Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2019

Gabbie Hanna

I've been working on this request when I suddenly hit an edit conflict. Another editor has come in irate and started editing. What do I do in this situation? Put the edit on hold? I think this is WP:OWN situation. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 18:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If I start getting multiple edit conflicts I usually abandon the c/e and move on to another article; place Abandoned on the request with a short explanation. Another editor might take the request, or we can put it on hold if necessary. You can try discussing with the requester or the intervening editor on their talk pages. You can return to the c/e later if it's still listed. If there are intractable problems with the article or other editors, it'll probably be declined. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 18:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, I was just coming here to say that the person stopped editing for a bit. I had just about completed the article when I hit the conflict. I like to go back and give it a once over. I will do that and call it done (as long as I don't run into another conflict). PopularOutcast^talk2me! 18:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; it's up to you, of course. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

One good way to avoid technical edit conflicts is to edit section by section. If someone disagrees with your edits, that's more of a personal conflict than a technical problem, however. One way to head off those conflicts is to post a short note on the article's talk page before you edit, explaining that you are beginning a requested GOCE copy edit, with a link to the Requests page, and inviting editors to comment on your edits on the talk page. You can see a similar note at Talk:Apollo 8, though I left that one after I had completed the edits. Another thing I do to head off conflicts is to leave very detailed edit summaries; you can see some if you search for my name in the edit history of Apollo 8. YMMV, of course. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, good ideas! Thanks. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I do what Jonesey does: edit in as small "bites" as possible. It took me a long time to not freak when I got an EC, and they're still a PITA. In beta features on your preferences page is a two-column edit-conflict tool which I've found useful. If the other editor is the requester, there's usually no problem; if it starts drifting into edit-warring territory, though, I walk (after tagging the TP with {{GOCEreviewed}}, notifying the requester and leaving a note with the request. All the best, Miniapolis 00:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Miniapolis, thanks. I do have the feature set up. The system took care of the edit conflict easily. I was mostly concerned about the nastiness in the edit summaries because I did not want to waste time if someone was just going to revert. I just had a peek and apparently this editor doesn't care about the MOS, changed some stuff, was reverted, changed it back again. I am glad I was almost done when they started. I don't edit war either.

I think my freak out comes from potentially giving the Guild a bad name. I don't want my lack of ability, experience, or mistakes to blow back on the good work y'all do.

Oh and Happy New Year to everyone! PopularOutcast^talk2me! 01:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I left a note on VoltronUniverse's TP (I presume that's the editor in question). Don't worry about the Guild's reputation; you're doing fine. Some editors don't like us, but others appreciate what we try to do. We're doing our best, so it's all good. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 01:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused about archiving

At the bottom of the archive page it says to put entries in order by request date but right under, it says to add items to the bottom. I initially did the latter but then noticed someone moving entries around so I started ordering them. What is the correct method? PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi P.O. (I hope you don't mind me abbreviating you pseud here), thank you for archiving requests; it's most appreciated. If you really want to, you can order them by request date; a request made on 2018-12-12 will be archived before one made on 2018-12-22. Because requests are completed in any order, archives will always be randomised in some way. On a basic level, just archive them into the appropriate year and quarterly section. If they're archived in the wrong section/year, someone will spot the mistake and (hopefully!) correct it. The tables are sortable anyway (with Javascript; click the arrows atop the table), so it doesn't matter in what order requests are archived, provided they're in the correct section. The quarterly sections were introduced because as the year progressed, the archives became much slower to load for some; it seems to have worked in that respect anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem on the PO (I like the mail anyhow and am a bit square and boxy). It does load pretty slowly even though it's split into quarters and I have a brand new super-zippy computer. (I suspect that my use of the beta wikieditor is the cause of most of the slowness.) If no method is preferred, I will continue to put in order since some of the GOCE don't run Javascript. Thanks for the reply! :D PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Strike one

CC-BY-SA; this thread was originally at Coords talk; moved here because it's about a c/e request. Baffle gab1978 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham is on the request list, but can be removed. See User talk:Serial Number 54129#Copy edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the problem here, Gog? I've checked the article, which seems to be (at first glance) well-referenced and well-organised. Has the request been withdrawn or Is there a reason we shouldn't c/e it? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I thought that the link above would explain it. I have just finished reviewing a lengthy FAC; the nominator had done everything, I indicated support and looked for a request to copy edit for a change of pace. There was yet another medieval nobleman, right up my street, so I indicated "working" updated my drive log and started reading it. It was the same article. My support was the third, so clearly it didn't need any further copy editing. I queried its nominator - see here. He was apologetic but unsure how to withdraw it, so I volunteered to pass the word on to those who understand that technical side of things. Ie, you. Clear? I don't suppose that I can count the words for the drive? No. Ah, I thought not. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Gog, thanks for clarifying, I'm a bit dense and I was unsure of the situation because it's generally up to the requester to withdraw the request; Serial number's talk page post doesn't explicitly say 'please withdraw / remove / blank my request'; it says "do I just blank it or post on their talk?", which is ambiguous at best. Now I understand the request is to be withdrawn so I'll do that now and post on the requester's talk page. To answer your last question; no you can't claim the word because you haven't copy-edited the article. Now back to your cocoa! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Boo! Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

PlayStation Portable request

After I took over this copyedit, I noticed that the requester hasn't edited since January 6 and may have retired due to other on-wiki issues. Since it may be a waste of time to continue this, I suggest we decline. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 00:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

After a quick visual scan of the article's prose, i can't see any major problems and it looks informative to me. It looks stable, without edit wars or other problems that would normally be a reason to decline. In this case, however, the requester has gone bush and there are no outstanding or planned nominations for promotion on the quality scale. Editworker already did some work on the article, so I think his/her work and yours should be credited. I'd be happy to AGF and take the request if nobody else wants it; my time is my own to waste! Courtesy pinging @JC7V7DC5768:. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a nice article and could use some additional copy-editing. I cleaned up the infobox a bit and italicized some game titles. It may need serial comma consistency improvements. I have no plans to do more, Baffle, if you want to give it a once-over. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to finish it, Baffle; I'd rather move on. All the best, Miniapolis 14:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both; No problems – Minapolis, I'll ensure you and Editworker get credit in the archives. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about crediting me; I'm just glad to see the back of the last 2018 request :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Playstation Portable

CC-BY-SA declaration; discussion copied from Requests page here by me, Baffle gab1978 02:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

This needs copyediting for flow and the citations need work for completeness and consistency. Also Prose is messy with a lot of unneeded words. Please help do this. Thank you. JC7V (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Working (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Editiworker has begun working on this article today, as of my timestamp. Baffle gab1978 22:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked Editworker about the status of this request on his/her talk page. Baffle gab1978 01:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Still working on the article; haven't found much time to complete the edit. EditWorker (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us know if you'd like someone else to finish the copyedit. All the best, Miniapolis 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done Did basic editing for prose and spelling, and I was going to check citations; however, I haven't found time to work on the article, so I'll let someone else take over. EditWorker (talk) EditWorker (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Working Miniapolis 00:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done See talk. Miniapolis 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(←)  Working; thanks Editworker and Miniapolis for your work on the article; I'll credit you both in the archive. - Baffle gab1978 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note for archive; request  Done. Baffle gab1978 02:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz

I've just declined the request for Maureen Wroblewitz (diff), which was made by Pv sindhu which is a blocked sockpuppet account of Haiyenslna, whose sole activity is the spamming of requests to improve this article. We've been here before; see SPI. Please revert the removal if it's thought inappropriate. The article is also short and doesn't seem to need a c/e at this time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been getting requests to edit this almost every month! Fanboys - what a pain. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good call, Baffle, per WP:DENY. All the best, Miniapolis 00:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I just had a brand new account ask me to copyedit and improve this page. This account has asked several editors to look at the page. Since I have no proof of sockpuppetry, I am not sure how to proceed. Edited to add account of user – Trinhthisau. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Happened to me as well, then another account reverted the request. Tdslk (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Babble gab1978 got to it quick. Yay you! PopularOutcast^talk2me! 23:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Babble gab", P.O.? *snort*; I know I babble sometimes but... really? :-D Baffle gab1978 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

omg I snorted too. At first I was like whatcha talking about and then I realized. So sorry! Babble, words, copyediting. You know. Then there was the guy who was named Michael George and I kept calling him George in emails although he did not want that. He must have thought I was being passive aggressive or something but it's just when you only know people through email, and different email clients do first last or last first, you just pick one. That's what I told myself anyhow. :D PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

About 2 seconds of uncontrollable laughing at the babble babble; anyway, I got spammed on 26 January. Ouch! Ben79487 (talk contribs) 00:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've reported to AN; hopefully will be blocked PDQ. I happened to log in as the account was actively spamming. Baffle gab1978 23:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to blank and ignore

Coordinators; can I propose that future attempts by obvious Haiyenslna sock accounts to spam this article be removed or reverted without discussion or archiving? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 03:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes please. We are normally welcoming to all, but this one needs to be on our blacklist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What Jonesey said. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Support per nom – Reidgreg (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all; obviously we'll need to check the requester's history first. I'd be happy to honour a request for that article from an editor who is here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a new request by Seil11 (talk · contribs), a new editor who may or may not fit the sock profile. I find it suspicious, however, that an editor who has made no contributions to the article would state "Attampting [sic] to pass B-Class review". It seems like an editor who has had an account for just two weeks would be unlikely to know what a B-class review was. I have checked the editor's contributions, and nearly all of them have been small but detrimental changes to grammar. Nearly all have been reverted (by myself and others). Meanwhile I just don't understand the obsession with an article that is only 300 words. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; the account has now been blocked as a Haiyenslna sock. I've removed the request. Baffle☿gab 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

