addition to the pledges page, there should be a requests page? I'll start a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is a task for Typo Team. While their focus would seem to fall within ours, they have a distinct workflow so I think it is best to keep the two groups running separately. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dior (song)

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section moved from REQ here by me, Baffle☿gab 02:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Dior (song)

Would like to take the article to FA (FAC). Needs some copyedits before it does though. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Working pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Done pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinktoebeans You didn’t even edit the article once. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss:, I've de-templated the "done"; please review the c/e here. If you are still unhappy, let us know at REQ Talk. Baffle☿gab 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pinktoebeans copy-edited the article; see this diff. The article has been expanded since that time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Working; I will manually archive this when I'm done and will credit Pinktoebeans as co-c/e. Baffle☿gab 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Baffle☿gab 02:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agrarian struggle in Bihar

I was very tempted to put this request here on hold the other day because I think it needs a complete overhaul rather than a simple copy-edit. The requester points out it has a {{essay-like}} template, and it's now also tagged with {{rewrite lead}}. One has to draw a line between cleanup and copy-edit so I'm not sure what to do with this one! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Guess it depends on your point of view; for me copyediting is cleanup, and I find it satisfying to make something miserable ... well, encyclopedic. YMMV; let's see if someone picks it up. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say leave it open for now; I did almost an entire overhaul of Heated tobacco product last backlog drive with a lot of rewriting disjointed sentences like this article. A quick glance at the article suggests an extremely careful eye when neutralising assertions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both; I think you're both correct so I'll leave it alone for now. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to add that it's a new article (Dec. 25, 2020, prime editor's first edit, in draft; Dec. 26 to article space) and is still being considerably added to (i.e. requests are often declined when articles are in such a state of flux). We can and have done such rewrites, but this looks like a situation where the requester might better engage with the taggers as to what exactly is wrong, as well as giving themself some time to correct things on their own. Taking a look at the article talk page, I see there's a wall of text that amounts to a content and POV dispute, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of these requests are from new editors who are after a GA and have heard that they need to stop by here first. Hopefully, it'll stabilize by the time it reaches the top of the queue; otherwise, we should decline. All the best, Miniapolis 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Third request removed

Just a note that I removed a request from the same requester here and I've informed the editor on his or her talk page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaworu Nagisa

When I went to continue my copyedit today, I discovered that it's been fully protected for two weeks due to edit warring; the walls of text on the TP were a sign of trouble in paradise. Although I can continue the copyedit, IMO it would be a waste of time. Tagged the TP with {{GOCEreviewed}}, and pinged requester TeenAngels1234 and fellow edit-warrior FelipeFritschF. Suggest we decline. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and comprehension.FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly, that talk page! Decline for now. Any editor is welcome to resubmit once the dust has settled and the article is relatively stable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I know it is very long, but I wished not to leave any points or evidence unmentioned, having consulted with 10 other people very knowledgeable on the subject and many sources. It's been 10 days and he refuses to defend his position. So yeah, we'll see.FelipeFritschF (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with declining for now, partly out of full protection and partly due to instability that arose from edit-warring. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline; fully protected and unstable. Suggest requester returns when the article is stable and unlocked. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Dr_Hemachandran_R

I've just WP:SNOW declined this request here; rejected draft in draftspace. Feel free to restore if inappropriate. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the draft has been declined, not rejected, which means that it could potentially still become an article. As the reviewer has noted, the references used don't demonstrate the subject's notability, so I would also say to decline a copyedit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline until it is moved to article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Gara massacre

I've just put the request for this article on hold; it has been nominated for deletion; see its AfD. Baffle☿gab 02:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've declined because the AfD has closed as "delete and redirect". Baffle☿gab 14:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

American Rescue Plan

The article has since been moved to American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, but I've placed the request on hold as the requester, AmericanRescuePlan2021, has been blocked after a CheckUser request. I'm inclined to procedurally decline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the username and the block reason, I agree. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 15:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should decline and I thought there was something fishy about the requester. Baffle☿gab 17:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all; request declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 14:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani rug on hold

I've just placed the request for this article on hold because much of its text unreferenced and subject to removal per WP:VERIFY. I note {{citation needed}} tags from April 2019 and a {{Rewrite}} template from the same month; and I've just added {{Unreferenced-section}} templates where necessary. I also note the requester @Gnominite: (courtesy ping) has not edited the article. Baffle☿gab 00:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline. This article needs sources before it can be copy-edited reliably. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I copyedited a couple of Azerbaijani articles recently, and they needed a lot of work. Articles like those belong in the backlog, not holding up the works on the request page. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Having done the article on Azerbaijani art, it is a lot of work. I heard nothing from the requestor and they did no work in the areas I pointed out were a problem. (A different editor did do a bit of work on it.) Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(←) Thanks for your comments all; I've cleaned up the article and templated unreferenced sections as appropriate. Request declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Indonesia

I ran List of World Heritage Sites in Indonesia through Earwig which indicates anywhere from 47.6% to an 80.5% "similarity" to the cited websites, mostly those of UNESCO. It would appear the article will need to be completely rewritten. Am I wrong in thinking this is outside our remit and we should decline the copy edit? The problem appears to have been first spotted in 2014. I guess I'm willing "to yawn... over [a] large pile of words" if necessary, Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Many of these descriptions are pure copyright violation, errors and all (This part of North Sulawesi was undergone multiple geologic stages.). I think the proper thing to do is to reduce each description to a single sentence or phrase, and then do whatever WP does with revisions that contain copyvio text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

