Seemingly abandoned GOCE request acceptances
For a while I've noticed that sometimes editors accept copy-edit requests which they don't complete or mark as done; this can be through forgetfulness, waning interest, sudden departure from WP or the intervention of real-life affairs. I see this mostly occurring during drives. Sometimes the copy-edits are completed but the accepting editor forgets to mark them as done. I've recently been pro-active about checking and asking about progress (or lack of). So I'd like to suggest that the GOCE adopt a formal policy or process by which accepting copy-editors are politely reminded after (say) a fortnight of apparent inactivity on the article after checking the article's history to see whether any activity by the accepting editor has occurred. If no reply is received after a week, the article can be returned to the queue or marked as done if appropriate. This would benefit the project by avoiding old requests lingering in the queue unnecessarily. What do the coordinators and other copy-editors think about this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I like this idea (and am grateful to Baffle gab1978 for doing something like it in recent months). The issue is particularly acute when requests are at the top of the queue and might have been taken on by other copy editors were it not for the lingering {{working}} tag. In those cases, I think the timescales could be even shorter than 2+1 weeks. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great idea. We could cut it to a single week, because if an editor is taking a request, the point would be that they have time to do it pretty immediately. —Torchiest talkedits 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for a good solution, Baffle; I agree that the "grace period" should be shorter (say, 1+1 weeks), and if there's no guidance on the requests page about what to do if you can't complete a copyedit I'll add something. All the best, Miniapolis 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with 1+1 weeks, along with the addition of guidance. Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. 1+1 seems a plenty reasonable timeline, given that a stale {{GOCEinuse}} is removed much more quickly than that. We don't want to rush editors, but as you say, we also don't want others dissuaded from fulfilling requests. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your comments and suggestions; I'll leave it to the coordinators to implement as you wish. I agree that a week is long enough to wait before checking and asking if the accepting editor hasn't started by then. Some articles do take a while to work through though, so I think checking is important. Anyway I'll leave it in your capable hands; thanks for considering this idea. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Further to this, I've found I've needed to ask several editors recently about the status of their copy-edits and I'm thinking of making a template to save typing. My suggested text is:
= GOCE copy-edit of [[ARTICLE]] == (if I can work out how to do section headers!)
Hi {{PAGENAME}}, you accepted a request at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests|GOCE Requests page]] to copy-edit [[ARTICLE]]. What's the current status of your copy-edit? It's been seven days since your last edit at TIME (GMT/UTC) on DATE, and you haven't declared the copy-edit '''done''' on the Requests page. Can you please let us know whether the request is completed so it can be be archived, left alone or returned to the list so another editor can do the copy-edit? If no update is received in seven days I'll strike your acceptance and open the request for other editors. Thank you for your time. ~~~~
Would other GOCE editors or coordinators find this useful for maintenance of the Requests page? Are the text and formatting acceptable or does it need changes? All suggestions welcome. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, Where do I say that i'm still working? I was just sick. 75* 16:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to us, Sɛvɪnti faɪv. Just add a note to the request saying you're still working on the article, or renew your signature there. You can remove the template from your talk page if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Template for abandoned requests
I've made a template to use when requests appear to have been abandoned. I've mainly done this to save myself typing the whole text out every time, and to make life easier for coordinators and our successors. It's currently at my sandbox and I plan to move it to Template:GOCEce-abandoned when it's ready (other suggestions welcome). Please can you check that the text and parameters are correct and appropriate? Feel free to edit the draft template as appropriate; I think the text is a little long-winded but I couldn't think of a better way to request updates. If you can improve the text and/or the parameters please do so. All comments are welcome; thanks. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it reads very well. I inserted a space between the text and the signature, and this shows up all right in the Cheese example on the documentation page itself, but not on the template page where the documentation is transcluded (even after clearing the cache). I'm puzzled about that. Anyway, great idea. --Stfg (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Simon; I haven't found the problem you describe—perhaps your space has fixed it. I found that the section divider added by the template did not include an 'edit' link; I've no idea why this should happen but I've removed the sectioning script and it appears to function well. I've also simplified the text and removed the sentence "This message is a request for an update on the progress of your copy-edit", which is redundant and stating the obvious IMO. The template's text should be clearer now; maybe I should request a thorough copy-edit just to make sure! :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hehe. It looks good. Whatever was stopping it this morning, the space in the cheese example (Emmental, maybe?) is present now. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Simon; I've now moved it to template space at Template:GOCE-ab—I thought I'd make its name shorter and easier to remember. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hehe. It looks good. Whatever was stopping it this morning, the space in the cheese example (Emmental, maybe?) is present now. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Simon; I haven't found the problem you describe—perhaps your space has fixed it. I found that the section divider added by the template did not include an 'edit' link; I've no idea why this should happen but I've removed the sectioning script and it appears to function well. I've also simplified the text and removed the sentence "This message is a request for an update on the progress of your copy-edit", which is redundant and stating the obvious IMO. The template's text should be clearer now; maybe I should request a thorough copy-edit just to make sure! :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the above template is less adaptable than i'd wanted so I've created a template based on the above one; it's for instances where the copy-editor has made no edits to the article. It's at {{GOCE-ab-noedits}} and I've added it to our templates page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Requests for Maílson da Nóbrega and Partido da Imprensa Golpista