R. Hari Kumar

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from Requests page diff by me. Baffle☿gab 18:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Short article, on hold at DYK nomination, here. KCVelaga (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@KCVelaga:  Working: Comment: DYKs always let me learn about stuff I never would've known about before. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 19:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I really don't know that much stuff about him, so forgive me if I break some stuff. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 19:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ben79487: could you take another look at this? The DYK nomination (linked above) mentions some close paraphrasing. If you could alter the sentence structure and phrasing a bit for the quoted section, that can avoid a possible copyright violation. Also, here's a link to the copyvio tool Earwig, which can help point out other close paraphrasing (though here it mostly shows proper names). Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I've fixed most of the serious ones, can you check over what I did? The diff is here. Thanks for the alert! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 05:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Checked I left some notes on your talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2018 video game)

I was going to do this one, but since it's the object of a merge request I suggest we pass for now; we can place it {{on hold}} for a reasonable time, so Darkwarriorblake doesn't lose his place in the queue. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 14:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've placed the request on hold and directed discussion here. I've no opinions about the proposed move but I think a copy-edit of the material probably wouldn't survive such a merge; it would be integrated into that article's existing text. Baffle☿gab 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is leaning toward no merge, and the topic of the other article is becoming more prominent so it seems unlikely that a merge will occur. (The request article seems pretty well written but could be made more concise.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to watch the merge discussion and remove the on-hold tag if it closes as no merge, that's fine with me. All the best, Miniapolis 14:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the discussion, which seems to have run out of steam before much of a consensus has been reached. A week should be long enough to wait. Baffle☿gab 00:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) There's no consensus for a merge so I'm taking this request off-hold. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Beggar's Chicken

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation moved from Requests page by me. Baffle☿gab 10:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit on the article of China's proud dish Beggar's Chicken. Having been prepared it myself, I wished to share this to all. Even for those who aren't interested in copy edit it, you can have the recipe from one of the online sources. Thanks NeoBatfreak (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Working - Baffle☿gab 09:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. If you want the recipe, here is the link for the oven bag method. Personally, I wouldn't recommend of using clay to wrap the chicken, because of the pressure built inside the clay shell. Use dough instead during a campfire cooking.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip NeoBatfreak; I'm a little short of clay at the moment anyway. :)  Done and moved to REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

My father made a clayed-covered Beggar's Chicken once for the 4th of July, and it exploded and ruined the meal. No one in my family was hurt.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak:, I'm glad to hear no-one was hurt; it could result in an interesting conversation or two! I've moved the conversation from REQ and replied here; I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Early Bedroom Sessions and Welcome to Rainbow

These are two articles nominated as a unit on March 30. Should they be split into separate requests? The nominator says they are short articles, but they are nevertheless two different ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset, yes, they should be separate requests, no matter the size of the article. I've split them up. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

For all GoCErs

...almost Grocers :)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		The TP message asks for feedback, so here goes: You all deserve this for collectively doing a Grand Job, so take it away! Cheers!——SerialNumber54129 16:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks particularly to Miniapolis for the most recent expurgation of my prose  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

List of mergers and acquisitions by Amazon

This request from @CoolieCoolster: here asks us to help with reformatting a lengthy list article that has little text but lots of data tables. There's also an 'under construction' template at the top. I've placed the request on hold for now. I think we should decline it because of both points; though I'm not adverse to helping out I'm unaware of the usual format for these kinds of articles. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This is simply not copy editing, IMHO. There is not prose to edit. Formatting tables and verifying data is not part of our mission here. We have to draw lines somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree; we have enough to do as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Request declined and archived; thanks both. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dorothée

I've put this request diff on hold; the BLP article is devoid of references and the requester @Mvcg66b3r: says it's been poorly translated from French. I think we should decline this; we aren't Cleanup! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The request for a serious review, a lot of additional research and a substantial rewrite is outside of our scope. The requester is welcome to resubmit when the article is referenced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What Jonesey said. All the best, Miniapolis 13:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both; Request declined and archived, and I've removed most of the unreferenced BLP text from the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Shameless Plug

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shameless Plug (but I am plugging a proposed improvement to Wikipedia, so shameless plugs are allowed):

The 2019 redefinition of SI base units is scheduled to happen on 20 May 2019. I would like it to be Today's Featured Article on that day. To make this happen, it needs everything listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (some of which it already has), followed by a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, then a nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

So now you need the content-creation-bigots? Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

[self-redacted] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(This not the appropriate venue for your beef. Please take it elsewhere.) Is there a specific time by when you want your request edited? The current wait time is about three weeks, which should get it done before May 20. Tdslk (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tdslk that it should get done in time, and don't like attempts to jump the queue. Everyone wants their request done yesterday :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to get anything done any faster than needed to be able to have the article considered for TFA on 20 May 2019. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, we're happy to honour the copy-edit request providing the article stable but you don't get to jump queues (the requests page isn't a queue) or set deadlines. I'm boldly closing this thread; coordinators are welcome to revert/unclose if necessary. Baffle☿gab 04:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed decline of List of number-one singles of 2006 (Sweden)

There is no prose to copy-edit here. Propose declining. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right. Eurohunter has been posting a fair number of requests here lately, and may think the GOCE is the fast track to FA/FL. Would it were so :-). All the best, Miniapolis 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it and notified the requester. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nina Lagergren

The "things raised at the nom page" are a significant copyright violation comprising most of the article. I have commented out what appears to be an almost pure copy-paste without attribution. I don't have time to follow through right now, but others reading this talk page may want to discuss declining this request, or other options. I think the original source may be CC-BY-SA, but I am not copyright-savvy enough to know what our options are. Pinging requester BabbaQ in case they want to contribute to this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think declining it. And I will work on it from the current version which I guess is the best alternative.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it from the Requests page, per your message. Feel free to resubmit when it is ready for copy-editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia Bailey

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section moved from the Requests page here by me, Baffle☿gab 01:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC).

Hello everyone! I would greatly appreciate a copy-edit of the above article. I do not have any plans to take this to either the GAN or FAC process. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Contentious editor, Aoba47, involved.--A21sauce (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• @A21sauce: I would hardly call myself "contentious" when I am fixing errors introduced to the article by the copy-editor and explaining my rationale in the edit summaries. The copy-editor had introduced overlinking in the lead, linked common words like "American", and moved around citations without making that the content was adequately covered. This matter could have easily been discussed in the article's talk page rather than saying I was engaging in an "edit war". I had suggested that a talk page discussion would be appropriate, but I guess the copy-edit does not want to engage in that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Twofingered Typist:@Baffle gab1978: pinging two frequent copy-editors about this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

We're in the middle of a copy drive, dude, and these are participants. Get someone else.--A21sauce (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Dude? This request can be archived. I had no interest in working on this article further anyway (as I have stated in the request). Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is available for another editor to copy-edit if the requester is willing to be patient with the copy editor and discuss objections and questions on the article's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95: This request can be archive. I will be taking a wikibreak shortly, and I have no interest in working on this article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

Hi all; Blackmane has abandoned his/her copy-edit of the above article, saying it "is almost 2/3 of the article is reaction/response, while the sections discussing the actual amendment is much smaller. The article needs a lot of pruning and restructuring before it can be copy edited." diff. I agree with Blackmane's appraisal and think it should be archived as 'Abandoned', crediting Blackmane for his/her work there. I've placed the request on hold for now.. What do you think? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Baffle gab. I note that the article was very recently created and I suspect that there is some desire to get it through DYK, considering how recent the actual Amendment took place, but it would be doing the reader an injustice for it to be "let into the wild" so to speak. Blackmane (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I was going to alert the requester to this discussion, but saw that Blackmane had left them a note on the 25th. In light of the copyvio concerns and apparent lack of response, I think we can archive this and notify Narutolovehinata5. All the best, Miniapolis 14:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

IPv6 requests and sockery

I noticed we've just had another IPv6 requesting c/e for an article about India diff. We already have two of these interesting diff and (also interesting) diff, all three of which geolocate to the same country, city and ISP. The second diff includes the sig of a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user LastBreath64 (talk · contribs) and the third diff includes the sig on a new-ish user, St.teresa (talk · contribs). I'll be adding to the SPI forthwith. I won't object if another coordinator removed these three requests; I'll probably do so myself when I'm a little less tired. Update: SPI done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle. I declined the req for West Bengal yesterday and have now declined Bengal, Bengali language, and Bangladesh. There were no edits by the IP address and the articles had not been expanded and/or nominated for GA as stated by the request. The IP req for Sasha Grey appears legitimate, with edits to the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries; the SPI found no evidence of St.teresa being a sockpuppet so the IP was using a fake sig, which was removed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Harrison Wells

Hi all; I made a mistaken attempt (I hadn't finished to one above it yet!) to c/e this a few days ago. Since then, it has undergone much revision from two editors whom I seem to have stirred up, (courtesy pings @Brojam:and @Kailash29792:) including the requester (article history). I've put the request on hold and I propose the article is currently unstable and that a major c/e would be quickly wiped out with the rapid changes. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

