Baffle gab1978 (talk | contribs) →Kill the Irishman: reply; now i know a bit more about what's goin on, i'll pop this req on hold. |
|||
Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
May I remind you [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] that I never asked for "perfection". But as previously said, I have done major edits since its last copy-edit (and would therefore like (if possible) someone just to have a quick read-through and to make any edits needed). And in regards to the second copy-edit done, only '''one word''' was changed!. Also, I would like to remind you that I asked kindly for the copy-edit. I didn't demand the copy-edit, and I haven't been disrespectful to any other Wikipedia user in any way, shape or form. If you don't want to copy-edit the article, then don't do it! I didn't think that there was a limit on the amount of copy-edits that someone could request, but either way, I would still like to be shown the same respect that I show others! |
May I remind you [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] that I never asked for "perfection". But as previously said, I have done major edits since its last copy-edit (and would therefore like (if possible) someone just to have a quick read-through and to make any edits needed). And in regards to the second copy-edit done, only '''one word''' was changed!. Also, I would like to remind you that I asked kindly for the copy-edit. I didn't demand the copy-edit, and I haven't been disrespectful to any other Wikipedia user in any way, shape or form. If you don't want to copy-edit the article, then don't do it! I didn't think that there was a limit on the amount of copy-edits that someone could request, but either way, I would still like to be shown the same respect that I show others! |
||
-- [[User:Metal121|Metal121]] ([[User talk:Metal121|talk]]) 23:20, July 29, 2015 (GMT). |
-- [[User:Metal121|Metal121]] ([[User talk:Metal121|talk]]) 23:20, July 29, 2015 (GMT). |
||
:There's not a limit, but when the same article gets three requests within three months one naturally wonders why. I've since checked the last c/e (yes we take '''done''' on trust!) and I agree it was brief [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kill_the_Irishman&diff=671803199&oldid=670911936 diff]. You're still developing the article (last edit as of my timestamp 22:41, 29 July 2015); we like articles to be stable because a constantly-changing text can quickly wipe out a c/e, so if no-one else minds I'll put this request '''on hold''' until development is done; Metal121, feel free to advise us when you're done. [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] ([[User talk:Baffle gab1978|talk]]) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:50, 29 July 2015
Biblioworm, thank you for your thorough and bold copyedit. I highly appreciate your work for improving several articles in wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Biblioworm, thank you for your bold copyedit of this article of a mysterious people who only played role in the history of Eastern Europe for 30 years. I have just made a GAN for the article. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline Greco-Italian War?
Recently added to the requests; request notes "This article is in the middle of a partisan war between Italians and Greeks". Didn't realise this refers to an edit war. Put on hold until stable? Thanks, C679 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we could just wait until the edit war ends, as it usually takes a while for requests to be answered. --Biblioworm 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes; the current backlog is back up to, alas, about two months. Whoever ultimately accepts it should check the history (to avoid wasting time) and decline it if it's still unstable. All the best, Miniapolis 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that editors may take this if they find it interesting, regardless of the order of requests. Not everyone starts from the top as Miniapolis does. My fear would be that a newbie might take an interest in this and get burned. Putting on hold isn't the same as declining, and I suggest it would be wise to put on hold. Currently, one editor involved has been blocked, but only for 31 hours (and I've no idea if that was even the right course). It would be wiser to wait until that expires and it becomes clear what will happen next. At the very least, put a warning on the request itself (on the requests page) similar to the one I put one the "Lips are Movin" request. I've spent some time in the last few months at WP:3O and some of the things that come up there have bought me almost to the point of completely retiring. If we allow GOCE to become an ersatz WP:3O, I fear the good collegiate atmosphere here will be compromised. --Stfg (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I happen to be one of those who only takes requests that I'm interested in. For example, I rarely take articles on film, music, or popular culture in general. I tend to copy edit articles on historical events and places. --Biblioworm 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Stfg here, on all points. Except that for the sake of my mental health, I try to stay away from parts of WP where people argue. There's enough of that on the internet (and in real life).