I've put these requests on hold because of Paulmnguyen's comments on the requester's talk page and the requests page here and here; I've invited Paulmnguyen and Rauzaruku to comment here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- If nobody wants to do copyedit, ok. That's not my problem. I was trying only to evolve the article.Rauzaruku (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't be offended. I'm sure that many copy editors would love to copy edit articles on those subjects. But as Paul rightly pointed out, there's no point making the prose wonderful if the content is going to change anyway, so we need articles to be relatively free of major content issues and disputes before we work on them. The requests are only on hold -- they are still there to do when the articles are ready. --Stfg (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- My impression of the articles is that Maílson da Nóbrega looks as though a c/e would be helpful in clarifying the text. Partido da Imprensa Golpista seems to be based upon a term popularised by a blogger an used by Brazilian journalists. The article wanders miles off-topic into a coatrack piece about press censorship and freedom, Hugo Chavez and politics. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can cancel it, if you want. I'm not offended. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Rauzaruku; I'd like to see whether Paulmnguyen or anyone else comments here, so lets wait a few days. I might do a clean-up of Partido da Imprensa Golpista. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the Maílson da Nóbrega could use some work in the text; a lot of this may be due to the fact that it was translated from Spanish wiki (in May this year)... I read Spanish and Portuguese so between that and common c/e sense I should be able to clean it up. I would still be wary of tackling Partido da Imprense Golpista at this point, though. --Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying Paul; I'll return that one to the list. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the Maílson da Nóbrega could use some work in the text; a lot of this may be due to the fact that it was translated from Spanish wiki (in May this year)... I read Spanish and Portuguese so between that and common c/e sense I should be able to clean it up. I would still be wary of tackling Partido da Imprense Golpista at this point, though. --Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 20:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Rauzaruku; I'd like to see whether Paulmnguyen or anyone else comments here, so lets wait a few days. I might do a clean-up of Partido da Imprensa Golpista. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can cancel it, if you want. I'm not offended. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- My impression of the articles is that Maílson da Nóbrega looks as though a c/e would be helpful in clarifying the text. Partido da Imprensa Golpista seems to be based upon a term popularised by a blogger an used by Brazilian journalists. The article wanders miles off-topic into a coatrack piece about press censorship and freedom, Hugo Chavez and politics. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't be offended. I'm sure that many copy editors would love to copy edit articles on those subjects. But as Paul rightly pointed out, there's no point making the prose wonderful if the content is going to change anyway, so we need articles to be relatively free of major content issues and disputes before we work on them. The requests are only on hold -- they are still there to do when the articles are ready. --Stfg (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Partido da Imprensa Golpista
This article needs copyediting. Several COI editions made by a partial editor. This article needs a big cleanup and review. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly needs work. Punctuation could easily be improved, and I found what seems to be evidence of poor translations into English from Portuguese. It seems the content may be unstable... the article was recently protected against edit warring (immediately following this request at the end of October), and throughout the year has seen numerous edits, blanking, section deletion, all on controversial grounds. I therefore move to postpone a copyedit at this time. I am willing to help improve the article when the text settles. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 10:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
On hold until we know what's going on with this article. See the discussion on this page's talk page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)- I've declined this request, but have done a clean-up job, which I have not recorded in the archives, on it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Maílson da Nóbrega
This article needs copyediting. Several COI editions made by a partial editor. This article needs a big cleanup and review. A bunch of unreliable sources like Observatorio da Imprensa (a famous leftlist blog), Revista Brasileiros (I never saw this "magazine" in any place), Sindigas (a syndicate site!!), Teoria e Debate (unknown blog) and another partial blogs who looks like serious sites, but aren't. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Again, as with Partido da Imprensa Golpista requested above, this article is also the subject of a content dispute and edit war between you and the same editor. It also contains grammatical issues that would warrant a copyedit, but such work is not well-invested before the article reaches a stable point. I've tagged the article for copyediting and unreliable sources, but also move to postpone that to a later date. Note that the issues you raise (and likely rightly so) about unreliable sources, are not the subject matter of copyediting - that is a content and research question to be resolved in other departments by competent editors. Thank you. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 10:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- C/e done;(Redacted). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I started copy-editing this article upon request of User:Bladesmulti (currently blocked). I was about halfway through when the article was renamed and my work was reverted by User:Mangoe. See the article's talk page. I've abandoned my c/e because the article is unstable and I wonder whether we should decline for now. I've invited both users to comment here; we should wait a few days until Bladesmulti's block expires. Also see Mangoe's response on my talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am unblocked. And I will soon check. Well, i will talk to Mangoe if they have any objection. Seems like they do have, but with the title. Thanks for your copyedits once again. May I simply post on your talk page next time, if i need more copyediting? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Bladesmulti; I don't accept copy-edit requests directly, but feel free to add it to the Requests page, though it might not be me who does the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline; article not stable, copy edits will likely not be retained. Can you please post a new section on the article's Talk page explaining that a c/e was requested, that it has been declined because the article is not stable enough to c/e, and that the GOCE will be happy to return to c/e the article when it is more stable? If it reaches that point, an editor should return to the GOCE Requests page and post a new request at the bottom of the page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Jonesey; I'll make a note over on the articles talk page then archive the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Can't log a completion; Archive search broken?