When I submitted the article at the GOCE, I had no idea it would go through such substantial changes. If Brojam is done, you may resume the c/e Baffle gab. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kailash, but the article was unchanged from 17 June to 28 June, then the major edits started whilst i was working on it. I'd rather the article was stable (no substantial changes) for a few days before a c/e begins but the hold note doesn't prevent anyone from accepting the request; it is purely an advisory note from the Guild. I should not have accepted the request anyway as I was halfway through another c/e; a d'oh! moment if you will. Baffle☿gab 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Baffle gab1978 you did grab my attention to the article and when I saw you had put your review of the article on hold to finish your other review, I wanted to try to clean up the plot sections as much as possible before making another editor review sections that would have to be significantly reduced if this article was ever nominated for GA. Sorry, for the unstability of the article. I am finished and the article should hopefully return to a stable state in a few days. - Brojam (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Brojam; I'm glad you understand the reasons for the hold notice, etc. We do like articles for which a c/e request is made to be stable enough that a substantial copy-edit is not quickly erased by subsequent or ongoing edits. I'll happily remove the hold notice—unless someone beats me to it—in a few days after checking its stability; hopefully someone will get to it soon afterwards. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've removed my On hold notice; copy-editors are advised to check the article's history before proceeding. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Should we decline this request made by a now-banned user? I always want to decline requests from permanently banned users, but in the past others have argued for reviewing the requests on a case-by-case basis, so does anyone want to argue for keeping this one? I note that we already did a review of it about two years ago. Also, it's really, really long. :) Tdslk (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Since they were blocked for socking, I see no reason this should be done again so soon; thought the article rang a bell . In addition to its length, it's been the subject of an educational assignment (edited by newbies) and is under discretionary sanctions; in my experience, South Asian articles (like the one I'm working on now) often have POV issues which are time-consuming to resolve. All the best, Miniapolis 18:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline; this is the same person who used four IPv6 addresses to request copy-edits for this and other Indian subcontinent-related articles last month earlier this month, and did some joe-jobbing into the bargain; see my SPI report. I see no reason to honour this request. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Tdslk (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify Tdslk's point above; I believe you refer to this incident, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm fine with good faith c/e requests made by an account that is temporarily blocked for reasons unrelated to the requested article; for example for edit-warring, minor incivility, self-block requests, topic-ban violations, etc. I'm less fine with the scenario that happened here; sock accounts or IPs that are used by blocked users to evade blocks or bans. Except in obvious cases, like the Philippine model who pops up here sometimes, I think discussions should take place before a decline. Having said that, I wouldn't stop anyone from improving the prose of any article; our hold notices are advisory but they don't mean "do not copy-edit this article". A case-by-case approach is needed because sock accounts aren't always obvious to editors who rarely get involved in backstage areas of Wikipedia. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of a slightly older incident, but it was a similar story. I would argue that anyone who is permanently blocked should get their requests declined, whether or not they were blocked for the reason of being a sockpuppet. I like to think that there is at least a hypothetical collaborative component to requests. Usually the requestor is actively revising the article, and will review our work when we are done and answer questions we may have. Otherwise, there is nothing different from the articles in the request list and any of the millions of other articles. So if an editor is permanently blocked, we should remove the article in preference to requests from editors where there is at least a possibility that they can respond. Tdslk (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Santos Rodriguez

I've just placed this request (diff) On hold; this article has maintenance tags {{very long}}, {{essay-like}} and {{overly detailed}}, all dated July 2019. It may not be suitable for a full copy-edit, which may be quickly wiped out by improvements, and GOCE is not Cleanup. Courtesy-pinging the requester @Centehua:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Good call. All the best, Miniapolis 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've declined; no further comments here and no response from the requester. Feel free to undo in necessary. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009/The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland

This article is a draft in userspace that is still under development and not ready for mainspace. I've placed this request on hold with a view to decline. Courtesy ping to requester; @Dawid2009:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not ready for a copyedit, IMO. All the best, Miniapolis 22:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) Request declined; GOCE is not the "fix up my article" department. Baffle☿gab 06:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009/The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland

CC-BY-SA declaration; text below moved from Requests page here by me. Baffle☿gab 06:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

English language is not my native. Is this possible to find here help for correcting this page until will be redirected to main page? Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 On hold; Article is a draft in userspace and is still being developed, thus not yet suitable for c/e. Discuss on REQ Talk. Baffle☿gab 18:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nihil novi and Piotrus: and other participants of Wikiproject:Poland have good thoughts about translations from Polish to English. How you two see current form of this article? What at least should be superfically corrected until this Draft go to main space onto copyedit? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I dislike draft spaces as they cause problems like this. Move it to the main namespace, and see what happens. Fix or delete, all better than the stupid draft limbo. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Dissolution of United States

I've moved this c/e request from our main talk page to the Requests page, and I'm putting it on hold for discussion here. This article was created within the last 24 hours of my timestamp, lacks references and looks like an essay. This article's text is readable and doesn't seem to need a c/e. I've added the relevant maintenance templates to the article. Courtesy ping to requester @Vyacheslav84:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggest that we decline; it's a new article, and a copyedit wasn't requested by its creator on WP:GOCE/REQ. We have enough to do as it is . Miniapolis 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And where should I go? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your article seems in good shape, in terms of being written clearly; it does need to be divided up into sections, especially separating the first paragraph from the rest, to be the lead. Unless I misread Miniapolis, you did not make a proper request; and that link given is where you would go. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vyacheslav84:, your first steps should be to read and understand the tags atop the article and deal with the problems noted. From my viewpoint those problems are:

• The article doesn't clearly describe the theory's origins, history, significance and influence. It reads like an essay or personal reflection; instead of a focussed piece of prose we have a collection of opinions and quotations from various writers; "according to X, According to Y, in the opinion of Z", etc. Compare this with Slavery in the United States.
• Only three sources have been used; one is The Wall Street Journal (paywalled), one is a personal reflection about the ideas of a crackpot Russian political analyst in The Washington Post and one is an L.A. Times opinion piece about George W. Bush's legacy that was copy-pasted into a forum on a personal website; none of which credibly show the subject's notability. If three sources—two of which are personal reflections—are the best you can do, the subject's notability looks uncertain.
• The article smacks of original research (see my previous point); you took three writers' opinions and smooshed them together to try and make a cohesive article. This is known as synthesis.
• The article was created from scratch on 30 July 2019‎, meaning it's had little time to develop. Most GOCE copy-editors prefer working on mature, stable articles that are being prepared for some process or otherwise need prose work. The GOCE is not Cleanup or Article Rescue Squadron.

These points indicate the article may be either deleted, rewritten or stubified in the near future. Copy-editing (improving grammar, spelling, flow, layout etc) won't fix these problems and would be wiped out, wasting volunteers' time and effort. If you are unsure about improving the article, you may ask for help at the Teahouse or Article Rescue Squadron. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll think it over! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive; request declined without prejudice. Baffle☿gab 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bot integration?

Is there any way to get a bot to automatically archive completed requests? Manually archiving requests seems unnecessary and tedious. I often see bots archiving old talk page discussions and the like, so I was wondering if there was any way to get a bot to do the same for completed requests. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bobbychan, I expect it *could* be done but I wouldn't know how to do it. I'm in favour of bot archiving providing it can be set up properly, it works consistently and it can handle subtleties like declines and multiple reasons, i.e. "DYK / GAN". Thanks for all the archiving and gnoming you do, it's most appreciated. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I'll definitely look into this. I have an offline friend who happens to be a Wikimedia Commons administrator and a prolific coder. Perhaps he will have free time to help us out :)

I'm a WikiGnome secretly pretending to be a WikiOrge :) Don't tell anyone :o —Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It does seem like a nontrivial problem to determine reason-codes from the text. Would there also be a possible issue with completed requests being archived too quickly, where a coordinator might otherwise notice a problem? – Reidgreg (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Perhaps it could be semi-automatic? Similar to IABot, where you have to launch or run it for it to automatically do something. A whitelist of coordinators only could certainly help. I'm visualizing an interface where reasons are selected from a list of options, including FAC, GAN, DYK, Declined, and "Other: _____". It could be one of those checkbox lists to allow for multiple selections like Baffle mentioned. Thoughts? Bobbychan193 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A barebones approach might be like signing up for Blitzes and Drives, where the editor is presented with a template to fill in with their rollover words, but where much of the work is done automatically. In this case, a requester could be presented with a similar template, which would have, say, article= and reason= (e.g. GAN, FAC, etc.) fields, as well as a comments section, with requester and date being gathered from the usual signature–timestamp. Copy editors would have a similar template with their particulars, as well as a status= field (e.g. "working" or "done"). A start would be to design a script that keeps the requests archive sorted, something that isn't being done without laborious editor intervention, at least not when I attempt it. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Automatic archive system similar to WP:FFU can be set up using Cluebot III. See User:Cluebot III for documentation. Masum Reza^📞 00:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The Art of Sanctions on hold

I've placed this request on hold because the text seems to have been auto-translated and doesn't make much sense: "Nephew shows how, while many usual goods are prohibited to export to the target country during the sanction regime, by exporting of luxury goods can destruct the social's sense"., etc. i'm not even sure it's been covered in reliable sources. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

After a quick look, I think it meets criterion one of WP:NBOOK. As possible auto-translations go, I've seen worse; my main concern for us as copyeditors is close paraphrasing. Although copyediting can resolve it, it's above our pay grade to have to check every source for copyvios. The WP:NONSENSE indicates that we should decline, though; the page can be listed at WP:PNTCU. All the best, Miniapolis 13:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually had a go at it yesterday, I noticed and removed some copyvio text. I'll have another look later but I'm not calling my work a copy-edit and I might send it to AfD if I can't find any reliable, third-party sources. I'll credit the work already done and archive. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've archived this as done by Lord Bolingbroke. I didn't see any need for the request to stay on the page and other than cleaning up the prose and removing copyvios, there wasn't much we could have done with it anyway. Feel free to revert if necessary. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Samragyee RL Shah