- I happen to be one of those who only takes requests that I'm interested in. For example, I rarely take articles on film, music, or popular culture in general. I tend to copy edit articles on historical events and places. --Biblioworm 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that editors may take this if they find it interesting, regardless of the order of requests. Not everyone starts from the top as Miniapolis does. My fear would be that a newbie might take an interest in this and get burned. Putting on hold isn't the same as declining, and I suggest it would be wise to put on hold. Currently, one editor involved has been blocked, but only for 31 hours (and I've no idea if that was even the right course). It would be wiser to wait until that expires and it becomes clear what will happen next. At the very least, put a warning on the request itself (on the requests page) similar to the one I put one the "Lips are Movin" request. I've spent some time in the last few months at WP:3O and some of the things that come up there have bought me almost to the point of completely retiring. If we allow GOCE to become an ersatz WP:3O, I fear the good collegiate atmosphere here will be compromised. --Stfg (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes; the current backlog is back up to, alas, about two months. Whoever ultimately accepts it should check the history (to avoid wasting time) and decline it if it's still unstable. All the best, Miniapolis 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have placed a note in this article's section on the Requests page on behalf of the GOCE coordinators. If I have misrepresented the consensus view of my fellow coordinators, feel free to change or revert my words and propose new wording. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looks fine, Jonesey, and thanks as always to Stfg for his wise counsel. Dispute resolution around here is life-sucking, but I think the requester is looking more for a restoration of NPOV than a 3O (above our pay grade here, especially in an edit war). Thanks all; hopefully, the article will settle. Miniapolis 14:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have placed a note in this article's section on the Requests page on behalf of the GOCE coordinators. If I have misrepresented the consensus view of my fellow coordinators, feel free to change or revert my words and propose new wording. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Miniapolis, Jonesey95, and Stfg: It looks like there's another edit war in progress, so it seems that the article is too unstable to be fit for copy editing in the near future. Should we decline it now? --Biblioworm 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'd rather let my sage advice on the Requests page stand. A copy editor who takes on this article may encounter some resistance on the Talk page, in which case we can decline, but I think it's worth a good faith try. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- No objection to leaving it there with Jonesey's advice in place, but I'd have gone for declining. "Restoration of NPOV" in the context of a POV war is even stronger than 3O (in that 3O doesn't edit the article, it just opines and stands back) and I think it's also well above our pay grade. I could see someone spending a lot of time editing that article for neutrality and their work being wasted within a week. That article is more like a case for WP:DR, imo. (It's unsuitable for 3O since more than two editors are involved.) --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- After checking the article's recent history, I agree that it should be declined; copyediting during an edit war, I've learned the hard way, is an exercise in futility and frustration. Thoughts? Miniapolis 00:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK with me. Pinging Uspzor to let the requester know that we are talking about this. Uspzor: the GOCE feels that we should decline this request because of the ongoing edit war. If the article reaches a stable state, you are welcome to post it on the Requests page again. Let us know if you have any feedback at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I started to leave a note on their talk page in case their notification threshold is set as high as mine :-), but I checked their contribs and they've been around only sporadically. Under the circumstances, we should probably decline and archive (and I'll let them know, in case they want a copyedit if and when the dust settles). Miniapolis 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK with me. Pinging Uspzor to let the requester know that we are talking about this. Uspzor: the GOCE feels that we should decline this request because of the ongoing edit war. If the article reaches a stable state, you are welcome to post it on the Requests page again. Let us know if you have any feedback at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- After checking the article's recent history, I agree that it should be declined; copyediting during an edit war, I've learned the hard way, is an exercise in futility and frustration. Thoughts? Miniapolis 00:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
(←) Decline; we can't c/e a fully-protected article, and the requester can ask again when its protection expires on 1st May and it's stable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Jonesey has declined this 47-word draft-space article; I concur, have pinged the requester and will archive it (no need for discussion on this one). Miniapolis 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Although this article was almost impossible to copyedit, I gave it my best shot; however, it's unstable (I'm running into edit conflicts) so I'm archiving it. Copyediting will not solve POV problems. Miniapolis 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Ancient Greek personal names: done
I finished Ancient Greek personal names on Feb.22, after the end of the blitz. (diff) Is there anything else I should do with or about it? To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whoops! Just saw some links I need to add... --Thnidu (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thnidu: Nice edits. You could place the
{{GOCE}}