I've just finished copyediting Hukbalahap Rebellion, after a long hiatus. I don't think I originally tagged it with the "Working" template when I started (back in October!). It's listed under Category:All articles needing copy edit. I've added the GOCE template to the Talk page, but when I type Hukbalahap Rebellion in the Archive search box on the Requests page, I get
- The page "Hukbalahap Rebellion prefix:Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/" does not exist.
It looks like the search mechanism is broken. Help, someone? Please {{ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: Looking back up this Talk page, I think User:Baffle_gab1978 may be the one to fix the archive search. --Thnidu (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Thnidu: Articles with the {{copy edit}} tag on are different from requests. You did the right thing by removing the tag, and nothing else needs doing. By the way, requests are sections within Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, not subpages of it, so a search like that would never work. You can see all requests (as opposed to tagged articles) by going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and doing a text search. Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from request page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Need to change all quoted material into normal text. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Done @Kailash29792: I changed some of the quotes and copyedited. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- No not yet. I expected the CE to happen long later. I also happened to find some content from this, which is hard to reproduce in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: Well this is the Guild of Copy Editors... -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- Yes, and one editor from the guild told me they edit in an order and not randomly. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's one user's opinion. Not everyone needs to start from the top. And, are you Maalavika Manoj Why'd you add all of that first-person stuff to the article?
- A clarification from a Guild Coordinator (i.e. me): our most frequent "Requests" editors choose articles from the top of the list, but editors may choose any articles they wish for copy editing. Tastes and practices vary. Thanks!
- P.S. This request will be archived (removed from this page) in the next day or so. If you are in the process of expanding the article substantially, you can post a new request at the bottom of this page when you are done. Not too soon or too frequently, please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok the final thing: I have hidden some quoted material in the article under the name "religious views". Pls finish copy editing that, and the request here can be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out by another editor, she is not a religious figure, and her religious views are not notable. In any case, since it was written in the first person, the source you took it from must be a primary source. Wikipedia is not a social networking service. I have removed the HTML comment containing that copyright material. --Stfg (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's one user's opinion. Not everyone needs to start from the top. And, are you Maalavika Manoj Why'd you add all of that first-person stuff to the article?