One note: The UNESCO site contains a confusing (to me) note about copyright and copying if you scroll to the bottom of a given page and click on the copyright link. It seems to indicate that at least some of its content may be reusable if appropriate credit is given, but I do not even pretend to understand that page and the nuances of different Creative Commons licensing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, I was in a rapid mood at the time of submitting that request. If this is out of abilities then yes please decline it; I'll find time to figure it out myself. GeraldWL 16:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis Jonesey95 made a suggestion. When I'm done what I'm working on, I have another look at the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest Decline for c/e, remove or rewrite copyvio text if you think it's worthwhile, and tag with {{copyvio-revdel}}. I don't know much about the various licenses either so I tend to play it safe as far as WP is concerned. Though a rewrite is not "out of abilities", it's far beyond the bounds of copy-editing and there's a more suitable WikiProject for that kind of thing... :-) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have decided to withdraw the request to move with other articles first. GeraldWL 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I've manually archived the request. Baffle☿gab 02:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

De Dhakka

Bilorv removed the request for this article here because the requester is a blocked sockpuppet account. I've restored the request and Declined so it can be archived as normal. I'm not asking for comment here (but feel free if you wish); this post is for the record. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

New editor

We have a new editor, @B.KaiEditor, who has recently gone through some of the requests on this page. While I applaud their enthusiasm, I am concerned that their copyedits do not meet certain status requirements like GA or FA. One of the requesters disagreed with some of the changes made, and revised it accordingly. B.KaiEditor, I recommend working on the backlog, which is less scrutinised. Please take your time when copyediting, and peruse the Manual of Style from time to time; a common issue I'm seeing is the use of logical quotation marks and not leaving quotes verbatim. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I will slow down; thank you for the advice. B.KaiEditor (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(←) Note: I've de-templated the statuses of the requests so they don't get automatically archived before they've had a chance to be reviewed. I can help with that when April starts. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Stay well! B.KaiEditor (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(←) I'd suggest unless B.KaiEditor wants to revisit those articles, the requests under review are tagged with {{Partly done}} so other editors can continue, and give B.KaiEditor joint c/e credit for the work the editor has done on them. The requests would need to be archived manually; I don't think the archiving bot can handle joint credits. I've re-threaded the above discussion, btw, feel free to correct it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Environmental racism in Europe on hold

I've put the request for the article Environmental racism in Europe on hold (diff) ; copy-editor @Buidhe: (courtesy ping) points out it is essay-like and non-neutral, and thus unsuitable for copy-editing. I agree and also note the requester @Editoneer: (courtesy ping) has not edited the article. I suggest a decline without prejudice to relisting once these problems are fixed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

At 25,000+ words this article is a candidate for breaking up into several smaller articles—e.g.Environmental racism in Central Europe, ... Eastern Europe etc... and perhaps Environmental racism against the Romani people. I agree the request should be declined as above. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline as above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) Declined per above. Baffle☿gab 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

 Courtesy link: Arbitration Committee

As another article Editoneer has requested to be copyedited, buidhe pointed out that the article

Looks unsuitable for copyediting; the cleanup tag is about more widespread issues than prose issues. Article also has other cleanup tags such as Requester has not edited the article, so I recommend putting on hold or declining. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've put it on hold for now, but am leaning towards a decline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tenryuu and Buidhe about declining. Although I generally enjoy working on articles that really need an overhaul, one of my pet peeves is when an editor requests a copyedit without having lifted a finger on the page themselves. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline in deference to the other 66 requests awaiting attention—this is a "drive-by" request from an editor who hasn't edited the article and doesn't state any plans to do so. Fwiw, I gave the article some attention in early March, and last September I converted the then-present c/e template to {{Cleanup}}. The prose is quite readable but could use some work but then so could 93.5%* of Wikipedia. *89.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. [citation needed]. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all - decline. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) Declined per above. Baffle☿gab 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Cinema of Azerbaijan on hold

I was about to inform the requester Gnominite of my acceptance of this request when I saw the account is blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet; see this SPI. I've put the request on hold and suggest we decline per WP:DENY. Also, the requesting account has not edited the article and the sockmaster CuriousGolden only has one two. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Procedural decline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I've SNOW declined the request and it probably didn't need a discussion. Feel free to revert if needed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Muthu

I hope either Miniapolis or Bafflegab takes it after the former declined to c/e Christian ethics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you like a straight reply or a sarcastic one? Baffle☿gab 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you're keeping track of what I do, so you should know that I'm working on another request. Miniapolis 16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 SC East Bengal season

I have a request. WIkicup 2nd round deadline is on 28th Apr, and to secure my spot for the next round, the only option I have is to promote this to GA. If possible please copyedit this.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Twofingered Typist  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign

I have submitted George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign for copy-editing. A user has already done a cursory copy editing (see edit), but it was advised that there's still much more copy editing to be done. If possible please copyedit this for GAN. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kavyansh.Singh: you posted your request on 30 April and there are more than 50 other articles awaiting attention at REQ. We don't copy-edit by order here; you'll have to wait like everyone else... it could take a week or month. There's no deadline here so chill. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978 Sure, I'll wait and try to improve article in that time. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent copyedit of Birdsong (picture book)