template on the Talk page. For best results, copy and paste the example from the "Usage" section of the template's documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thnidu: Nice edits. You could place the
This article has been partly copyedited. Biblioworm kindly copy editted as far as the second paragraph in the Medieval market town section. Another editor P.S.Button recently swooped by and did several copy edits throughout the article. I am not sure if the citations need improving throughout. -- BOD -- 09:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- :) Miniapolis I meant the quality of the inline cititation rather than finding better ones, which is also probably above your pay grade (hang on do you get paid for this ...lol). Biblioworm is kindly going to finish off the Medieval town section. I fear that the worst section ahead is the demographic section, though I wrote it, I am sure it is breaking several wikipedia rules (too much info, links to outside sources) but I am not sure how to fix it. My main interest in the town is early history to medieval, after that I am less interested and less driven to correct the occassional tiny factual errors immediately.-- BOD -- 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- What I meant was that I think what you expect us to do goes beyond copyediting; you may want to take a look at this to see what a copyedit actually entails. While many of us go beyond copyediting—time permitting—to improve an article (for example, I add alt text to images if it's not already there), for the most part we don't have the expertise in a given area for what you seem to want. We copyedit an article, and move on to the next one. All the best, Miniapolis 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, I appreciate that I was asking too much regards the possible tidy up of the town's demographic section. My number one hope remains the improvement of the article by an experienced editor applying their wikipedian copy writing skills to what already exists. (I personally failed my English Language 5 times, so I am fairly critical of my own writing skills). This article has been improved by many good editors volunteering their time like Biblioworm who know nothing of the town and I honestly dont expect any specialist knowledge of the subject. I am very grateful for any contribution that any editor to improve the quality of the article that might help eventually raise it to a B or Good Article and honestly I am aware that all editors make their contributions voluntary in their own spare time.-- BOD -- 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW (and for the benefit of any copyeditor who works on this article), I generally don't watchlist articles I'm copyediting. Saves a lot of aggravation. That being said, though, on the infrequent occasions when my improvements to an article are reverted willy-nilly, I'm outta there; no one likes to waste their time. Miniapolis 22:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I truely have no knowledge of reverting any edit you have made, nor can I see any such edits or reversions in the edit history. Today in the break between copy editors I was trying to apply the Alts to the images you mentioned that you personally added to articles...then I stopped because I remembered Biblioworm said he might be able to finish the section he was doing sometime this weekend. I am truely sorry if any misunderstanding has arisen. -- BOD -- 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW (and for the benefit of any copyeditor who works on this article), I generally don't watchlist articles I'm copyediting. Saves a lot of aggravation. That being said, though, on the infrequent occasions when my improvements to an article are reverted willy-nilly, I'm outta there; no one likes to waste their time. Miniapolis 22:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, I appreciate that I was asking too much regards the possible tidy up of the town's demographic section. My number one hope remains the improvement of the article by an experienced editor applying their wikipedian copy writing skills to what already exists. (I personally failed my English Language 5 times, so I am fairly critical of my own writing skills). This article has been improved by many good editors volunteering their time like Biblioworm who know nothing of the town and I honestly dont expect any specialist knowledge of the subject. I am very grateful for any contribution that any editor to improve the quality of the article that might help eventually raise it to a B or Good Article and honestly I am aware that all editors make their contributions voluntary in their own spare time.-- BOD -- 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- What I meant was that I think what you expect us to do goes beyond copyediting; you may want to take a look at this to see what a copyedit actually entails. While many of us go beyond copyediting—time permitting—to improve an article (for example, I add alt text to images if it's not already there), for the most part we don't have the expertise in a given area for what you seem to want. We copyedit an article, and move on to the next one. All the best, Miniapolis 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- :) Miniapolis I meant the quality of the inline cititation rather than finding better ones, which is also probably above your pay grade (hang on do you get paid for this ...lol). Biblioworm is kindly going to finish off the Medieval town section. I fear that the worst section ahead is the demographic section, though I wrote it, I am sure it is breaking several wikipedia rules (too much info, links to outside sources) but I am not sure how to fix it. My main interest in the town is early history to medieval, after that I am less interested and less driven to correct the occassional tiny factual errors immediately.-- BOD -- 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