- Yes, and one editor from the guild told me they edit in an order and not randomly. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: Well this is the Guild of Copy Editors... -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- No not yet. I expected the CE to happen long later. I also happened to find some content from this, which is hard to reproduce in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we decline the request for the above article here (see conversation); the requester indicates that s/he plans to expand the article and therefore it isn't ready for a copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are still 14 articles pending. U may edit Kalidas after them. That's all I said, and I can expand the article within that time. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Kalidas (film)
CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from Requests page hereBaffle gab1978 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hoping to take it to GA, and eventually FA status. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Working: although I note that significant changes were made to the article since its recent GOCE copyedit on 12 January 2014. - tucoxn\talk 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please place on hold. Once the previous article's CE's have finished, this can have it's CE. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792:, this looks fairly stable (one change by you since 29 January) and I can see no reason it shouldn't be copy-edited right away. If you are making major changes that will affect an ongoing copy-edit, you can remove the request and re-add it to the bottom of the page when it is ready for a proper c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am due to add more sources to the article. Once it is on the top list, active copy editing may continue. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, I suggest we decline this request because the article is clearly not ready for a proper copy-edit. I've opened a conversation at this page's talk page here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok I have finished expanding the article. You may start the copy editing now. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, I suggest we decline this request because the article is clearly not ready for a proper copy-edit. I've opened a conversation at this page's talk page here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am due to add more sources to the article. Once it is on the top list, active copy editing may continue. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792:, this looks fairly stable (one change by you since 29 January) and I can see no reason it shouldn't be copy-edited right away. If you are making major changes that will affect an ongoing copy-edit, you can remove the request and re-add it to the bottom of the page when it is ready for a proper c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please place on hold. Once the previous article's CE's have finished, this can have it's CE. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
See requester's talk page here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, I just wish I could have written it like it now reads :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a competition
I have noticed that some editors just do one or two edits on articles and then put them up at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014. I think it would benefit all users and the Wikipedia itself if users involved in this project did not see it as a compeition to add as many articles as possible to that list each day. But instead focused on doing great edits on the articles that has been requested.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A reminder that copyediting is not cleanup—on January 8, User5482 (ahem) greatly expanded this article, expanding it further six days later. The next day (January 15), George Ho requested a copyedit with the comment that "the article may be too long to edit" (which made me wonder why an edit was being requested but hey, I'm game). However, at 24K words the present article clearly violates WP:TOOLONG. Since it seems to be equally about the song and the music video, a split into two shorter (much shorter—it's pretty padded and has POV issues) articles—one on the song and one on the video—is in order; for that reason, I'm declining the request. Please keep in mind when re-requesting that an article should be stable before a copyedit request (as it would have to be for GA and FA). All the best, Miniapolis 17:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Decline. I agree and I note that George doesn't appear to have been actively involved with this article, and we're not here to sort out everyone else's mess. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if the article would qualify for a separate page on its overall influence and/or music video, but regarding its length I definitely agree that its necessary. Its lengthy due to its significance and impact within popular culture and entertainment, I've also seen several other related topics which are split into separate articles for influence, etc. for the same reasons. I'd like to make a separate page for its music video and also for its influence if possible. I'll try to split and condense them asap. Regards, User5482 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea to me, and would make both sections more readable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration: moved from the Requests page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This article appears to be translated from Arabic. Several chunks have been commented out by someone as unintelligible - suspect they are not. Likely worth referring to the Arabic original via Google translate or similar. -Arb. (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Copy editing is not cleanup. If you don't understand what those things mean, chances are that neither will we. I recommend tagging it with {{Rough translation}} and following the instructions on the resulting boilerplace to request a translation of the original article. That is, if it's notable -- the current article has not a single source. I recommend GOCE declining this request. --Stfg (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll do it. Working. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Exceeded requests limit - two editors gently notified
Two editors have each posted a third simultaneous request after the March 16 change to a limit of two requests. I have posted gentle notes on their Talk pages letting them know about the change and asking them to remove one of their requests.
I have processed the whole list as of this writing. There are a few editors with three requests, but all of those were posted prior to the limit change. I found only these two editors with requests in excess of the limit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I must have been asleep on the job! I've thought about writing a template for that purpose if it becomes a common occurrence; do you think it would be useful? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake guys. Sorry for the inconvenience. Might I suggest a 1 request limit at one time. To limit the work load for you all. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- We may consider that in the future, but imo we should see how the current limit works first. The change will take a while to feed through anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake guys. Sorry for the inconvenience. Might I suggest a 1 request limit at one time. To limit the work load for you all. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
A template would be nice (but knowing myself, I'd probably forget to use it). Feel free to work from the text I posted at BabbaQ's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Indef-blocked account apparently of banned user has c/e requests pending
The editor Theparties has been blocked for being apparently a sock account of banned user User:23prootie (see Sockpuppet investigation). The requests are for the articles Fernanda Lima, Imelda Marcos and Imelda (film). Does anyone object to the removal these requests, which are in the February 2014 section? I'm happy to wait a few days to see if the account has been identified thus in error. Meanwhile I've struck them with a note so that innocent editors don't waste their time working on them. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I've refactored your comment slightly, as Imelda is a disambiguation page. The request title is a piped link to Imelda (film). Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not experienced in the SPI aspect of this, so I will defer to others on whether WP culture recommends ignoring/declining requests from SPs.
- As for the articles themselves, Imelda (film) is short, already a GA, and should be a quick edit. Imelda Marcos is longer (3,000 words) and has been nominated for GA status by the blocked editor. The GA nomination has not begun; I started a review page and recommended that the review be closed if appropriate. Fernanda Lima was nominated for GA status and quickly failed for reasons that would require significant changes to the content, so the article is not yet ready for a GOCE copy edit.