Courtesy pinging @Narutolovehinata5 and CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I was the copy editor for Samragyee RL Shah back in July, when it was requested by CAPTAIN MEDUSA. I've noticed that CAPTAIN MEDUSA tried to delete the request, only for Narutolovehinata5 to revert it. I'm just wondering, why (specifically) is it being requested again? The article has already been recently copy edited, and generally the GOCE does not copy edit the same article twice in such a short time period. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I was requesting a second copyedit since, when I took a second look at the article recently, there seemed to have been parts that were missed and still needed fixing (for example, there were still a few missing words and improper spacing before some sentences). I'm okay with withdrawing/declining the request, though the parts I mentioned would probably still need to be fixed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, Bobbychan193 I reverted the edit becuase the article is being reviewed for GAN. The reviewer will notice the errors, and any additional comments are welcomed at Talk:Samragyee RL Shah/GA1 ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The c/e request for this article was done just over a month ago on 18 July diff of c/e. @Narutolovehinata5:, is there a specific problem with the article's prose the previous c/e didn't fix or that you can't deal with yourself? In-depth copy-edits take a considerable amount of time and effort to complete, which is the reason we don't take repeat requests lightly. We do our best but we don't pander to reviewers' whims and fancies, and we're not the "cleanup in aisle six" squad. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted. The issues I raised were pretty minor and I realize a second copyedit is probably not needed. As such, please feel free to decline the request. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 in Singapore

Since this list is by definition unstable until the year is over, I'm declining this and will notify the requester (who seems to be having a problem with another editor). Miniapolis 16:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree; we don't need to involve ourselves in other editors' battles for that way lies madness! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've just removed two more year in Singapore requests; here and here because the IP user has already listed two such requests. I can't yet comment on the merits of the requests but I'll be looking at them in a bit. I think we may have some CIR or IDHT issues here... the requester doesn't appear to have read our instructions for requesters. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

According to our rules, IP users can't request articles that they haven't been working on, which this one hasn't: i can't do anything as the article have been constantly updating in rapid speeds, even if I do so. So either the article is unstable, in which case it's a problematic request, or they're nominating articles they haven't worked on, which is a problematic request for an IP. Sounds like we should be removing them and letting them know on their talk page why; perhaps they should cultivate patience and wait until the articles are being updated less frequently, at which point they can do their own work. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; I think they should be declined. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive; 2018 in Singapore and 2017 in Singapore declined per above. Baffle☿gab 23:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

This article has been mentioned in an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jack90s15_and_WP:CIR; it seems someone who has made over 40 edits to this article in the past 24-36 hours has been called out for apparent lack of competence. It also makes the article unstable by our usual definition, so I've placed it on hold for now. It's also had hundreds of edits since it was listed here on 7 August, so it was never stable to begin with. Courtesy ping to @Szzuk:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of the edits were by me getting the article up to and then through GA. The user who is at ANI assisted with the recent GAN and is a good faith editor. The ANI occurred because of too many test edits. I'd suggest that the GOCE "Working" template is added when the article is being worked upon. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

As Baffle implied, trying to copyedit an unstable article is a waste of our time and resources. @Szzuk: I suggest that you relist it when it stabilizes. All the best, Miniapolis 13:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have calmed down now (see request); I'm willing to want a few more days then remove the hold notice. If a coordinator wants to do that sooner, please go ahead but I'd rather it was stable for a few days before a serious c/e occurs. Baffle☿gab 21:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(←) The article has settled down so I've removed the hold notice. Copy-editors are advised to check the article's history before starting a major c/e on this lengthy article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Harry Hay on hold

I've placed the request for Harry Hay on hold (diff). The requester is asking for help with referencing and content issues, so this is not a request for copy-edit. I suggest we decline this one for now. Courtesy pinging the requester, @Gleeanon409:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. What the requestor seems to be asking for is not copy editing. Tdslk (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually copy editing is exactly what I’m requesting. I’m attempting to be transparent that there are two prominent issues with the article currently, I’m hoping that an experienced copy editor can help get the article past those issues.

Someone tagged it for relying too much on one biography, I’m not sure if that is really a problem.

The other issue is the NAMBLA content, I feel it doesn’t belong in the lede, and should be rewritten in the article with better sources, which have been identified, and I’ve prepared content that might be helpful.

My Hope is that we can get the article to good status and possibly resolve the editing issues at the same time. My apologies if I didn’t ask in the right way. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, there's nothing wrong with the way you asked but with an ongoing content dispute the article is not ready for a copyedit (FWIW, IMO Hay's NAMBLA advocacy is notable enough to be included in the lead per WP:WEIGHT). When the content dispute is resolved, it should be ready for a GAN and we'll be happy to polish the prose; the article should be copyedited before you nominate it. All the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409; copy-editing means editing copy (prose); in other words, improving grammar, syntax, flow and layout. It doesn't mean working on content, referencing or article development. The GOCE will be happy to copy-edit the article once it's stable enough that our editors' prose work won't be erased by large-scale changes in the article. Your time is precious; so is ours. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I’ll look into resolving the content dispute some way.

I hear you regarding the lead, however, his advocacy was a lot more principled than our article currently espouses. And fully half of it relies on NAMBLA’s own website which I find surprising at least. Any suggestions on how to resolve it? I’m not really finding anyone who cares to read the sources.

Besides the NAMBLA content the article is stable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you asked at WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? Baffle☿gab 00:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(←) Note for archive: Request withdrawn. Baffle☿gab 05:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Atsushi Nakajima (Bungo Stray Dogs)

The article has been copyedited already but I don't know how to archive it. Could anyone do that? I am aiming to put another article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Tintor2:, I'm happy to archive but the request has not been marked {{working}} or {{done}}. Several editors have done copy-work on it since late August; who should we credit for the c/e? Are you happy with their work? You can always withdraw a request but we can't then credit anyone. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The article was copyedited by Dhtwiki twice while a non-member named Flowerpiep also made some edits. According to the reviewer, the article's prose is in good condition so I think it could be archived with credits being given to Dhtwiki since he a member from the guild.Tintor2 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fine then, I'll archive it tonight. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

India

@Gog the Mild: I wasn't informed by anyone that it would go through a peer review. Is this done in the normal course of events for all TFAs? I have recently added two sections and had earlier revised the lead with new citations (a revision that was overseen by over a dozen editors at Talk:India) I had thought I would be using the time between now and October 2 to integrating the citations into the history sections, i.e. to pushing the lead citations into the history section in the article. I doubt that a GOCE volunteer will know how to do this, as it will involve slight modifications in the history sections. The article does see a lot of traffic, but it doesn't mean that it is not stable. For precisely that reason it is watched by a high traffic of editors with the eyes of hawks, who wheel overhead. I will be revising the following sections, Lead, History, Geography, Biodiversity, Cuisine, and Clothing. If a GOCE volunteer can take a stab at the remaining, especially the government, politics, culture ones, it would be great. Those have been languishing for want of attention. I'd say hold off for a week if you can (i.e. until the 20th) on the sections I will be revising. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fowler&fowler This isn't any kind of peer review. There have been complaints in the past that some of the FAs featured on the main page may not have "exemplifie[d] our very best work and [been] distinguished by professional standards of writing". So a lucky volunteer, me, gets to skim articles scheduled to be TFAs to try and ensure that at least there isn't anything too egregiously poor about them; especially the older ones. With some of the longer articles which I consider could do with a little tweaking I occasionally lazily post them at GOCE, making clear that they are already FAs and that the copy edit is to make them main page ready. As in this case. This attracts one of the GOCE editors accustomed to working at FA level. As always with copy editing, anything they do tends to be indicative, and regular editors of the article should feel free to revert; in practice the complaint rate is low.

Thanks for the pointer regarding which sections to concentrate on, and the indication of where and when a copy editor may be stepping on your toes.

Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gog the Mild: The GOCE review will be very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In a quick skim, I found some comma errors, inconsistent use and spacing of dashes and "c.", and some awkward sentences. A thorough copy-edit will make this comprehensive article shine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Jonesey95:. Please go ahead and make it shine. I'll try to do my bit faster. Or, do you want me to wait until after the copy edit is complete, which means a second, hopefully minor, copy edit will be needed after I've incorporated the footnotes of the lead in the history sections. I did notice that someone has added a lot of semi-colons here and there, which you might want to reduce (if that act is in consonance with good copy editing principles) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Flu (film)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section moved from the Request page (diff) by me. Baffle☿gab 20:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Since no editors would like to take a stab in pruning this article's excessively long plot summary, I'm just gonna go ahead and give the regulars on here to do the honors. Just by a cursory glance you can tell that the summary is its own movie, so just give it a copy edit in accordance with WP:FILMPLOT. Thanks! You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

At 4648 words long, I suspect this is way above and beyond the scope of a GOCE edit. A few words here or there, sure. But prune to 400–700 words ...? Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the requester hasn't edited the article, at least under this account name. I've trimmed it to 3,264 words, if that's any use. Baffle☿gab 20:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: I know right? Even I couldn't bring it down to the required length (which is why I sent this here), it's impossible. At any rate, I think your colleague's c/e will suffice since the plot is too complicated to summarize in the required length anyway. But if you must bring it down a bit further or perform certain tweaks on it, please do so; otherwise, consider this request resolved. Thanks you two. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@You've gone incognito: It's now 2,714 words; you can probably take it from there—nothing's impossible, just remove text that's unimportant to the plot. Can this be archived now? Baffle☿gab 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This should do. Thanks y'all. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@You've gone incognito: I knocked it down to about 900 words; sorry it took me a while to get around to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Pride Canterbury