Hello, I had submitted a request for c/e of this article for future GAN, with emphasis on paraphrasing direct quotes wherever possible. It appears that an editor has copy-edited it yesterday but has not taken care of the issues raised. I'd really appreciate if another editor could take a look at it. Apologies for any inconvenience. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was the copyeditor who worked on the article. I paraphrased some quotes just now, but as I said in my comments, I requested another copyeditor check it over and see if I missed anything. Sorry if this caused any confusion. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Aknell4, thanks for the clarification. I was unaware that you'd asked someone to look at it. Thank you for the copy-edit. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries! --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, paraphrasing quotations is beyond the scope of copyediting; it's the job of the editor who wants to make an article less of a WP:QUOTEFARM. All the best, Miniapolis 19:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Miniapolis. Ashleyyoursmile! 03:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought that close paraphrasing was in our wheelhouse, at least for our more experienced editors, since (1) we know the difference between superficial changes and structural changes, and (2) we understand tone issues and what can and can't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Essentially, that we know enough about this to avoid COPYVIO and NPOV policy problems, which can be intimidating. I wouldn't want to deal with bad QUOTEFARM situations where requesters haven't made an effort to cull unnecessary quotes, but think it's reasonable enough to ask us to help paraphrase or partially paraphrase a quotation from a critical review or somesuch. I see that Twofingered Typist has already gone over the article. I've gone through it just for quotations and left notes on the GA review talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to the copy-editor, the pre-c/e version here doesn't appear to have a QUOTEFARM problem; it's fair use and standard practice to use short, relevant quotations in critical reception sections. Close paraphrasing isn't always obvious either and the requester didn't say the location of the close paraphrasing here. I usually pick up these problems through awkward phrasing or sudden changes in the text's tone but I don't check every source when there aren't any other problems with text. If a requester says; "The Reception section has a lot of close paraphrasing", I'll be more alert to the problem. TL;DR; we're good and we do our best but we ain't psychic. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Baffle gab! I'll be sure to pay more attention to your suggestions. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (the copyeditor for this article)

The Apprentice: ONE Championship Edition

I've placed this request (diff) on hold; the article is about an ongoing television series and the article is still being added to (unstable; in development). I suggest a decline until the series has ended and the article is ostensibly more complete and more stable. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 16:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 19:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Also agree. There are dozens of edits per day. This article isn't close to stable.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a decline without prejudice. Re-requesting it near the end of June would probably be best. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. It appears that there are at least six episodes left. I suspect that it will need significant condensing as part of, or before, a copy-edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all; I've declined with a note about relisting one the article is settled. Courtesy pinging requester @TVSGuy:; I'm sorry for not pinging you in earlier, feel free to comment here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just seen the request. I understand but for now we wait till the season is over. I will try to clean up each time there is edits. You might also need the reference from the other The Apprentice articles before start cleaning up. Hope this will come. TVSGuy (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

​​Additionally, the global premiere would not air until sometimes in June after the season ended, and we know that Wikipedia is for a global audience, so expect the articles to be suitable for readers as well. Thanks.

(←) The same requester has just posted another c/e request for the same article. I'm going to put it on hold again. The show has apparently four weeks to run so it might stabilise after that. I'm not sure, however, keeping a request on hold at REQ for that long is a good idea. What do you think? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline. Wouldn't want to set a precedent of long-term holds, presumably so that the request at the top of the queue when it is anticipated to be ready for copy-edit. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline, more because of With just about four weeks to the finale, I would need someone to help maintain or watch the article weekly to fix the grammar once the episode was released on every Thursday (emphasis added). If I were going to help copyedit the article, I would rather have a one-and-done deal rather than checking in every week. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've declined the request. @TVSGuy: (courtesy ping), please see the above conversation for reasons we've declined this request. Feel free to re-request once the series has finished and the article is stable, meaning it doesn't change significantly from day to day. This way, copy-editors are less likely to encounter edit conflicts and the copy-edited text will remain in the article for a while. It's not much fun (and rather pointless!) to put significant work into a large article just to see one's work wiped out in a few edits! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

​​ I've seen all the replies. I understand and I respect your decision. I will just continue to monitor the article when new episodes come. Sorry for the re-request, but the edits are alarming. TVSGuy (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting work review on Lithuanian Crusade

Good evening,

I have been working on Lithuanian Crusade and I would like to request a review of my work from a more experienced GOCE member. This is my first "real" attempt at a Requests-page article. (There was one time many, many years ago that doesn't really count because I did such a poor job.) I also want to apologize to @Wingedserif for taking so long. Jarmihi_GOCE (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Just had time for a quick look, but what I've seen seems fine. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 01:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Two declines without discussion

Hi all; @Buidhe: (courtesy ping) recently declined the requests for Island of San Simón (diff) and Manuel Lezama Leguizamón Sagarminaga (diff), without bringing the issue here for discussion. I didn't spot this because I've been away from REQ for a bit. The requester CommanderWaterford (CW) has recently been banned from Wikipedia for copyright violations (see that editor's user page) but I'm unsure these pages were part of that problem. I'm raising this here because although we've agreed in the past to decline requests from indef-blocked sockpuppet / sockmaster accounts and non-contributing IP editors (example above), this seems like a new thing to me. I'm not arguing the requests should be honoured and I won't revert the archiving bot but I'd have liked to see the matter discussed here first; CW was a fairly regular requester here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought it would be an uncontroversial decline due to the nature of the issues. Incidentally one of the articles that you (Bafflegab) copyedited for CW (Margery Wolf), had to be mostly revdelled for copyvios.[1] (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Buidhe. If I'd realised that article was full of copyvios I'd have tagged it for revdel myself. Thanks for your copyvio detective work; it's appreciated. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely a more unusual case than most declines, because CommanderWaterford has been a productive Wikipedia user in the time I've known them (though aside from here our paths rarely cross). Note that regardless of my recommendations below, I will not be taking those requests, as the situation renders my process invalid.

For Island of San Simón: I'm neutral on whether to keep or decline the request; CommanderWaterford has worked on the article extensively, and from what I can tell, they've provided attribution to the Spanish Wikipedia when creating the page, so it doesn't seem like there are any copyvio issues for that page in particular. A more diligent editor may want to do some further investigation, but from a cursory glance it seems fine to me.