- I propose, unless SP editors are to be treated harshly (which would be fine with me; I just have no experience in this realm) that we give a quick copy edit to Imelda (film), since we owe our readers GAs with good prose. I think we have valid grounds to decline the other two requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think your proposal is a good one, Jonesey. Theparties has been on my watchlist since I twice had to remove his/her fourth c/e request. Unless Theparites has been misidentified, the sockmaster is site banned and we're allowed to delete or revert his/her contribututions (banning policy; "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good". I'll have a quick go at Imelda (film) tonight. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I copy-edited the film article, but I'm not going to officially record it or claim it for the drive. I'll archive them all as Declined since there hasn't been any evidence of misidentification. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think your proposal is a good one, Jonesey. Theparties has been on my watchlist since I twice had to remove his/her fourth c/e request. Unless Theparites has been misidentified, the sockmaster is site banned and we're allowed to delete or revert his/her contribututions (banning policy; "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good". I'll have a quick go at Imelda (film) tonight. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I propose, unless SP editors are to be treated harshly (which would be fine with me; I just have no experience in this realm) that we give a quick copy edit to Imelda (film), since we owe our readers GAs with good prose. I think we have valid grounds to decline the other two requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Baffle gab1978, I appreciate your hard work. I can now enjoy reading the text. :) Borsoka (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No worries; because I c/e'd in November I didn't have to make many changes, and I wanted a quickie for the drive. ;-) Good luck with your GA nom, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This blitzes business is weird
Now we are at it again. These Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2014 business is making users do short and incomplete copy-editing like in the case of Murder of Sherri Rasmussen. Not that the article needed major work but two small edits, come on we all know the article probably needed more work. Either do your work as you yourself has assigned to do or do not do at all. Just being frank. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but why would the "blitz" format make you do work other than in the normal way? Regardless of whether or not its the month long backlog format, or during periods when there are no "contests", the effort should be the same, no? Onel5969 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: Excuse me? I did my best to look over that article. If little changed, then it's very likely little even needed to change. Perhaps the article has other needs, needs that a copyedit cannot address. You yourself say the article may not necessarily have needed "major work", but I didn't see anything glaring about the article. I checked over it, and being a stickler for grammar myself I didn't see much that even needed improvement. I have some pretty high standards for grammar if I do say so myself, and if there's anything that needs fixing that I overlooked and should not have, WP:SOFIXIT. Turning it over to the Guild of Copy Editors isn't an excuse for not doing anything yourself, it's just a second pair of eyes looking over your work. My apology is only to cover the fact that there were sentences in there that weren't even coherent to me (I know there was at least one) so I did my best to fill in the missing words; all I asked is that if you found any such instances that resulted in a change of meaning from the facts then please fix it as soon as you can to avoid anyone from being misled by the article. It is as I see it a sensitive subject where errors are not to be taken lightly and anything that inadvertently changes the meaning of a sentence from what was intended to something entirely different needs to be addressed right away. If in the end I did no such thing, then okay, I'm glad. I just figured since you nommed it here, you had some expertise in the subject and you'd be able to help me out in that regard, fixing what I accidentally broke but doing so in a grammatically-sound way.
- You're welcome, by the way. Sorry I tried. LazyBastardGuy 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have found that some Requests require much less copy editing than a typical article tagged with {{copyedit}}. The latter usually means that someone found the text so challenging that they didn't just fix it. The former is often an article that has been worked on with care. I read about eight random paragraphs from the current version of the article mentioned above and found them to be surprisingly well-written, well above the usual WP fare.
- It's not always true that Requests are better-written, but that has been my experience. Some Requests require very few copy edits. Editors are welcome to do more than copy editing, like removing puffery, fixing formatting, adding {{convert}} to numbers with units, and formatting references, but none of that that is required.
- BabbaQ, specificity, rather than generic "we all know" statements, would help. If you find examples of needed copy editing that were missed in this article, I encourage you to fix them yourself or post examples here, in a friendly, constructive way. Maybe we can all learn from each other and become more thorough copy editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Phew, okay, I've calmed down a bit. I'm sorry if I was a bit snippy with my initial response above. I'm still a little irritated by what I feel to be BabbaQ's implication, and for the moment it's put me off further copyediting, but hopefully we can work it out. If there's nothing to fix, one cannot prove there remains something to be fixed. I'm in a better mood and would like to hear how the copyedit was, in your view (and I quote from my talk page), "anything but complete". LazyBastardGuy 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline Silent Spring?
Onel5969 is concerned here and here that this article has problems, including POV and uncited text, that need fixing before a proper copy-edit can occur. I agree with his/her assessment and I think we should decline the request. GOCE is not Cleanup. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will defer to the judgement of these two editors. I suggest notifying the requester with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's OK I'll take the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Beta editor - adding 1400+ spaces without notifying me?
Is there some facet of the "Beta editor" that has made it into a semi-autonomous editor? I made a little change, trying to place a date in a sentence, and simply moved "in 19XX" to an earlier place in the sentence, and changed "he joined" to "joining".