(←) I was speaking generally. Miniapolis 01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean generally? - you said I had reverted your improvements to the Berkhamsted article, but I am honestly unable to see where I reverted any edits wily-nily by you or anyone. Biblioworm made it clear to me it was okay to correct any factual errors that occured during the copy edit. Currently no specific person is copy editing the article. Are you refering to the edit that a seperate editor made yesterday, they kindly cleaned up a duplicate arguement on a historical time line table within the Berkhamsted page. When I looked at the table - I realised that when writing the table - I had repeated the actual text content of that line's entry - two lines down in more accurate detail and in a more logical place. As no one had adopted the page to copyedit, I corrected my bigger mistake. I am sorry if I have personally upset you, life is far too short for editorial disputes, again I unquestioningly apologise for any error I have made. -- BOD -- 02:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- So now the page is probably too hot for the Guild to handle. Unless any editor is still willing to improve the page by copy editing ... I will respectfully agree to the removal of the page, so that it does not waste any more of your time. -- BOD -- 03:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bodney, I offer some unsolicited advice: Please take a deep breath. Or a walk around the block. Go smell some spring flowers, if you're in the northern hemisphere. A break from WP will do you good. If you leave your article on the Requests page, a friendly copy editor will get to it at some point. While that person is editing, try to watch politely (or take some more walks) and avoid editing the article until the copy editor is done. When you are notified that the editor is done with copy editing, resume your edits to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank You :) I am very appreciative. Peace and goodwill.-- BOD -- 10:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bodney, I offer some unsolicited advice: Please take a deep breath. Or a walk around the block. Go smell some spring flowers, if you're in the northern hemisphere. A break from WP will do you good. If you leave your article on the Requests page, a friendly copy editor will get to it at some point. While that person is editing, try to watch politely (or take some more walks) and avoid editing the article until the copy editor is done. When you are notified that the editor is done with copy editing, resume your edits to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- So now the page is probably too hot for the Guild to handle. Unless any editor is still willing to improve the page by copy editing ... I will respectfully agree to the removal of the page, so that it does not waste any more of your time. -- BOD -- 03:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean generally? - you said I had reverted your improvements to the Berkhamsted article, but I am honestly unable to see where I reverted any edits wily-nily by you or anyone. Biblioworm made it clear to me it was okay to correct any factual errors that occured during the copy edit. Currently no specific person is copy editing the article. Are you refering to the edit that a seperate editor made yesterday, they kindly cleaned up a duplicate arguement on a historical time line table within the Berkhamsted page. When I looked at the table - I realised that when writing the table - I had repeated the actual text content of that line's entry - two lines down in more accurate detail and in a more logical place. As no one had adopted the page to copyedit, I corrected my bigger mistake. I am sorry if I have personally upset you, life is far too short for editorial disputes, again I unquestioningly apologise for any error I have made. -- BOD -- 02:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
(←) Thanks very much, Jonesey, for saying so well what I was thinking but couldn't find a tactful way to express :-). Bodney, you misunderstood me; distilled, I generally don't watchlist an article I'm copyediting (so I don't notice every little tweak by other editors while I'm working) and if I notice wholesale reversion (as happened long ago on Uttar Pradesh; as you can see from the article history, I haven't done anything on Berkhamsted), I move on to another article. That's all. Miniapolis 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- :) Peace, Goodwill and better articles by co-operation.-- BOD -- 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I am so grateful for all the copyeditors who have kindly made many improvements (in so many ways) to this page. It is greatly appreciated.-- BOD -- 00:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Requests page here by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, hi there! Miniapolis 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently promoted to Good Article and I'd like to bring it to A-class. The page has been viewed over 700,000 times in the last 90 days, including about 220,000 in 4 days when a plane crashed in Indonesia in December. The one year anniversary of the plane's disappearance is 8 March and given the mystery surrounding the flight, it will certainly receive a lot of page views. It will also receive a significant amount of page views if any debris or possible debris from the plane is found; since the priority search area will be completely searched by June, that will likely occur in the next few months. I hope that this doesn't seem rude to come here and ask for a copyedit to be done quickly, but it would be nice to have it done in time for the anniversary.
The article routinely receives copyedits that fix formatting and make small changes to the text; edits with tools like AutoEd have also been made frequently. What I am requesting is for someone to go through the entire article to fix any issues related to grammar or the MOS (units and use of italics, in particular) and, especially, to make the prose clear and concise. I have written or edited most of the prose, but I am not the most articulate writer and this is something that past copy edits (especially using tools/scripts) have not addressed. The Good Article review was not thorough and a discussion about the review was started (find "Another doubtful GA review" started 18 February after it gets archived); other editors did not feel it needed to be reassessed, but suggested "use a thorough copy edit" and to ask for that here.