For Manuel Lezama Leguizamón Sagarminaga: I'm leaning towards a weak decline. CommanderWaterford, aside from saying that the article was going to be a GAN, has only added a short description and added some categories. I haven't seen any discussions on the article's talk page talking about nominating it for GA status, so the decision seems to be unilateral; if any other users want to nominate it and keep it in the queue they're welcome to do so, but to them I suggest working on the article a bit more to make sure it's up to snuff before some copyediting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I try to avoid drama, but I poked through that ANI thread, and there was bad behavior in addition to copyvio that was involved in the ban (more serious than just a block). In cases of this nature, I feel like we would do best to avoid looking like we are giving special treatment to, or editing at the request of, a now-banned editor (see policy at WP:BRV and especially WP:PROXYING). I suggest that we formally decline but tag the articles with a {{copy edit}} tag so that they go into the regular backlog. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done some fixing up of the island article but won't finish until later today (unless there's another deluge here). I'll see what can be done with the other one later but I won't be calling it a copy-edit per se. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been through Island of San Simón and left a proper attribution in the edit history. Baffle☿gab 00:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Baffle gab1978, The Spanish Wiki attribution in the talk page is incorrect I think, if that's an addition of yours. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC) @Tyrone Madera:; yes I made the attribution; how is it incorrect and to which Wikipedia should the attribution go? It will probably need correcting and rev-del. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Baffle gab1978, I think it links to "Christmas traditions in Costa Rica", haha. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC) @Tyrone Madera:; no, the url in my edit summary has no "oldid=" and points to the article about the island in the Spanish Wikipedia. How are you seeing an article about traditions in Costa Rica? Could someone else please check [2] this link and tell me what article you get? Forget it; we're being trolled here... why don't you go and play in the sandbox or something? Baffle☿gab 04:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Baffle gab1978, Actually, I think I found the source of the confusion. I was looking at the talk page attribution, not the edit history attribution, which is what's really messed up. Please be nice :( Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC) @Tyrone Madera: I'm sorry for that; I thought you were having a joke with the "oldid=". I've struck my comment above. No worries; accidents happen; that's why previewing edits is a good idea. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Baffle gab1978, No worries, and thanks :). Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(←) I've now finished my cleanup of Manuel Lezama Leguizamón Sagarminaga, converted the extended refs to {{efn}} format and fixed up some of the grammar, spelling etc. There doesn't appear to be a copyvio problem with this one. The request can now be archived as needed. Thanks to everyone for your comments here. I'll formally decline it in 24 hours from my timestamp in no-one else wants to do so. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Request formally declined per above. I think we're done here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Limit on requests

Just wondering: is the "two requests at a time" limit enforced, or is it one of those customs more honored in the breach than in the observance? I'm just curious because I see that one editor has nine separate requests currently pending. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Extraordinary Writ:, yes it is normally enforced and thank you for pointing it out. I've been away from REQ this week so haven't been monitoring the list, and I'm no longer a coordinator. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the excess requests and informed the editor on his talk page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles in waiting list

I currently have two articles in waiting list (Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign from 21 May and Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign from 27 May) I wish to interchange the positions of both articles, so that Ronald Reagan's article is considered for copy-editing before Jimmy Carter's. Will that be fine, and are there any rules related to it? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That is an acceptable practice at this page, though it can sometimes be confusing for page watchers. Please be careful to not modify other editors' requests while you are moving your own. Also, it is not a rule that requests must be accepted in the order that they are made, but many of the regular copy editors who work on requests accept them in chronological order. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Hi, thanks for the clarification. I have edited to make the change (1). Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nazism in the Americas

The requestor, an IP address, has had the edits they made to the article in February reverted for various reasons. (See talk page where an attempt was made to discuss them.) The few edits made at the end of April were reverted with the comment "misguided Brazillian". I suggest declining this request. This individual appears to be a nuisance with an agenda. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree; the request itself ("lacunar article", meaningless to this native speaker) is odd. All the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline; the IP requester's only edits added this image of a Trump tweet to the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A further note: I have repeatedly reverted the re-addition of Nazism in the Americas and Political ethics to the list of Requests. The additions have been made repeatedly by an IP editor who had not made substantive contributions to the articles, and most recently by Nildo ouriques, who appears to be the same editor. See that editor's talk page, and the talk pages of those articles, for related discussion. This person does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, or perhaps they simply misunderstand what we are doing here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

what monomaniacal thinking. Nildo ouriques (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

QED. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sabia que você assistia duplo expresso e o Romulus Maya. Será que você trabalha para a Kroll? @Luizpuodzius: Nildo ouriques (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(←) Only a matter of time before a WP:NOTHERE indef. In the meantime, WP:DFTT. All the best, Miniapolis 12:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Se não é para alimentar os trolls, o quê você está fazendo aqui? Nildo ouriques (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(←) Okay, so this is going to be the first time I'm proposing this, but I think we should decline any further requests from this user with prejudice, as this is starting to look more and more like a waste of copyeditors' time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have prejudice (because I'm the one who has to live with that emotion), but I have been declining them for a while now and will continue doing so unless there is a substantive change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Eventually they'll run out of steam and/or get blocked; I'm WP:INVOLVED, or I'd do it myself. All the best, Miniapolis 21:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ditto; there's no point copy-editing articles that are being disrupted on a regular basis and where the requester has not made significant contributions to them. there's a precedent in our archives here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)

The requester (Nincompoopian) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Sounds like a procedural decline to me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree; the requests list is long enough as it is. All the best, Miniapolis 15:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've gone ahead and declined it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit sustainable energy

user:epicsnek has just started the copyedit of sustainable energy, which I hope to nominate for FA. While I'm always grateful for help, I had hoped for a more experienced copyeditor intricately familiar with our manual of style. Coordinators: could this be set to unreviewed? Thanks! FemkeMilene (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Correcting ping: User:TheEpicSnek FemkeMilene (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Femkemilene Although I am quite familiar with the matter of sustainable energy and have already partially copy writed the page. I see that it may seem that I am inexperienced and you would prefer someone of more experience to copy edit.