When I looked at the edit history, I was amazed that it was telling me I had added 1,459 characters!! It seems that while I was moving the text around, something or someone added lots of spaces to the punctuation of the refs ... has it always done this? Should it be doing this? I am reluctant to ever use this beta feature again if it really is doing things and making changes I have no idea about, and then telling the world that I did it - not good! Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- From your diff it looks as though the visual editor has added a lot of spaces to the article in citations etc. I'd stick to the trusty edit window if I were you! ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll pursue the matter through the beta editor pages, just wanted to see if someone else had noticed anything similar, and to let ppl know. I guess it won't cause too much of an issue on larger edits, or on wikimarkup - as the beta editor stops the edit and forces into normal editing mode if it detects changes to wikimarkup, such as refs or links etc.
- When changing a single punc. mark, or a couple of words, it is easier to use the beta, and as it is live, one does not need to preview, as it is changed live in front of your eyes ... ah well, I guess they did not cover that eventuality. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like an issue with the VisEd Beta and {{sfn| & {{sfnm| templates. Further info - (MediaWiki) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Impressed
The current total of 35 requests is the lowest I've ever seen. Great job on the blitz, everyone! --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great use of sarcasm there ... lets try and keep things positive, perhaps a little spin? "35 requests, although disappointing, has allowed us to see areas in which we can improve." - nah, not working ...
- I will be returning more over the next few months as my RL commitment level drops off and I can get back to GOCE again, it has been an annoying period of abstinence. I did join a little late in this one, but every little helps and 35 is better than none :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I am impressed as well (no sarcasm here, and I didn't perceive any in Stfg's post). It was a great blitz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah! Apologies, I guess you meant "total of 35 requests left", rather than "35 completed". Chaosdruid (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Sally Kellerman
May I please request someone to copy/edit the article on Sally Kellerman, that I have worked tremendously hard on. I am trying to make her article meet GA standards. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avario87 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I will move your request to the Requests page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Jack Parsons & absence
Hi all
Apologies for my absence, had an abscess come up on my neck after an insect bite, recovered(ish) now, so back to it tonight or tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yikes. Glad you're on the mend. Take care and all the best, Miniapolis 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- RL drama over, copyedit finished - apologies for the delays. An interesting read indeed! Have asked for a coordinator to give it a look over due to it being the first big CE after a fairly long break, and have marked as done on the req list. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that we now remove this request. User:Jaytwist did some nice cleanup on it back on 28 April, and I've just fixed the format of the citations. There remains plenty to do on the article, yes, but I think what it needs right now is scoping, expansion and better sourcing, not copy editing. I rather agree with what User:LukasMatt said on the article's talk page about the article, and those comments can be used by article developers in future. Imo the more personal aspects of those comments are very unfortunate -- we are here to help.
May I suggest that in future we avoid de-tagging tagged articles and adding them to the requests. The main effect is to bump them up the priority at the expense of other articles. The purpose of the requests is for us to help those editors who are putting effort into articles and want help with prose, not to become an article rescue facility. In fact I'd like to propose that we systematically decline requests for articles from people who have neither worked on the article nor indicated any intention to advance the article themselves. --Stfg (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- What "personal aspects"? Quotations, please. I wrote those comments to provide helpful guidance to the author.
- --LukasMatt (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Otherwise, Stfg, your remarks are perfectly on the mark. I appreciate your support.
- --LukasMatt (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've refactored so that my comment isn't broken up. An example of "personal aspects": "I do not think the authors have put sufficient effort into it". And, especially in the context of that opener, things like "You must test every external link in an article. If you find an error, you must make an effort to fix it.", while obviously sound, can come across as critical and bossy when phrased like that. "You make a good effort (though overzealous [smiley] )", in the context of these criticisms, is patronizing. As I said, I agree with the advice, but when we make such points in the second person, tone becomes vital. The creator of the article has a Russian username. I don't know his level of English-language or wiki skills, but I think he was making a contribution, and we could be gentle about skills.
- By the way, it's unusual to put {{GOCEreviewed}} on the talk page of an article for which there's a request; more normal to discuss directly with the requester. By and large, GOCEreviewed is for when we decide, for whatever reason, to remove a copyedit tag without copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I must disagree. As an active GOCE member for over three years, I have never seen an editor raked over the coals like this simply for submitting a copyedit request. Stfg, you're probably unaware of this rant, which IMO (combined with this) has a chilling effect on the whole request process. I, for one, do not like being bullied, and the requesting editor is doing more for the GOCE than LukasMatt is. Miniapolis 20:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, it's unusual to put {{GOCEreviewed}} on the talk page of an article for which there's a request; more normal to discuss directly with the requester. By and large, GOCEreviewed is for when we decide, for whatever reason, to remove a copyedit tag without copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
A process comment from the lead coordinator of the GOCE (that's me): rejecting a copy edit Request should be done only after discussion on this Requests Talk page and confirmation from one or more of the GOCE coordinators. A lone editor, even a GOCE coordinator or other very experienced editor, should not make that decision unilaterally.