A few notes that a copy editor should be aware of:
- One section in particular that I think is confusing and needs to be better worded is "Response by air traffic control". I need help to make the prose more understandable. There was a lot of discussions between several area control centers and I think the main issue here is finding a better way to handle the names of the centers. That said, this section is important to highlight the confusion between the air traffic control centers in the area, which explains the four-hour delay between loss of communication and the start of the search. So the best way of describing this is: explain/highlight the confusion without confusing the reader.
- The article should be written in British English, because that is the English variety most strongly associated with Malaysia. A user just fixed many spellings using AutoEd, so there are probably no issues with that.
- In aviation, altitude is expressed in feet and distance is expressed in nautical miles. These units are used where appropriate (primarily in the "Disappearance" section), while the rest of the article should use appropriate SI units (kg, km, km2). This seems to be compliant with WP:UNITS.
- I hope the writing is balanced between being understandable to a general knowledge and being encyclopedic and precise when presenting information (per WP:TECHNICAL). This is most relevant to the "Disappearance" and "Analysis of satellite communication" sections. Although more appropriate for a Peer Review and because a copy editor will be reading the article while likely unfamiliar with either field, I would really appreciate feedback if you think some content should be better explained for a general audience (but again, I don't want to oversimplify and lose important/relevant detail).
- The inclusion of the year in dates is something that needs to be looked at closely. There are a lot of dates in the article, but not all include the year. Where is it appropriate to exclude the year?
This comment is long, but so is the article. Hopefully I've provided enough information to help a copy editor with issues that need to be looked at. If you want clarification about any content, don't hesitate to ask me a question, I would be very glad to help. AHeneen (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AHeneen: Sorry, tried to help but Mongo wanted to remove my edit template and jump in. So I removed my Working flag and will find other articles to edit...not going to get into an edit war with rude people. An article of this size takes time and I don't "save page" after each edit, rather I do batches at a time. Maxwellwarner (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever @Maxwellwarner:. It was rude to slap a do not edit boilerplate atop the article and do virtually no editing to it...that boilerplate was asking everyone else to not edit the page. You and this guild do not own the page! If you want to slap your ownership boilerplate atop the page go ahead but it is not necessary and certainly not if your style of editing takes days to hit he save button. MONGO is all caps btw. Let me know when this article goes to FAC.--MONGO 02:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I left a note at User talk:MONGO; if that wasn't an anomaly, this article may not be sufficiently stable for a copyedit. Miniapolis 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for considering the editing. I have a few things to do, so I'll post a better response later when I have time to figure out what's been going on. As mentioned above, I think most of the minor formatting issues have been taken care of and the prose is what needs some attention. However, as noted above, this isn't a very good time to fix the article because it is receiving a lot of attention for the first anniversary of its disappearance (including a few edits, although I am actually surprised by the small number of edits as I was expecting more). I responded to the section MONGO started on the article's talk page. AHeneen (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- @AHeneen: Sorry, tried to help but Mongo wanted to remove my edit template and jump in. So I removed my Working flag and will find other articles to edit...not going to get into an edit war with rude people. An article of this size takes time and I don't "save page" after each edit, rather I do batches at a time. Maxwellwarner (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the earlier issues. Trying to edit the page a couple days before the first anniversary was not the best time for a copyedit (I tried to make that clear in the request). The page received a lot of views (about 58,000 views over 6-10 March, although less than I was expecting) and many minor edits. A preliminary report was also issued and I updated a few sections. I think the page has quieted down enough for a copyedit. Please note that if you plan on doing a copyedit, it would be best to do so quickly and not prevent edits for an extended period (probably a few hours at most)...consider editing a section or two at a time. The article has been viewed almost 203,000 times in the last 30 days (as of 16 March), and averages 1-2 edits a day (there's rarely more than 24 hours without an edit), although most are insignificant/minor/copyedits. Again, most formatting and spelling issues are fixed by the frequent copyedits (like with AWB). I'm requesting an edit of the prose, which was requested after the GA review. I would like to get this to A-class or FA quality (I think that this article is not stable enough long-term for an FAC, because of the ongoing search). Again, sorry about the previous troubles, please consider editing just 1-2 sections at a time. AHeneen (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Withdraw In the original request, I said this could be promoted to A-class. However, I now think that this could be edited to reach FA status. I now plan to make some adjustments to a few sections, so I would like to withdraw the copyedit request and make a request later before it's nominated for FA. AHeneen (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Crisis on Infinite Earths - procedural decline?