Hi, I've placed the above request on hold because it displays the {{notability}} template; there's also not much text to copy-edit. I suggest declining this; the requester can always make a new request once its notability is established. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't waste time on articles with valid notability concerns; instead, I tag the talk page with {{GOCEreviewed}}. All the best, Miniapolis 13:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(←) Declined; feel free to revert. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ted Failon

Hi all, I've placed the request for this article on hold. It has the multiple issues template and biographical information is entirely uncited. Also, the requester describes it as "A rambling puff piece I happened to come across..." diff. I think we should decline it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, not suitable for a copy edit before other, larger issues are resolved. Tdslk (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I would decline this one. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, too much unsourced BLP, decline. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup. All the best, Miniapolis 13:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(←) Thanks all; request declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Hardcastle

I've placed this request on hold because the article is currently in draftspace pending an unsalting. I'm happy for it to wait a while since the subject is notable and it looks to be in fair condition; of course we can assess it once it's moved to mainspace. Courtesy pinging requester @Dmartin969:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: It's been moved to the mainspace, should I create a new request, or will you update the original? dmartin969 04:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have boldly struck out the "on hold" notice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No problems; thanks Jonesey. Dmartin, you don't need to do anything as long as you're happy. I wasn't sure how long the move would take. Most of the requests to c/e drafts we get are declined but this article looks fine to me. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually doubtful about this guy's notability; he doesn't seem to have much coverage in mainstream media. A quick G-search brought up a note about his YouTube account being unverified but not much else. I've added the {{notability}} template; feel free to remove it if independent, third-party, non-trivial sources are found. Baffle☿gab 02:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Two Bad Ideas

...is about par for me for a Wednesday. But seriously, for the record, we had two requests to copy edit the same article: Bad Idea (Ariana Grande song). I boldly deleted the second request and explained the situation to the requester. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tdslk, that's fine. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

1969 Curaçao uprising

A user labeled {{Done}} for 1969 Curaçao uprising, but I don't think they went through the whole article. Perhaps a coordinator should double-check their work. I also noticed a few minor errors that I've fixed. Hope this helps. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Bobbychan, I've struck the 'done template. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Littlemore Priory scandals

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section moved from the Request page (Priory scandals diff) by me. Reidgreg (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist and Reidgreg: With respect, this is bullshit, actually. As if skipping GA (one random guy reviewing) and going straight to FAC (multiple, usually experienced editors reviewing) is a bad thing. I would request the nominator to demonstrate his experience with FAC before continuing the copyedit. ——SN54129 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

On edit: I see the nom has one good article. What gives? 2FT, and you agreed with this? ——SN54129 16:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Even with FACs, editors should feel free to be bold and make improvements. I do feel that the pre-copy edit version of the article had some problematic passages and its prose could be improved before its FTA appearance. I'll open this up to other editors for comment while I consider whether it's worthwhile to list specifics. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Reidgreg there is no established certainty that you would recognise a problematic passsage; your request here was little more than trolling. "Those who can't, teach": or in this case, "those who can't, fuck about with it" :D ——SN54129 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: @Reidgreg: "[B]ullshit" is not a word I would use in the same sentence with "respect". I did not "fuck" with the article! You're just being immature. It had typos, run-on sentences and a very choppy flow in places. I have now, I believe, improved the article and stand by every change I made. Every edit was made in good faith. I am not working on it any further. I'll remind SN54129 that just because a couple of editors have decided an article meets FAC requirements does not mean the article cannot be improved. You do not own the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If the GGoCE's prowess was as great as its faith in itsellf, there would be no need for FAC. ——SN54129 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, this would be a good time to slow your roll and assume good faith. Reidgreg placed the article in question on the GOCE's Requests list after volunteering to review and copy-edit more than two dozen TFA candidates. That editor judged a few of them to need more copy-editing than they could perform in a short period before the TFA deadline. See Reidgreg's talk page for some details. For you to come to this page and start blurting obscenities at hard-working volunteer copy editors is simply not appropriate. If you have problems with or questions about an editor's changes, the normal procedure is to discuss them at the article's talk page or the editor's talk page. I see no evidence that you attempted to do so, but I may be missing something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything amiss here. Per WP:OWN, anyone is welcome to seek improvements to an article, featured or not. I'd like to thank Reidgreg for doing so in this case, and Twofingered Typist for volunteering to take on the task! Tdslk (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I've got to own what's been directed at me. I was pressed for time and approached this without consultation, in a way which may have been surprising or unwelcome, and this is the not-unpredictable result. @Serial Number 54129: I appreciate your candor and will certainly consider this in how I approach TFAs in the future. Beyond that, I support the copy edit which addressed many prose issues. FA criteria 1. a. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard isn't much to go on, but there are numerous essays such as Writing better articles, Use plain English, and How to improve your writing which offer more practical guidance. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(←) @Serial Number 54129: Pinging Gog the Mild, who suggested listing TFA candidates on the requests list; no good deed goes unpunished, I guess. SN54129, I hope that by the time you return from your wikibreak you've lost that battleground attitude. GtM, you should probably disclose your new copyedit practice for TFA candidates on the TFA page; some editors have a jaundiced view (somewhat justified) of the GOCE. Hell, though, we all do our best as volunteers and very little here—certainly not this—is life-or-death. All the best, Miniapolis 16:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a rotten day yesterday, very miserable. I seem to recall only having, generally, good things to say about GoCE and some of its members. Have a good weekend all, ——SN54129 16:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saw this, but I'm sleepy and this needs some thought. I'm probably going to wind up saying something about how TFT, Gog and Reidgreg do great work, but also that it wouldn't hurt for people to get a better understanding of the stresses that FA writers have to deal with. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Morning Serial Number 54129 . I trust that your day is going somewhat better today? Much of this is probably my fault. Sadly, in my world many things are. Where to start?

Some history. The WP:ERRORS team review every main page before it goes live, often under pressure and often at short notice. They do a sterling job, but still there were complaints, sometimes pointed, that basic errors were getting through in articles which were meant to be "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" and displayed on what was Wikipedia's shop window to the world. I volunteered/was volunteered (I forget which, it was traumatic) to do a little something about this. I seemed to possess the basic defensible requirements. (14 FAs over the past 11 months (maybe 15 by the end of tomorrow); 6 of which have been TFAs in the past 9 months; nearly 500,000 words of "formal" copy editing for GOCE over the past 2 years; including a couple of dozen explicit requests for pre-FAC copy edits. I am not trying to "big myself up" here, but to suggest that it was not an unreasonable thought that I had some experience in this area. In particular I have repeatedly been through the process of seeing my beloved creations eviscerated during the TFA process. I have also had some experience of calming the nerves of editors who are having their first experience of TFA. I digress.) So I reviewed every article coming up for TFA and gave it a light touch copy edit where necessary; and, for some, a rather heavier touch. It seemed to me that this sort of work really fell under GOCE's remit, so I kept them informed, and frequently sent articles which were a bit out of my areas of expertise (eg films, video games, US politicians, BLPs of media stars) to Requests. It seemed to work well.

The November TFAs were posted late, and I didn't think that I would be able to get through them. So I enrolled the assistance of Reidgreg, in whom I have almost limitless faith - no reason why anyone else should have, but I consider their copy editing skills to be of the highest order. I coordinated a rather more systematic than usual approach on their talk page - here. You can see that for Littlemore Priory scandals I commented "Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. Few edits since. However, I think that it could do with a copy edit. Do you fancy it, or shall I put it on Requests?" Reidgreg was bold and put it on Requests himself. But he is a, more or less, innocent third party in all this. GOCE are probably fourth party onlookers. (I would normally have looked at it myself, but I was feeling a little pressed; unnecessarily so, but still.) If you are unhappy with the process, that would probably be more appropriately directed at me. And apologies if the lack of information has caused you unnecessary angst.

@Reidgreg, Dank, and Miniapolis: Apologies that this has become more contentious than it needed to be. If you feel that there is anything further that I need to or could usefully explain, or if anything above seems incomplete or inaccurate, please let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to respond to this: that all sounds right to me, Gog. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly providing food for thought. At times like this I have to restrain myself from getting too cosmic ... I think there are implications here for how standard Wikipedia dogma fails all of us sometimes. But the question of the moment is simply: were TFT's edits out of line in some way? I'll go have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Part of this was (at the time, anyway) simply a misunderstanding between SN and TFT. When SN made, for instance, this reversion, it didn't mean that he was rejecting every one of TFT's edits (including the one that corrected "seeping" to "sleeping"), it meant that he preferred to work from the original version forward rather than working from the edited version backwards. TFT got the wrong idea of the nature of SN's objections, I think (and things spiraled a bit after that). I don't know what to say yet, because I don't know what people want ... maybe Gog has the same questions, I don't know. If you guys (non-sexist "guys") could have any result you wanted, what would it be? More to do, or less? More recognition for your good work and more integration with what FA and GA writers are doing, or more autonomy and less pushback? There are probably lots of workable options here, but you have to know what you want, and then we have to communicate that effectively. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dank, it's good to see you on here again. Most of this dispute has gone over my head, so forgive me if I'm talking out-of-turn here. Of course it would be nice if all WP articles had perfect grammar, spelling, article structure, etc, but that's never going to happen in such a dynamic project.