Hence I set the request to Unreviewed. Thanks EpicSnek ^{Talk to me here} 07:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work :). FemkeMilene (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working this out yourselves. FACs in particular need to be MOS-compliant, hence our request that they (and GANs, although the bar is somewhat lower) be done by experienced copyeditors. All the best, Miniapolis 17:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary for the request button

Is there a good reason why the "submit a request" button is configured not to leave an edit summary? This makes it impossible to see at a glance in the page history what pages have been nominated. Also, it has terrible consequences for those of us with a fetish for edit summary usage. —Kusma (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to leave an edit summary when creating a new section (as when submitting a request)? I'm not sure how to pass a variable to |summary= of mw:Extension:InputBox. It'd be easy enough to give it the same default summary for every use (assuming this is allowable for new sections) but customizing it to automatically include the section header (article submitted) is something I'm not sure about. Feel free to sandbox it if you have an idea. At present, any additional edits to that section will list the section name (article title) in the edit summary on the history page, and these are also linked on the archive pages. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Oh, if you're just worried about your edit summary stats, you can always start a request manually by editing the last section of the page and adding a new L3 header at the bottom with your request and an appropriate summary. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reidgreg, my edit summary stats are not a good reason to change anything :) But overall, the button currently provides very little benefit over just adding a new section: an input box asking for the article name would be better. I have played with it for five minutes and not managed it, though. I'll look around and will come back with a suggestion if I can figure something out. —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A possibility is to use commenttitle instead of comment and allow people to enter the name of the nominated page into the box (compare the box on WP:REFUND). However, that will create a level 2 heading, not a level 3. Hmm... —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Drowning

I have had a preliminary look at this article. I checked one citation (#19) which was in an unusual location and discovered that some of its text was reproduced verbatim (and uncited so CopyVio doesn't pick it up) within the section. At first glance, there appears to be a lot of work involved in editing this article anyway. Now every citation will need to be checked to rule out plagiarism within the text, and the article needs to be cited properly. This strikes me as a complete rewrite job, not a copy edit, and perhaps should be declined. What do others think? Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a decline to me. I would suggest recommending cleaning up the citations, submitting it to peer review, and then resubmitting it here. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Lord Belbury —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that we should decline. Having to check every ref for copyvio is way above our pay grade. All the best, Miniapolis 17:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked on Earwig's tool here, which picked up 38% similarity with one source and lesser matches with other web sources. I'm not going through all of them I also noticed some instructional text regarding first aid, which should be removed or rewritten because WP is not an instruction manual. I also think this needs work from one or more skilled editors that goes beyond a simple copy-edit, so I think a decline would be best here. perhaps the WikiProject Medicine would be a more appropriate source of help here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

With no further input from Lord Belbury, I'm going to go ahead and decline this, as checking sources to determine copyvios goes beyond the GOCE's intended purpose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Missed the ping on this, but thanks, that's reasonable. I've flagged the howto section as such and downgraded the WikiProject status, but I don't entirely follow the copyright concerns (all I see is some long lists of medical terms and organisations which are listed in the same order, and common phrases like "water in the lungs"?) so don't know what template or action would be appropriate there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Should requesters be required to have an edit history with a requested article?

A message from one of your coordinators: I have noticed recently that there are sometimes objections or comments by GOCE editors when a requester does not have a significant edit history in a requested article. My sense is that there has been a bit of a de facto expansion of our decline criteria, and I would like to explore, neutrally, without casting any aspersions, whether there is consensus that a requester should have a significant edit history with a requested article.

Our instructions say: No request by an unregistered editor will be accepted unless the IP has done significant work on the article. Drive-by IP requests already on the list may be declined by any editor. My impression is that GOCE editors have been interpreting or remembering/misremembering this to read No request by an unregistered editor will be accepted unless the IP editor has done significant work on the article. Or maybe there has been a discussion that I do not remember, and the instructions have not been updated.

What is the sense of GOCE request editors, and GOCE coordinators past and present, on this instruction, and whether it should apply to registered editors? If there has been a discussion already, please link to it so as to jog my memory. I will reserve my opinion until later, so as not to bias the responses in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I think it makes more sense when the requester has editing history in the article, as usually those who come to GOCE are in the process of improving the article. However, I remember one instance when Panini! nominated Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered on behalf of Wikibenboy94 while a PR process was ongoing as 94 had no time to request (Was it? Correct me if I'm wrong). And it indeed was copyedited. It is indeed weird when the requestor has no editing history to said article, but it's fine for me, and as you noted, doesn't violate the rules and is merely the interpretation of some GOCE editors. GeraldWL 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC, Jonesey. I agree with Gerald Waldo Luis, and am uncomfortable with IPs being unduly singled out for restrictions. I think that instruction should be removed; the request-page length at any given time (73 articles now, according to my quick count) is, alas, beyond our control. All the best, Miniapolis 02:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gerald Waldo Luis. I think that for any future requests, or requests submitted after a certain day (e.g. the beginning of the month after the rule change would be enacted), should be held to that rule. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Miniapolis, the backlog point is a good one. I literally just noticed that there's a backlog drive! Like, really, despite watching this page. I would suggest having talk page messages sent to GOCE editors about a drive, like GAN does. Maybe have awards given, also like GAN does. GeraldWL 15:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(←) I'm the person who highlighted the lack of editing history from two requesters at the Requests page, and yes I must have mis-remembered that IP-centric restriction. My point was that if someone notices some poorly written text in an article but has no intention of doing any further work on it, that person should tag it with {{copy edit}} rather than bring it to REQ, which has a specified purpose rather than being a general cleanup board. Most of Wikipedia (>6,000,000 articles) could probably use a copy-edit but we can't do everything. I should stop doing coordinator tasks since I'm no longer a coordinator! I'm sorry for the trouble; I've struck my comments. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Baffle, you raise a good point (which is why I mentioned the length of the requests page, relevant IMO to this discussion). There's a difference, though, between suggesting a best practice and requiring it. We should discourage drive-by request-listing, rather than forbid it outright (especially for IPs only, not all of whom don't register to avoid scrutiny). Miniapolis 13:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (mistress of the double negative )