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.
The requester for this article asks for a cleanup, which is outside our remit. I took a look at the article yesterday; it has extensive passages of unreferenced text, and what looks like fancruft throughout. I don't think it's in a suitable shape for a full c/e, and GOCE is not cleanup. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The requester is one of our regulars, and seems to know what we do (and leave for others to do). That being said, though ... hoo boy, it's never good to see a laundry list of tags like that and the article really needs an overhaul. Excising fancruft is one of the things that gets me through the day, and we're not the article police. I'm not comfortable refusing to copyedit bad articles; it can be almost as satisfying making something like this somewhat encyclopedic as it is polishing FACs. Dollars to doughnuts I end up with it :-). All the best, Miniapolis 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've already reformatted some of the embedded lists into multi-column formats, and it's likely I'll try and get it into some kind of better shape. But i don't think that will involve a copy-edit as we know it; I find c/e-ing that sort of text is like wading through treacle, especially where I can't check refs etc. But I appreciate that everyone's different and I hope you can make something better out of it than I can. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I go beyond mere copyediting also. But we may have driven away some potential copyeditors with an overemphasis on pass-or-fail standards; while I wish the requests page was a bit shorter, I don't want to unduly discourage requesters also. Edit-warring is one thing; although this article needs work in addition to copyediting (as many do), I consider it a good-faith, fulfillable request. Regardless of its wording, a copyedit is all that's required. All the best, Miniapolis 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've done a clean-up; I hope it makes life easier for whoever does the c/e. I've removed a lot of the unreferenced OR text and have tried to reorganise the remainder in some sort of logical fashion. Anyone wanting to restore old content should see the article's history; my edit summaries should help locate stuff I removed. Anyway i'm signing off on this one. I think this discussion can be closed now; though feel free to re-open it if necessary. Have fun. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I go beyond mere copyediting also. But we may have driven away some potential copyeditors with an overemphasis on pass-or-fail standards; while I wish the requests page was a bit shorter, I don't want to unduly discourage requesters also. Edit-warring is one thing; although this article needs work in addition to copyediting (as many do), I consider it a good-faith, fulfillable request. Regardless of its wording, a copyedit is all that's required. All the best, Miniapolis 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've already reformatted some of the embedded lists into multi-column formats, and it's likely I'll try and get it into some kind of better shape. But i don't think that will involve a copy-edit as we know it; I find c/e-ing that sort of text is like wading through treacle, especially where I can't check refs etc. But I appreciate that everyone's different and I hope you can make something better out of it than I can. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Baffle gab1978, thank you for your thorough and bold copyedit. The article is now ready for GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Casliber seems to have abandoned the copyedit, possibly because several other editors are also working on it. I've advised the requester that we may have to decline it due to instability. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 02:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The activity there is sudden and very recent; perhaps put this one on hold for a week and see if activity subsides enough to allow a c/e to occur. Decline if a c/e sets off activity that interferes with the c/e. Maybe inform the copy-editor of the situation. The requester does mention on the Requests page that other editors are working there. Just my 2d worth. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Request placed On Hold. CC-BY-SA declaration: Text below copied across from the Requests page [1] by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Undergoing construction now. Please check sources if you can. There is a comment on the Talk Page that the article seems overly detailed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BeenAroundAWhile: Above the Guild of Copy Editors asks requestors to please familiarize themselves with the Guild's listed scope of services provided. Checking references is a verification issue WP:VER and deleting content considered "overly detailed" by some editors is a content issue WP:DUE. I don't think it's fair to the Guild or to your collaborators that you call in the Guild on a page that you yourself hatted with "overly detailed" and "under construction" and frankly I don't know how to understand this request except as WP:CANVAS. Involved editors are participating in a discussion on the Talk Page about the level of detail. I think the fairest thing you can do to our Guild members and to your fellow editors is to please return to the talk page and identify specific content you feel is undue and make your case to your fellow editors by reference to WP:DUE. I think the fine energies of our Guild will be best spent once the involved editors achieve some consensus on sources and content and I would strongly support a Guild request at that time. These folks are the Guild of Copy Editors, not the Guild of Editors or the Guild of Exclusionist Editors. Please return to the talk page and engage in the heavy lifting of collaboration or at least remove your article tags if you feel the article is ready for Guild attention. If you feel the need for third or additional opinions on verification, sourcing, or due weight issues other more appropriate avenues are available to you. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully request the Guild to please decline this request at this time. Please postpone until ongoing verification and due weight issues are resolved. Respectfully, please consider waiting for the "overly detailed" and "under construction" article hats to come down through consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the copyedits which you did to the article! – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Situation
