Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)