(←) My take on this is that requests are for articles that want more care to be taken when looking at them, because they're going to be worked on further (usually as candidates for GA or FA, but could also be articles that a requester has a particular attachment to). If it's more "Oh, this article looks bad, but I've no interest in improving it further", it'd be better to just slap a {{copy edit}} tag on it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What I'm hoping for in a requester is someone who has access to an article's sources and is responsive to questions or is alert in resolving notices of ambiguity given by, say, placing a "clarification needed" template. Most of the time, a less-than-well written article can be clarified without consulting sources, but sometimes you need to go to the source to properly resolve ambiguity. A requester needn't be registered, but usually such people are, and are likely to be one of the top-ten editors of that page. I can't remember a requester that I've dealt who didn't fit that bill. Anyone who doesn't and who doesn't have access to sources or doesn't know someone who does, probably should be making copy editing requests only under extraordinary circumstances. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket

The request has been up since May and had been copy edited by Leoseliv, who marked it as "partly done" and left a section at the talk page talking about questions they had. Taking a quick look at the article it looks mostly alright, though §Differences between novel and screenplay may have a few voice issues remaining (i.e., differentiating what is said by Jenkins and what is in Wikipedia's voice).
@Magical Blas: Is there anything in particular that you're still hoping to see in terms of copy editing, or would it be fine to mark the request as complete? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi both; this request seems to be a bit sticky for some reason so I'll go through it. I'm not familiar with the film or the novel so I won't be doing any content work, just editing prose. Please leave a note, either here or at my talk page (note: my pings are off!) if there are any problems and I'll happily butt out. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, please see Magical Blas's comments at the article's talk. Baffle☿gab 03:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Baffle! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello partners. I see that interest in the subject is resuming. I improved the article in Spanish Wikipedia to Good Article. If someone wants, they can translate it and present it here, because English is not my mother tongue, nor do I defend myself very well. Greetings to all and thank you Magical Blas (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

This article could stand some work. Looking just at the Plot section, I spotted several simple errors: "...Hartman pairs him with Joker, under who's supervision Pyle starts to improve" (read "whose"); "...he will punish the entire platoon except for Pyle for every mistake Pyle makes." (s/b commas setting off "except for Pyle"); "...and the squad Corpsman Doc Jay." (downcase "corpsman"). Mostly, though, it seems a fine article that succinctly summarizes the film. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and corrected these mistakes. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering but I guess that's why the article I requested, Darker than Black, has not been copyedited yet. Sorry for adding stuff. I won't edit it anymore until the copyedit is done.Tintor2 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(←)  Done; sorry for the delay. Thanks for fixing my balls-ups Dhtwiki, I'm out of practice. I guess you can close this section now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Zhiar Ali

I didn't want to intercede here but I've put Zhiar Ali On hold because it's being discussed at AfD. TT has also noted the AfD on REQ. There it is, anyway. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, Baffle; if the AfD is closed as keep or no consensus, we can remove the tag. No sense wasting our time. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Flora Kaai Hayes

Hi everyone, Flora Kaai Hayes is a request from an indefinitely banned editor. I suggest that we decline the request, especially given the state of the backlog. Speaking of which, would a coordinator like to reach out with a friendly reminder to the editors who have been working on the last two June articles for over a week? Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and wilco. All the best, Miniapolis 22:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

GhostRiver is still working on Neptune (mythology), and I pinged Akrasia25 (who is currently editing, not on wikibreak) about Serengeti National Park. Thanks for the poke, Tdslk. All the best, Miniapolis 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

After taking a look at the Flora Kaai Hayes request, Aussie Article Writer is indefinitely ArbCom-blocked but Ezlev has reportedly contributed substantially to the article (which is a GA). I think we can let it sit; a copyedit might help it to FA. All the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should AGF here; while AAW has been site-banned, the request was made about a month before the block was enacted and the requester was not using his account in a deceptive manner or circumventing a block ("socking"). It might be nice to leave a note on the request directing accepting c/es to this discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am still working. I was on vacation last week and returned late last night. — GhostRiver 02:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Given how the requester was banned a month after submitting the request, I think we can let it remain on the requests page per Baffle's reasoning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Back on it. I thought I had it on my todos. Sorry. I don't think there is much more for me to edit but let me run it again.--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A section copy edit request

Greetings,

Requesting some copy edit support @ newly added article section #2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault.