Hi, just a quick heads-up; i looked at the Req page tonight and found an editor had removed two requests s/he completed (example [2] ). I reverted to an earlier version s/he had marked one of these Done here. I informed the editor of the Guild's procedures here. A brief look at the editor's [3] contribs and I'm not sure s/he did a full c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've just re-edited Death of Sigrid Schjetne, which showed multiple errors, especially some very eccentric misuse of commas. I think we have a CIR problem here. Leaving it to you to progress. --Stfg (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rather strict use doesn't equal "very eccentric misuse". I followed the links, expecting to see someone making a hash of editing, and found, for the most part, edits that were competently done, that I'd have been glad to have made. Besides, commas are so eighteenth-century, when they knew what encyclopedic writing was all about. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm rather puzzled by that comment, since your own writing uses 21st century conventions very competently, and I'm wondering what was the intent behind your last sentence. Anyway, the current conventions hadn't evolved in the 18th century, when writers did indeed still splatter commas all over the place in weird and wonderful ways. There are now many, many grammar books and style guides documenting present conventions and their variants. One of the many kinds of rather basic error in the Schjetne copy edit was a failure to observe the rule described in Comma#Between adjectives, which you'll find in all books and style guides that address punctuation. There are many others, as well as errors other than in punctuation. --Stfg (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rather strict use doesn't equal "very eccentric misuse". I followed the links, expecting to see someone making a hash of editing, and found, for the most part, edits that were competently done, that I'd have been glad to have made. Besides, commas are so eighteenth-century, when they knew what encyclopedic writing was all about. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Americans for Prosperity (again)
I don't know what the requester (who's currently blocked for edit-warring on this article) was thinking, relisting this only six days after it was declined for instability. If it's too unstable for a copyedit, it fails GA criterion #5. The history and talk page indicate that it's at least as unstable as it was a month ago, and I suggest we decline again. All the best, Miniapolis 02:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- (Non-coordinator comment) The article's edit history shows it isn't stable; there has been major editing in the past 24 hours, and several editors are working on the article. A Guild c/e would be wasted. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Americans for Prosperity c/e request
CC-BY-SA declaration: copied from Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Good article nomination planned. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- HughD: This request is declined. The article is not stable enough (over 100 edits in the last two days) for a copy edit to be useful. Once the article is stable, you are welcome to re-list it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Trapito
I see nothing to change in the Trapito article. What happens now?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I made one small tweak, but it's pretty well written already. Not sure what happens now. --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from the Requests page by me. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've working on this table for days. I don't want the basic formatting and wikicode changed because it is in a format that is easier for me to work with and understand. My request is that I would like for someone to make this table sortable. Best Regards,
- Bfpage |leave a message 11:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: @Bfpage: One of the coordinators may correct me, but I don't think this is the right place for this request, since this isn't a copy edit, but rather a technical issue. For what it's worth, I tried getting the table to sort to no avail. Perhaps someone who is more experienced with tables will be able to better help you. You may want to take a look at WP:SORT or perhaps the Teahouse. -Pax Verbum 20:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Request Declined per WP:SNOW; not an article copy-edit request. I'll archive in 24 hours unless someone beats me to it. I've left a note on the requester's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- ..."The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start." For goodness sakes! I withdraw my request. But I would like to know exactly what 'foregone conclusions from the start' might mean as it applies to this request with table sorting. Thank you Pax85 at least you were nice about it.
- Bfpage |leave a message 22:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bfpage, it was a foregone conclusion that your request was not a copy-editing request. I recommend that you request help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bfpage |leave a message 22:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- ..."The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start." For goodness sakes! I withdraw my request. But I would like to know exactly what 'foregone conclusions from the start' might mean as it applies to this request with table sorting. Thank you Pax85 at least you were nice about it.