Yes I do make mistakes in spelling etc. (who doesn't?). If I'm working on a c/e and my work is reverted or conflicted, I check the diff to discover the reason. If I don't think it's a reasonable reversion (i.e. I made a silly error, made a typo, changed the meaning of a sentence, etc.), I normally try to discuss the problem with the reverting editor, I don't involve myself in content disputes or edit wars. If the problem seems to be entrenched ownership or IDHT, I'll usually abandon the c/e and move on; I have better things to do. Yes we have to communicate effectively and that goes both ways. As Jonesey95 and Miniapolis (voices of reason for whom I have much respect) point out, we're all volunteers who do our best to improve articles but some (thankfully few) editors will never be satisfied with that. I know nothing about the TFA process but if that process is malfunctioning that's neither the GOCE's fault nor it's problem. I wouldn't want to see TFA / FA / GA integrated with the Guild; I think we generally work well with those projects but we don't take our crap to their doors so they shouldn't bring their crap to ours. Baffle☿gab 18:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good to see you too. FWIW ... that's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, and I suspect that FA writers can work with that. We just need to know. Depending on how much post-FAC copyediting we're looking at, there may need to be some discussions about minor copyediting points, but I don't see any stoppers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am poking my nose in again here with a suggestion that I have made a few times, and that has worked well for me. Sometimes when I am about to begin a copy edit on an FAC or other article that people may have grown attached to, I do a three-step process. See this talk page conversation for an example. I did the following:

1. Posted a new section on the requested article's talk page, informing watchers that I was about to begin a requested copy edit.
2. Followed up with "Some problems I found while copy-editing:" (that I was unable to resolve on my own)
3. Concluded with a statement that "I am done with my copy edits" and an offer to watch the page for a while in case anyone had questions. I sometimes ask editors to ping me or put a note on my User Talk page instead, since I do not like to watch article-space pages.

This process notifies all page watchers that some action is about to occur on a page, which can head off reverts and edit conflicts. It also gives watchers an opportunity to say "Please don't start your copy-edit because [insert reason]", or "Please remember to use British English", or whatever. It then notifies those same watchers when the copy-editing process is done so that they can look for things that I missed. One final note: I usually try to give the article the benefit of the doubt when deciding whether to change a stylistic choice (like serial commas, or the use/omission of an optional "that"), since editors tend to be attached to style. If a particular style choice is inconsistently applied within the article, I will try to make it consistent, keeping my touch light. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(←) Regarding Dank's question, I prefer more autonomy and less pushback. In recent years, there's been an increased emphasis by some editors on the number of GAs, FAs, etc. on their user pages. The issue comes up frequently at RfA, and looks to me like the new editcountitis; it's not good for the overall encyclopedia if nominators are warring with copyeditors, instead of cooperating. FWIW, I copyedit in general accordance with the MoS (with an occasional dash of IAR) rather than whatever shifting consensus exists at GAN and FAC. Remember that we're all volunteers here, and can come and go as we please. All the best, Miniapolis 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have just discovered this conversation is still ongoing. For the record my edits were rejected twice—all of them—the first time with no explanation. This has now been resolved and no further edits have been made to the page. SN54129 has moved on, it's time we all did. We all have better things to do here. I do think that Jonesey95's suggestion that a note be placed on a TFA talk page when a copy edit is to begin is a good idea. I for one will do this in future. Regards to all, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested on proposed bot

This is a follow-up to the previous discussion. I am courtesy pinging users who have previously replied to this topic, as well as all GOCE coordinators: @Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, Dhtwiki, and Masumrezarock100. All GOCE members are welcome to discuss or provide feedback.

I recently reached out to the offline friend I mentioned previously. He agreed to help out, and we discussed some details/functions of the bot he plans to code. They are as follows:

• Fully automatic bot: The bot will be fully automatic, not semi-automatic. According to my friend, a semi-automatic bot requires an external site and is more difficult to implement; implementing a functioning whitelist can be difficult; and it is easier to abuse or make mistakes when using a semi-automatic bot. Therefore, a fully automatic bot is preferred. The bot will scan each request and look for certain templates, such as {{done}} or {{declined}}. It will archive requests based on the template it identifies.
• One-day delay: There will be a one-day delay before the bot archives a request. This prevents vandalism (i.e. a user spamming {{done}} or {{declined}} templates on every request). This also provides room for GOCE coordinators and users to double check things before the bot archives them.
• Reasoning templates: if requesters can add a reasoning template for each of their requests, it would significantly reduce the room for bot error. Instead of scanning text and variations (i.e. "GAN" vs "GA" vs "Good Article", etc.), the bot can simply look for reasoning templates to identify whether the request was for FAC, GAN, DYK, General Copy Edit, Other, etc. (or a combination). (Note: we would probably have to create entirely new templates for this.)
• Inline icon templates: GOCE members should use inline icon templates, such as {{declined}} and {{withdrawn}}, when reacting to changes in the status of requests. This will help the bot identify these requests and archive them accordingly.
• (Optional feature) Text archival: my friend was curious as to why the text of requests gets deleted. If desired, the text can be archived alongside the tables. They can be put in a separate section, or placed within the table. I personally think the former makes more sense. However, I do recognize that this would substantially increase the file size of the 2019 archive page, and would probably force it to be split into multiple pages (possibly by month). I'm curious to see everyone's stance on this.

My friend wishes to remain anonymous at this time in case there are any major objections. He will not begin working on the bot until there is a general consensus here. I will eventually be co-nominating the bot to WP:BRFA with him. The approval process may take several weeks. If the bot gets approved, I will be the primary point of contact. (To reiterate my rationale behind the bot: manually archiving requests is unnecessary and tedious, and there are hundreds of requests every year. The bot would reduce room for human error and save the GOCE a lot of time, especially in the long run.) Please let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions at this time. Discussion is not mandatory from anyone, but I would definitely appreciate feedback. Thank you. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does require an external site. I suggest using Wikimedia toolforge. Masum Reza^📞 04:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. The bot will be fully automatic, not semi-automatic. My friend does not want to set up an external site. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO, I don't see any need to archive the request texts. The detail in the table is enough. @Reidgreg: did a lot of analysis of 2018's requests. I suspect the table is fairly large even with the succinct detail it now holds. I imagine splitting the table into pages might make analysis a much trickier job? Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't get the ping, and must check my notification preferences . I agree with TT that the current system isn't broken, and am puzzled by the anonymity; we don't bite, and often agree to disagree on the way to consensus. Although I'm not knowledgeable about bots, I would heed Masumrezarock100's advice about Toolforge. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm 'that friend' and also Toolforge admin here. The reason developing a web interface is so much extra work is regarding the interface design (I would have to make it look nice don't I?), and security (anything that is passive, i.e. respond to an outside event instead of actively checking status could be an attack vector and must be secured; and authentication is a PITA that opens up a whole new lot of issues; and no, OAuth only solves part of them). Anonymity is because I don't want to be too involved in this besides technical help (code writing and running); Bobbychan remains the point of contact for its functionality. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: and @Bobbychan193:, we only archive requests' text when there's been some discussion about it, such as a decline or hold discussion (example here). Future coordinators can then see how we handled that particular problem and it's also there for the requester to review. Text of straightforward requests doesn't need to be archived; it's in our tabled archive for all to see. Thank you both for working on this; although the current system isn't broken and serves us well, if we find a better way to do some chore that's going to benefit the Guild in the long run. It represents a major change in our practises though, and needs to be thoroughly discussed and reviewed before it's made permanent. Good luck. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978: Thanks for your responses. It seems that the general consensus on text archival is that the text is only archived when there was a non-straightforward discussion around it. In this case, would the use of a template after the discussion ends be appropriate? I imagine if someone wanted text to be archived, then inserting a template can help the bot identify that the text needs to be archived rather than deleted (in addition to archiving in the table format). Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's any kind of controversy about a request, that's going to come up before the request is completed, so there should be plenty of opportunity for discussion to be moved to the Requests talk page. If the 'straightforward' text is desired after it's been 'deleted', we can always use the 'completed' date to find the text in the page history. (I've sometimes done that when there are typos in dates or missing request reasons.) When I do the annual report, I export the archive tables into a single spreadsheet; extraneous data could make that a little more difficult but not an insurmountable problem. I'll review extant inline icon templates. We should probably create an edit notice like Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders so that requesters and copy editors can view the available templates (and I'm sure our kind coder friend would also like to know the ones we'll be using). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

One place where preserving the request text might be useful would be in a 'log file' of the bot's actions, showing the original text and then the data added to the archives table, so that we can verify that the bot is doing what we want it to do. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contribs exists for exactly this reason. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Sounds good. Are you willing to help create the icon templates (or find existing ones we can use)? Also, could you or someone else handle creating the edit notice as well? To be honest, I am not familiar with either template creation or edit notices. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I should be able to code an edit notice. If we want it to show for every edit, rather than just when using the Submit a Request button, an admin may have to move it to a special location (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests).

Thinking about implementation of the edit notice, I feel that request reason templates might be unnecessarily complicated. We'd have to list more than a dozen cryptic templates like {{GOCEGAN}} along with what they represent in the edit notice, so why not simply list the established acronyms instead? Simpler instructions are usually easier to follow, existing users of the request service wouldn't have to learn a new system, and newer requesters wouldn't have an additional burden (keeping in mind that some are referred by DYK or GAN reviewers, and may already be dealing with a lot). I'm wholly in favour of the inline icon "status" templates (will list some in a subsection below.) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Created an edit notice mockup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/RequestsIntro – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: why not simply list the established acronyms instead This is a really good idea actually. I'd imagine it will work, but I'll ask Zhuyifei to be sure. Nice mockup BTW. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That is fine, and probably easier than templates. However, if someone typos then it's a typo. The person might not notice it and the bot won't recognize it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We typically have 20 days to catch a typo before a request is completed. About a quarter of requests don't have a stated reason (or are for "general copy edit") in which case the field should be blank. Sometimes there will be two purposes like DYK and GAN or GAN and FAC. Is there anything else that we should track, like "grammar" or "translation"? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I can match against multiple acronyms, until the first timestamp right? Also they must be capitalized. I don't want to match 'far' when it means something different ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Status templates

This is a list of templates to be used by copy editors to indicate the status of a Request, and to point out data for the proposed request archiving bot.