Thanks for the support

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Hello. Please submit the article as a request on the main requests page and specify that it is just that section that you're concerned with. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a new section, couple of months to stabilize. I suppose we need to make request there for bit stabilized content. That I will do after couple of months. As of now I am looking for just first level primary copy edit. Thanks anyways Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged the section with {{copy edit section}}, which any editor is able to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku:, I've tidied the section, most of which is off-topic for this article, which is about a monument. If the alleged incident is notable, most text about it should be moved to another article, leaving a short summary and a hatnote linking to the main article. I moved some of the extended text to the talk page. Anyway, this is done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thanks for your copy edit support. I suppose mostly there would not be much doubts about notability of the incidence so I did update Draft:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault so as per your suggestion we can have a short summary and a hatnote linking to Draft:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault @ the article Minar-e-Pakistan. I think we would afford some space for Women related Wikipedia projects to be involved in respect to how much summary would be relevant in the article Minar-e-Pakistan. Warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku:, no worries. You shouldn't link live articles to drafts; best to wait until it's in mainspace. Also please be mindful of policy regarding living people and that everything is correctly cited, particularly with sensitive subjects such as this one. You can always ask for advice on the teahouse. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 14:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs

What Magical Blas seems to want is a GAR, not a copyedit. Suggest we decline; I dropped them a note on their talk page. All the best, Miniapolis 22:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree; adding new content, updates or citations is not copy-editing. The editor can re-add the request when the article has been expanded to their liking. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support. I may consult sources to see if that's what was really meant, but adding new ideas is definitely out of our purview. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Normally, I would say "Let's copyedit it and skip the other part of the request," but if it needs significant updating and referencing, I think we should decline without prejudice to resubmission once it is ready for us. The requesting editor has only three edits in the last month, so I don't think we should wait for a response from them. (I fixed a few minor errors on the page, but with only a quick skim, it looks pretty good to me.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jeyran (wife of Naser al-Din Shah)

The requester, Amir Ghandi, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet but is appealing his block. What do other coordinators think about this request? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a coordinator, so just commenting: Looks like the original block is due to introducing false information and outright hoaxes into the encyclopedia. Whether or not that is the case with this article, I don't know. -Pax Verbum 22:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a case where we should put the request  On hold until the unblock request is resolved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Jonesey. All the best, Miniapolis 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So is it going to remain indefinitely in the Requests list? Who knows how long it will take? What's the standard approach to this? — BroVic (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE. Since the standard offer is six months with no socking and their last mainspace edit was September 9, they may be blocked for a few more months. I see no problem with leaving the articles on the list for now, since the editor is potentially productive. Miniapolis 13:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Here's the reason I asked the question: Does this mean that there's no clearing the backlog on the Requests page? The user made multiple submissions! — BroVic (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor has two requests on the list (permitted), which is backlogged because there are too many requesters and not enough copyeditors. Miniapolis 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we'll have to wait six months. A WP:AN discussion is underway now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(←) Hope you're right, although it sounds like they knew they were evading a block. Miniapolis 01:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: It seems that Baffle gab has already declined those two articles and had them archived. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Another article

Didn't notice that the requester had requested another article (Khosrow Mirza) further down, so I'll mark that as on hold as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There is also a third article (Hajji Ebrahim Shirazi) even further down requested by the same user, so I'm thinking of declining that one as a breach of our instructions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. All the best, Miniapolis 02:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and declined it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Feetloaf

CC-BY-SA; text in this section is copied from the Requests page [3]. Baffle☿gab 00:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Feetloaf

I recently wrote Feetloaf (and expect it to be on DYK for Haloween). I'm having trouble finding a better way to phrase Using a small handsaw instead of a knife, and a quarter-size sheet pan mimicing a laboratory tray was offered as a serving suggestion. The problem is, there's two things (the saw and the sheet pan), but since they're a single composite suggestion, I used the singular "was offered". Technically, I think that's correct, but it's clumsy. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to make that flow better. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith:, this page is for copy-edit requests; this kind of question should really be asked on this page's talk page. I will, however, offer you: "The use of a quarter-size sheet pan resembling a laboratory tray and a small handsaw instead of a knife was offered as a serving suggestion". Do you want a full copy-edit of the article? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978 My apologies. I thought copyediting included requests such as mine. Other than this one sentence, I think the rest of the article is fine, so I'll withdraw my request. Thanks for your suggestion, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries; I'll boldly (but not baldy) call this section  Request withdrawn for archiving and copy it to talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, I like the article . How does "The use of a small handsaw, instead of a knife, was suggested; a quarter-size sheet pan (mimicking a laboratory tray) was offered as a serving suggestion" sound? (I think "mimicking" is spelled with a k.) In future, {{Copy edit inline}} is useful for requesting a tweak. All the best, Miniapolis 15:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Can "building" be the subject of "evicted"?

I'm doing a GA review of Squatting in the Czech Republic. The author uses the word "evicted" in a way I'm not familiar with, but I'm not 100% sure it's wrong. Is it OK to say, "The building was evicted"? I had suggested either "The occupants were evicted" or "The building was cleared", but maybe it's correct the way it is? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a good copy-editor but I do work with repossession, and we would never in a professional setting evict a building; you can repossess a building or evict inhabitants. If it's not used as professional jargon I can't imagine it would be used in lay english either. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, you're both right. "The building's occupants (or 'tenants', depending on context) were evicted" is clear and makes sense. All the best, Miniapolis 14:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably "tenants"; temporary "occupants" of a building are evacuated (during a bomb scare, for instance). Miniapolis 14:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In that article, I think it should be the squatters or occupants who are evicted, not the building. I fixed one sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I wrote Squatting in the Czech Republic and am happy to see this discussion, thanks for the opinions. I agree with Miniapolis. In British usage at least and in academic writing on squatting, it is considered normal to talk of a building being evicted. I suppose my position is backed up by buildings empty of squatters also being evicted, as in there are no occupants to evict, yet the building is still evicted as part of the legal process of repossession. Jonesey95 thanks for the edit, but you actually introduced an error by removing the subject of the clause "then re-squatted". I've changed the sentence already as part of my responses to the GA review but happy to change it again as necessary. Mujinga (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is {{British English}} appropriate for this article? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess in the absence of Template: Czech English then Template:British English is adequate in keeping the language style at least consistent throughout the article. Or maybe I misunderstood the thrust of the question? Mujinga (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There was no hidden meaning to the question. I speak American English. If the article is written in a different dialect, then we should identify the dialect to prevent people like me from making "corrections" which aren't really corrections. That's all I meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Mujinga, I have never seen that usage (I am American, obviously, but I have encountered a lot of Britishisms in my reading and television/film-watching). Can you please link to a couple of reliable sources using this phrasing? Thanks. In any event, I think it may make sense to use language that is familiar to all English speakers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

sure no probs

from the article's sources:

• "was illustrated by the fact that Klinika was not immediately evicted by riot police" and "Milada was evicted at the time of the global economic crisis of 2008–2009" - 'Rethinking radical activism: Heterogeneity and dynamics of political squatting in Prague after 1989'

elsewhere:

• "The CSO was evicted in 2013 and was later converted into an elderly activity centre by the municipal administration" Bloomfield: 'Ethnography of the uses, practices, and socio-spatial interaction in okupa (squatted) spaces'
• "While Wijers was evicted" Owens - 'From Tourists to Anti-Tourists to Tourist Attractions: The Transformation of the Amsterdam Squatters' Movement' - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742830801969340
• "Weijers was evicted to make room for the construction of a Holiday Inn hotel. When Weijers was evicted" - Pruijy in 'Public Goods versus Economic Interests' ISBN 978-1-138-11897-3
• "In fact, on 17 December the CSO was evicted by the police executing an order by the judiciary, requested by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage" Piazza - 'Squatting Social Centres in a Sicilian City: Liberated Spaces and Urban Protest Actors' - doi: 10.1111/anti.12286

Mujinga (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. I learn something new every day on Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Struck requests

Hi all, I've just struck two requests here and here. Feel free to review and revert if needed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle. I didn't realize until I checked that you struck the acceptances, not the requests themselves All the best, Miniapolis 14:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes I should have written more clearly; I was a bit tired when I wrote that. I wish these new editors wouldn't ghost us like that. Grrrrrrr! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with that stuff, Baffle; it's a PITA. All the best, Miniapolis 23:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also left a note for the acceptor of Einár (rapper). Feel free to act in a week or so. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfinished conversation

Hello. Today, I heard the sad news about User:Twofingered Typist :-( We were in the middle of a conversation. I would greatly appreciate it if another member of guild would answer my questions: User_talk:4nn1l2#Ayşegül_Coşkun. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

About whether Ayşegül Coşkun's music video Cuk should be in italics, as TfT changed it, or in quotation marks, I'm not sure enough to say definitively. As for She told the Akşam Daily that because she is a Gemini, she felt herself a different person every day she woke up and that was why her works were so different from each other., I believe the emphasized verbs are correct. She told the newspaper in the past about something that continues into the present ("is a Gemini"; "was" would have to be explained further). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I would put the title of a music video for a song in quotation marks, per MOS:MINORWORK: Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. If you want a definitive answer, your best bet is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with using quote marks for the music video and the verb tenses given by Dhtwiki. Tdslk (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all, one last question: wouldn't it be better (i.e., more natural to a native speaker) if I changed all the following verbs to the present tense? She told the Akşam Daily that because she is a Gemini, she feltfeels herself a different person every day she wokewakes up and that wasis why her works were so different from each other. I intentionally excluded the last verb, because I think she can't predict the future. Sorry if I come across pedantic. I'm really baffled by verb tenses in English. I always have doubts which tense is best to use. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the present tense looks right in that sentence. I would also change the final "were" to "are". Let us know if you would like someone to look it over once you are happy with the whole article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Brasserie Ellezelloise on hold

I noticed this request was added with a {{Partly done}} template that seemed to have been added in error here. After checking the requester actually wanted a c/e, I left a message at the talk page here. I got no reply but removed the template. The requester has now been checkuser hard-blocked for incompetence and trolling, see here, so I've put this request on hold and suggest we decline it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Baffle. All the best, Miniapolis 00:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with a decline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Tdslk (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline. I have good-faith tagged this short article for copy editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, I might go over it quickly tonight. That editor reminds me of another whose incompetent copy-edits had to be cleaned up.... but I doubt it's the same person. Is this what happens when copy-editing becomes a "newcomers' task"? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(←) c/e done and tags removed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yuko Ichihara

Hi all; I've abandoned my attempted c/e of Yuko Ichihara because I found the text too confusing to fully understand. I hope someone else will do a better job than I can. It's quite a word salad in places. I'm sorry. Baffle☿gab 23:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

To make up for a lost opportunity, would you like to c/e Keladi Kannmanii instead? If not, I hope at least @Miniapolis will. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Kailash29792, but I'm very busy IRL and determine my own workload. Miniapolis 14:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No ta, @Kailash29792:. Baffle☿gab 04:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've started looking at the article. Hopefully it's just convoluted plot that's the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Request: Crew resource management

The requester for Crew resource management, NightWolf1223, has been blocked under claims of sockpuppetry. Shall we procedurally decline the request? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline; there's no point wasting time on requests from blocked sock accounts. Baffle☿gab 04:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Declined. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(←) The requester's account has been unblocked after an appeal to the ArbCom. See the block log. Should the request be restored? Baffle☿gab 04:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO, yes. All the best, Miniapolis 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Might as well go with ArbCom. Tdslk (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all; I've restored the request as it was without the decline discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)