We have rejected some copy edits in the past few months after reasoned discussion on this page. We have also accepted and copy-edited articles whose rejection was proposed, or found some middle way involving future resubmission by the requesting editor.
LukasMatt and other copy editors, in the future please post any queries about specific article requests on this page. I always find it helpful to bounce ideas off of my fellow copy editors (a good and constructive group, by and large), especially when I'm feeling like posting a rant somewhere.
As for this particular article, I propose rejecting it as a Request, re-tagging it with the copyedit tag, and adding some additional constructive comments and links to sources or example articles to the Talk page. I would appreciate hearing feedback on this proposal from Baffle gab1978 (GOCE coordinator) and Dthomsen8 (the requester). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the request should be declined; the article has only two references and is subject to further development, making a full c/e pointless. FWIW I've given it a quick c/e and add appropriate tags. GOCE isn't Cleanup. I hope that will be satisfactory to everyone here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Pipe industry of Russia
(moved from Reqests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)) This is an important article being threatened with AfD deletion, but the decision was Keep. It has a Copyedit tag, which I will remove to conform to the instructions above. This is the first time I have made a request here, so please let me know if there is anything improper about this request.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not done (yet :-)); please see my talk page. Miniapolis 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- And I don't think it needs it. Please see the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've done a quick cleanup c/e; I second decline. See my talk page comments (above link). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- And I don't think it needs it. Please see the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not done (yet :-)); please see my talk page. Miniapolis 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Baffle gab1978, thank you for your thorough and bold copyedit on the article about an unhappy Hungarian monarch. Sorry for the stupid mistakes I made, I must concentrate in the future. I hope this will be our next GA in a couple of weeks. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No worries; anyone can make typing mistakes—I make them on-wiki quite often. Good luck with the GA nom. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Although I jumped at the chance to take a break from pop culture, IMO this article (formerly Sloviansk standoff) is much too unstable for a copyedit at this time. All the best, Miniapolis 23:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- A clear decline, without prejudice to future resubmission when the article is more stable. Any copy edits we might do now would be wiped out in short order. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed; the article describes ongoing events and is massively unstable. I'll
inform the requesterand archive (Miniapolis has already informed her/him; thanks :-)). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed; the article describes ongoing events and is massively unstable. I'll
I accepted this article for copyediting because it was next on the list, not realizing that it was the subject of an edit war between the nominator and Beyond My Ken, who claims "stewardship" (a euphemism for ownership) and reverted with a keystroke a couple of hours of painstaking copyediting. Therefore, I'm done with this one; if anyone else feels up to this hornets' nest, good luck. All the best, Miniapolis 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am quite surprised that, as an admin. you are not familiar with the concept of "stewardship", since it is embodied at WP:STEWARDSHIP, a section of the ownership policy page. It is not a euphemism, but a real relationship with an article of a different nature than ownership. However, it does, unfortunately, require a certain amount of good judgement to differentiate between the two. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- As an admin, I'm quite familiar with the difference between stewardship and ownership. Stewardship acknowledges collaboration; when "stewardship" exerts a chilling influence on other editors (get my approval for all edits, or I'll revert), it becomes ownership. Reversion of good-faith edits should be based not on IDONTLIKEIT, but on policy. Miniapolis 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am quite surprised that, as an admin. you are not familiar with the concept of "stewardship", since it is embodied at WP:STEWARDSHIP, a section of the ownership policy page. It is not a euphemism, but a real relationship with an article of a different nature than ownership. However, it does, unfortunately, require a certain amount of good judgement to differentiate between the two. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- The article has seen lots of activity in the last 24 hours—including some tit-for-tat reversions that indicate an ongoing edit war (or skirmish at least). I've put the request On hold; shall we wait a week to see whether the dispute is settled? If the edit-war continues after the week, I agree we should decline it as unstable. Anyone else? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Deoliveirafan and Beyond My Ken and Howunusual: I am mentioning you here because you have made recent edits to this article. The Guild of Copy Editors prefers to take copy edit requests on articles that are stable enough that thorough copy editing will have a positive, somewhat long-lasting effect on the article. If you can discuss and agree on the article's Talk page (not on this page; off-topic discussion posted here will be removed) that you are willing to take a break from the article, we will be happy to come back and give it a thorough copy edit, after which you can discuss (on the article's Talk page) any edits that you see as inaccurate or inconsistent.