• {{Done}}  Done – Copy edit completed. This would trigger the bot to archive after a certain amount of time. The bot would use the signature/timestamp following the template to give credit on the "Copy editor's username" column of the archives table and list the completion date.
• {{Working}}  Working – undergoing copy edit.
• {{Declined}}  Declined – trigger archival – copy editor "n/a"
• {{Withdrawn}}  Request withdrawn – trigger archival – copy editor "n/a"
• {{Partly done}}  Partly done – to be used when deferring a request to another copy editor. When this is used, we would want the bot to credit each "partly done" copy editor and the "Done" copy editor on the "Copy editor's username" column of the archives table.
• {{Not done}}  Not done – as partly done, but no credit given (ie: bot can ignore). Alternatively  Deferred to avoid the trauma of a big red X?
• {{On hold}}  On hold – if a request must be held for a period but not so long as to decline.
• {{Discussing}}  Discussion ongoing...
  – talk page discussion. (links to Requests talk; link doesn't appear on talk pages)
• Maybe something like Not sure if a copy editor wants their work to be checked? The reviewer could check it and the original copy editor then use Done so that the bot gives credit to the original copy editor's signature. I think copy editors normally ask for reviews of their work – or raise other questions – on the Requests talk page, though, so maybe this isn't needed.

Please jump in with any other useful templates, and suggestions for their use (to be listed in the edit notice), as well as how they should be interpreted by the proposed bot. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

One minor thing that could be added:

• {{Unapproved}}  Not approved – similar to  Declined, but more specific: if a user makes a request outside of the scope of what the GOCE allows. Examples: IP user making a request on an article they did not contribute to, a user making more than two requests, etc.

Other than that I think the list is solid. I like the idea of giving multiple editors credit in scenarios like the ones you mentioned. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In the case of out-of-scope requests (e.g., "please fix / save / develop my article") we place the request on hold and discuss at REQ talk. In the case of excess requests, we normally ask the requester to remove the excess requests and wait 24 hours or so then, if necessary, remove them manually ourselves without archiving (see the Year in Singapore thread). The bot shouldn't get to remove anything other than dealt-with (completed, declined, abandoned etc.) requests discussed above. I'm sorry I sound like a broken record... :| Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. That makes sense. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it redundant to have both On hold and Discussing? All or nearly all On hold situations are going to have discussion, so maybe that should be assumed? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess since the bot doesn’t react to either of those templates either way, it doesn’t really matter if we have one or both. Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Timestamps

Regarding signature / timestamp, because a lot of people uses fancy signatures, there is no generic 'regular expression' to extract such information, does it make sense to require that one and only one link to a user page and timestamp may appear on the line with a status template? And for the requester, find the first timestamp and require only one and only one link to a user page and the line with the timestamp? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't imagine there will be multiple timestamps. For the lines where a username has to be extracted (initial post, partly done, done), it's possible an editor might ping or backlink someone (like the person who referred them here). Can the bot check the last userlink on a status line (i.e.: search the status line working from right to left)? To strip fancy signatures, say for [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] can't the bot take everything between [[User: and the pipe, and put it inside {{subst:u|Miniapolis}}? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

How about requiring the timestamp on the status line and the last user (or talk) link before the timestamp is taken? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Zhuyifei is requesting responses to two of his questions. Specifically: How about requiring the timestamp on the status line and the last user (or talk) link before the timestamp is taken? and Yeah I can match against multiple acronyms, until the first timestamp right? Also they must be capitalized. I don't want to match 'far' when it means something different ;) If there is any confusion surrounding these questions, please let me know. Thanks. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Both sound good, and yes the acronyms should be all caps. BTW, sometimes if an editor forgets to sign, we'll use {{subst:unsigned}}. Since it's substituted, I think the only difference is that the signature and timestamp are bracketed in <small>. I assume the bot wouldn't have any problems with that. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be doing the coding over the weekend. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

→ Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/YiFeiBot 2 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Procedures and edit notice

I trimmed the edit notice a bit (here). It could be set to collapse one or both boxes by default if it's still too long. Can it be improved at all? Do we want to track any copy edit purposes, aside from the acronyms? Can the basic procedure for completing requests be improved? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything else we want the bot to do, like maybe flagging stale copy edits (undergoing copy edit for 7 days with no updates)? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Flagging 'stale' requests would be useful to bring them to our attention; I don't always pick them up quickly. I'd prefer the actual checking and chasing-up process to remain a task for humans though. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Trial period at BRFA

@Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and Zhuyifei1999: Just letting everyone know that the bot is currently in trial mode. Zhuyifei has requested to avoid manually archiving requests during this trial period. For more information, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/YiFeiBot 2. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've put up a notice box on the Requests page and a line in the GOCE Ombox to not manually archive requests. Since this is going 'live' we should have the editnotice moved over. @Miniapolis: it requires an admin, so could you please perform a page move of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/RequestsIntro → Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. That way the edit notice should show up for any edits to the Requests page. Thanks. I believe it's as simple as a page move but if there are any issues please let me know. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I made a technical request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted; thanks for you hard work, Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan. An edit notice on the current request archive page might be useful too. It might have been useful to use mock-up pages first, but here we are. I'll be closely watching the bot's behaviour. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hope I didn't break anything; I moved the page as requested, and removed the sandbox message box. Let me know if I need to fix anything. All the best, Miniapolis 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've been keeping track of the GOCER and 2019 Archive page histories, and it appears that the bot is working properly! Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Other discussions

For the sake of keeping all bot-related discussions in one area, I'm copy-pasting two discussions here from elsewhere on the talk page. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Archiving bot basics

I'm writing a short review here of how archiving works with the bot. We tried to get it to work along our established practises, the essentials of which will soon be are up in an edit notice.

• Automatic archival of a request is made only after one of the following templates is used: {{done}}, {{declined}} or {{withdrawn}}. There's a 24-hour delay before archival so that a coordinator can review and remove the template if it was added prematurely.
• The first signature in the section is used for the "requestor's" column of the archive table. The signatures following the {{done}} and any {{partly done}} templates give credit on the "copy editor" column. {{Unsigned}} can be used if an editor forgets to sign.
• Acronyms for copy edit purposes can be anywhere in the section. So if the requester doesn't use a valid acronym, the copy editor can state it on the working or done line.

That's it. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: If you click on the template code in the edit notice, it should paste the code into the edit window. But you may have to move the text insertion point (cursor) to the bottom before clicking. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the bot asleep today? There's a couple of done templates from 28th Sept still waiting for archiving, as of my timestamp. It has worked well so far. Baffle☿gab 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: The trial period is over, so the bot is currently on hold. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That would explain it... thanks Bobbychan; I'll amend the page and manually archive them. It did a good job, I think. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Assuming it doesn't take too long to review the bot's performance-to-date – and that there are no problems – it can probably be brought back on soon enough. For now, I'd prefer to leave the no manual archiving notices in place, rather than cause any confusion by taking them down and back up again. I'll try to review the bot's edits after checking the drive awards. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thought I should point out I just archived a request that did not include a specific reason GAN, DYK etc... but was simply a request. Since there is no code (REQ, for example) can the bot still archive it? Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: When there is no specific reason, the bot simply leaves that column blank. Also, the bot is currently on hold because it is waiting for BAG approval. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Bobbychan193: Of course! Thanks, stupid question. It's a great tool, by the way. I hope it continues in use.Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The summary is pretty much correct, except for edge cases about this 'signature detection' that has been clarified above. {{unsigned}} must be substituted if used for what the bot will recognize as a 'signature'; the bot will not parse the the templates to find signatures (and there are a family of unsigned templates...)

The template detection is case-insensitive regex-based. These are matches:

• {{partly_done}}
• {{ParTlY donE}}
• <!--{{partly done}}-->
• <nowiki>{{partly done}}</nowiki>

These are non-matches:

• {{ partly done }}
• {{tl|partly done}}

I should also clarify that the bot will expect a properly-formatted archive page (like Special:Permalink/870482277) before it runs. It will not create the page if it doesn't exist, and if one entry should be added to a non-existent page (or otherwise can't find the table to add to) then it will skip that entry and not archive the section. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you add {{subst:unsigned}}, please don't sign yours after {{subst:unsigned}}. It's always the last signature & user (or user talk) link that counts. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Zhuyifei1999; would it be okay to add this to an information sub-page? I'm thinking of writing one for the benefit of future requesters, copy-editors and coordinators once the bot is approved and running indefinitely. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I can clarify anything if needed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Bot archiving

Hi there. I have noticed that the bot hasn't archived in 10 days. Is it back to manual archiving now? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The trial period is over, so the bot is currently on hold. We are awaiting further notice from the Bot Approvals Group. Bobbychan193 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended trial

@Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, Willbb234, and Zhuyifei1999: Just letting everyone know that the bot has been granted an extended trial after Zhuyifei implemented Baffle's request for a more helpful edit summary. We should again avoid manually archiving requests during this trial period. As always, see the BRFA page for more information.

If a coordinator could update the banners/templates again, that'd be great. Thanks everyone. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated to the trial, but I found it interesting that the idea for an archiving bot was floated as early as 2011. Here we are eight years later. A lot of manual archiving work could've been saved, but even more future work will be saved thanks to Zhuyifei. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice is now back in the banner on the Requests page and struck the archiving instructions in the collapse box (of the same page). Trial is expected to conclude around 26 October. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both, an extended trial will be good to see how the bot copes with different situations (people do strange things on REQ sometimes!). I'm glad the edit summaries could be improved; it's good to see what's been archived without having to check diffs etc., and will be useful for problem-solving if we have any issues. Yes, we could have saved a lot of time but we got fewer c/e requests in those days and we've become skilled at archive management, and have established a practical archiving system through practice so it's all to the good. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks; I missed the banner before archiving Mandate for Palestine . All the best, Miniapolis 20:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I welcome its return!! Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

September requests

As we finish up the last of the requests from September, this will be a good test case for the bot. Zhuyifei is curious to see whether the bot will correctly delete the "September 2019" header. As such, we should ideally finish copy editing the remaining September requests by 10/26, because the extended trial will end on 10/27. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea and quite do-able with enough editors. I'll probably finish my current request by tomorrow and the remaining articles aren't huge – I think the Eurovision one is the longest but it's full of tables. The trial has gone well and I'm pleased with the edit summaries appearing in my watchlist. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bot approved!

The bot has been approved at BRFA! Thanks to all who contributed/participated, and thanks for patiently waiting! Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you so much to you and your friend! Tdslk (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978 and Twofingered Typist: ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Great news~ Thanks for all your work on this. It'll be a huge help to the GOCE members. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Igor Novaković

Hi all; I've just put the request (diff) for the article above on hold because it is referenced entirely from sources connected to the subject (subject's university dissertation, subject's bios on employers' websites, etc.). I've tagged it appropriately. Courtesy pinging @Serbianboy:; can you find appropriate reliable, third-party references to confirm this person's notability? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Baffle gab1978:, Igor Novaković is political and security analyst that is often quoted in the media Serbian and Balkan media, also he is academic and participant of various conferences as the moderator and the speaker. I am sending to you several sources in hope that it will prove that he is relevant:

• His conference attendances:
  • https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2015/10/22/clear-on-europe-conference-on-the-dialogue-between-belgrade-and-pristina/
  • https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2016/07/13/normalization-of-relations-and-european-integration-of-serbia-and-kosovo/
  • http://www.belgradeforum.org/speaker/moderator-igor-novakovic/ (he is frequent moderator of the panel on the largest political and security related event - Belgrade Security Forum)
• His statements and interview for press:
  • https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/odnos-elita-klju%C4%8D-za-pomirenje/30254387.html (in Serbian)
  • https://www.danas.rs/politika/zarzecki-u-srbiji-u-osmatrackoj-misiji/ (in Serbian)
  • https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2019/03/06/art-deal-washingtons-push-final-agreement-serbia-kosovo/ (in English)
  • https://www.blic.rs/vesti/politika/pitali-su-gradane-srbije-da-li-treba-da-idemo-u-zagrljaj-putinu-ili-ka-eu-a-ovo-su/ky111fr (in Serbian)
  • http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/politika/aktuelno.289.html:827406-Istrazujemo-Evropska-unija-novcem-iz-fondova-zeli-da-otrgne-Srbiju-iz-zagrljaja-Rusije-i-Kine (in Serbian)
  • https://www.oslobodjenje.ba/dosjei/intervjui/igor-novakovic-nas-je-saveznik-nato-415127 (his interview for Bosnian newspaper)
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCN2pFt1DA&feature=emb_title (his interview for regional N1 television)
  • http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijesti/euroazijska-i-evropska-unija-sizofrenost-vanjske-politike-srbije (in Bosnian)
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQ7sGh2Upo
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f5u2i8QeaY (his interview for the television RT Caribrod regarding Serbian and Bulgarian relations)
  • https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2019/08/29/foreign-policy-alignment/
• His profile on various academic databases used by Wikidata:
  • https://d-nb.info/gnd/1151824348
  • https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-0764
  • https://viaf.org/viaf/13151836547820402948
  • https://www.worldcat.org/identities/containsVIAFID/13151836547820402948

These are just several. I could use all of these sources, but I am not sure where to put it in his Wiki page. VuXman ^talk 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Serbianboy. Copyedits are usually requested for stable articles (not new ones) which are ready to be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article. I agree with Baffle gab1978 that the article's subject may not meet WP:NACADEMIC, which seems to be the appropriate subject-specific guideline. The responsibility for adding sources is with the person who adds the material; please don't expect us to format a long list of citations for you. YouTube videos are generally unacceptable sources because of copyright concerns, and Wikipedia is not the place for a resume. If you are being paid to write this article, you must disclose that. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. All the best, Miniapolis 20:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Serbianboy has been on English Wikipedia since March 2009, which is long enough to have learnt its notability policies. The article as it stands is quite readable and doesn't seem to need a copy-edit. None of the sources above I checked have significant coverage of the subject and no, I don't fancy watching hours of Youtube videos to research this guy! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to cite to online videos, please use {{cite AV media}} with the |minutes= parameter to indicate at what point in the video the material backing up the citation is presented. (The same way one would use |page= or {{rp}} to give the page number in a book.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've marked the request Declined; please revert if necessary. The bot should archive in 24 hours. The prose looks fine to me anyway. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tribunal (The Outer Limits)

I've placed this request on hold because the article consists of only a plot summary, has no citations and has a ten-year-old {{Notability}} template. Courtesy pinging requester @NeoBatFreak: for comment; can you find any suitable sources for this article? Suggest declining with a possible trip to AfD. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @NeoBatfreak: (fixed user name). Also, I noticed that this and other Outer Limits articles use the {{cquote}} template, which articles are not supposed to use, per the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Definite deny. Too bad, that was a decent show, but even the main article for the series doesn't have a lot of good sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've marked the request Declined; please revert if necessary, the bot should remove it in 24 hrs. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of newspapers

Hi all; I've just placed the request for Lists of newspapers (diff) on hold because the requester wants us to c/e "every list of newspapers of every country"; essentially 195 list articles depending on the definition of a country and whether they have newspapers. I suggest we decline this super-request, though I'm not adverse to doing individual list articles that have significant prose content. Courtesy-pinging the requester @Thinker78:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I clicked on a dozen articles at random. None of them have significant prose content. This looks like a proposal better suited for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. Maybe someone at one of those projects would be willing to work on this project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree; this is beyond what the GOCE can do, and would tie up the project at the expense of other editors. All the best, Miniapolis 14:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that this is not a task that for which the GOCE is best suited. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for responding; request declined. I admit I didn't check the nature of the articles involved before placing the hold. I know it's 'instruction creep' but since a few editors have tried to add them, I've added "You may add one article for each request. "Super-requests" in involving multiple articles will be declined." to the panel; feel free to revert if you wish. I've self-reverted per WP:BEANS. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Women's rights in Iran

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section coped from Requests page here by me, Baffle☿gab 04:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC).

I am working on Women's rights in Iran, but the lead of the article needs to rewrite. Is there anyone who desire to give it try?Thanks!-- Saff V. (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does it need rewriting? Because it exposes the lack of women rights in the country? Careful, you have been warned previously for your editing in the article. I'm not interested in cleaning up after you again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you angry because I have asked for copy edit the lead which was included the tag, "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents"? You are warned against hounding me from page to page.Saff V. (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And how am I exactly hounding you? Sorry to disappoint but aspersions and threats aren't gonna startle me anytime soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a discussion page. Please move discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests or to Talk:Women's rights in Iran. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(←)  Working I'll take it, I'm good at wading unnecessarily into content disputes... ;) Baffle☿gab 02:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Baffle☿gab 03:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Swapping article requested

Does it matter if someone requests one article, and a few days later changes the article requested (just changes the article name in the header)? They only have the one request. It seemed odd, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We have at least one requester who does this occasionally. It's not a problem (in my opinion) unless a GOCE editor has already started working on the requested article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. It doesn't let one "game the system" by getting more requests in, so it doesn't seem like a problem. Does having a "new" request further down the queue cause problems for anyone who vets requests for suitability? – Reidgreg (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends. It's not usually a problem but I often quickly check the article to see it's suitable for a full c/e. Most requesters I'm familiar with know our standards but I do check requests from unfamiliar user names and a few of the regulars. It's usually just a few extra clicks unless a hold discussion is called for. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Kadaknath

CC-BY-SA declaration; discussion below moved from Requests page here (diff) by me, Baffle☿gab 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC).

Copy-editing only of two sentences is required. I am having difficulties. The origin of Kadaknath chicken needs to be updated according to this source. Would somebody kindly look into yhis? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: did you come to the right place? GOCE is for copy-editing (making articles more readable, improving spelling, grammar, etc.) not for requesting research. I'm not sure where to recommend; perhaps someone at WikiProject Birds could help. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 15:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Hi. Thanks for the response. Yes, I'm aware of GOCE's work The source provided above, explains the native region/origin of the chicken. I wanted to include it in the article, but without violating the copyrights. Whatever I could come up with in my mind, we're just superficial changes. So I thought I would ask someone here to include these two statements from the source to the article. However, I made this edit. Do you think it is okay? Also, apologies for my original post, I was sort of vague in it. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem; the article is short so I've added the text and given the article a full copy-edit, removed redundancies and waffle, etc. If you're happy I'll close this request; otherwise I'll leave ot open for another editor to work on. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Baffle gab. See you around —usernamekiran(talk) 21:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)