- The article could benefit from a copy edit. I see, for one thing, that quotation marks are used inconsistently. A competent copy editor will clean up that inconsistency and a hundred other minor errors, leaving the article in better shape. Please post a note here if you can come to an agreement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted an outline of the edits I made to the article on its talk page, to make it easier for anyone to comment on them, section by section. I would point out that a period of quiescence, because one editor withholds themselves from both editing the article and engaging in discussion on the talk page about the edits (as opposed to the editor), does not define a "stable article". The article will only be "stable" when the editors interested in improving it discuss changes to the article together and come to some consensus about them.
I therefore suggest that Guild copyeditors should not take up the article again until they see that all parties are involved in productive discussion and have reached a consensus. BMK (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted an outline of the edits I made to the article on its talk page, to make it easier for anyone to comment on them, section by section. I would point out that a period of quiescence, because one editor withholds themselves from both editing the article and engaging in discussion on the talk page about the edits (as opposed to the editor), does not define a "stable article". The article will only be "stable" when the editors interested in improving it discuss changes to the article together and come to some consensus about them.
- The article could benefit from a copy edit. I see, for one thing, that quotation marks are used inconsistently. A competent copy editor will clean up that inconsistency and a hundred other minor errors, leaving the article in better shape. Please post a note here if you can come to an agreement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you.
I have always been very satisfied with the work of the Copy Editors Guild soI would appreciate giving this article another chance after about a week. I will personally not work on it until then. My only comment is that in two of the sections I experimented with block citations at the end of each paragraph, which I quickly decided that I didn't like and will eventually put all of the citations after the correct sentences. Otherwise I completely agree that the article could use a good CE from an honest User.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you.
I've reviewed Beyond my Ken's talk page comments and I agree his changes are benign. Since two of the three the two editors in this dispute agree the article should be copy-edited, I'm willing to take it on a) after the week's hold has passed and b) once I've finished whatever c/e I'm doing at the time. Like every editor here, my edits are subject to review; if either party disagrees with my edits I'll stop and decline the request. It can always be re-added once stability is achieved.
Deoliveirafan, the GOCE doesn't make "official" copy-edits diff; rather we're a voluntary Wikiproject whose aim is to improve Wikipedia by improving grammar, spelling, flow, layout etc. and improving conformity to the Manual of Style where appropriate. I'm not sure what you mean by an "honest user"; I hope we all have the same basic intention to improve articles.
I've no idea how Howunusual is involved here—apart from one blanket reversion at the article and trolling at AN/I and the article's talk page. i think s/he can be ignored in this context. That's my offer anyway; if that's not acceptable to one or other involved party I doubt we can move forward with this request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm taking back my compliment to the Copy Editors Guild. If you are all so willing to allow BMK to continue this behavior and throw around insults then I suppose you don't need any compliments from me and I will respect you as much as you respect yourselves.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Deoliveirafan, I'm trying to work out an acceptable solution to an impasse; nobody is throwing around insults here. I called Howunusual's comments trolling because they don't help the situation; indeed that editor has no history at the article under discussion. S/he waded into your dispute with BMK by blindly reverting after seeing the ANI thread, claiming authority from a talk page consensus which doesn't exist. I'm saying we should ignore him/her because s/he isn't interested in improving the article and has probably moved on elsewhere. I'm offering to copy-edit the article in good faith (see above); my offer still stands but my patience isn't infinite. Spitting the dummy isn't the best way to secure my—or anyone else's—help. I just copy-edit; I don't do drama or play games, full stop. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Please take all drama and personal attacks to the article's Talk page or elsewhere (or nowhere). They are not welcome here.
- Deoliveirafan, I'm trying to work out an acceptable solution to an impasse; nobody is throwing around insults here. I called Howunusual's comments trolling because they don't help the situation; indeed that editor has no history at the article under discussion. S/he waded into your dispute with BMK by blindly reverting after seeing the ANI thread, claiming authority from a talk page consensus which doesn't exist. I'm saying we should ignore him/her because s/he isn't interested in improving the article and has probably moved on elsewhere. I'm offering to copy-edit the article in good faith (see above); my offer still stands but my patience isn't infinite. Spitting the dummy isn't the best way to secure my—or anyone else's—help. I just copy-edit; I don't do drama or play games, full stop. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to edit, and impolite people are allowed to throw around insults at the risk of their own reputations and at the risk of being blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. We at the GOCE are here to edit prose, not to get involved in Talk page drama, ANI, or any of the other meta activity that goes on at WP. We have proposed a way for your copy editing request to be honored. It is up to the involved article editors to work out a way to welcome, or at least tolerate without instantly reverting, a good-faith GOCE copy edit. We look forward to seeing if you can work this out; I believe that you can do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)