- [note added after discussion moved to Talk page] FYI in case anyone is following this discussion, I fixed the table in question to make it sortable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- How did you get it to sort, Jonesey95? I tried a couple of different things to no avail... -Pax Verbum 00:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- See my edit. The clear tag fixed the overlapping of the image and the table. Adding "sortable" to the table definition made the table sortable. The key fix was removing the extra row divider and replacing a pipe with an exclamation point; that stuff was preventing the first set of cells from being the actual table headers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- How did you get it to sort, Jonesey95? I tried a couple of different things to no avail... -Pax Verbum 00:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- [note added after discussion moved to Talk page] FYI in case anyone is following this discussion, I fixed the table in question to make it sortable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(←) That's why Jonesey's moving back into the executive suite :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Kalidas
I request that Kalidas (film) be edited by Miniapolis. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Kailash. Unfortunately, Miniapolis doesn't take direct copy edit requests (which is why her userpage requests you post on the guild page), however it's a possibility she might edit it at some point in future, though another guild member may cover it. Thanks for your request, however. Enjoy your day! KieranTribe 12:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit-warring on Murder of Lynette White
Since George Ho and Keri are arguing on the requests page, I suggest we decline this one for article instability. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether I was arguing or not, the tension between us died down. I initially was worried that important points in the lede are not brought up yet. However, after much thought, I guess most of (if not all) important points are well summarized in the lede. As for the overall article, Keri may have good points. I struck out requesting copy editing on body article. More time is needed for events to develop before copy editing is done. I still wanted intro to be copy edited if Keri allows it. --George Ho (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(←) Archived and removed; thanks all. I'll copy/paste the relevant discussion below. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Murder of Lynette White
* CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Requests page by me; Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The introduction was five paragraphs. It was reduced to four per WP:LEAD. However, I wonder if the introduction is adequately summarized. Also, the overall article looks... I don't know, a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, one editor says that the article is fine as is. I think about nominating the article as Good Article; in fact, I would like someone to make the quality resemble nearly of a Featured Article. (I wish someone never resents me.) --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (See below. --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC))
- The article was adequately summarised in 5 paragraphs. George Ho tipped up out of the blue yonder and complained it was too long. After trimming it to 4 he then complains it is too short. As for the article leaving "a lot to be desired..." /sighs This article is still *far* from complete and does not need to be tinkered with at this time. When it is close to completion, knock yourself out. Keri (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In response to Keri's comments (I don't know to how to neutrally describe his reaction toward me), here are versions to compare, but they are just for the article's introduction: previous version, current version as of this date. --George Ho (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm confident that four paragraphs is enough (id est five is too much) for the article... for now. I still have trouble summarizing one journalist's re-opening the case, so I tagged it for needing copy editing. I hope that the important points are well summarized in the intro, so a reader reads either further or just an intro per WP:LEAD. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- See this thread and the instructions for requesters above; judging by this exchange, I don't think a copyedit would be productive now. Miniapolis 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
* CC-BY-SA declaration; copied from Request page by me, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC). Article needs a lot of work. It has almost no sources and is the writing is very sloppy. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- This article is also tagged for copyediting. It seems to me it should not be both a request here and tagged. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Working ~ Marcus1093 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(←) This also appears to have been copied from a single source; note the use of the pronoun "we" throughout. The given source is "Brief guide to Persian embroideries. Victoria and Albert Museum, His Majesty's Stationery Office, London 1950". I'm unable to confirm this as a source of the text, but it seems the article requires a complete rewrite to avoid a copyright violation; assuming HMSO's 1950 material isn't in the public domain. I've removed the c/e tag from the article anyway. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Acceptance usurped
I usurped Marcus1093's request acceptance for the reasons explained on his talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This article has again been added to the Requests page despite being copy-edited twice this year; once by me in April and once by Jjjjjjdddddd this month (17th July). See archives. Is the requester @Metal121: unsatisfied with our efforts? I might remind him/her the GOCE doesn't guarantee perfection. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, another request 12 days after the second copyedit is an imposition IMO; that's why I work from the top of the page. All the best, Miniapolis 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
May I remind you Baffle gab1978 that I never asked for "perfection". But as previously said, I have done major edits since its last copy-edit (and would therefore like (if possible) someone just to have a quick read-through and to make any edits needed). And in regards to the second copy-edit done, only one word was changed!. Also, I would like to remind you that I asked kindly for the copy-edit. I didn't demand the copy-edit, and I haven't been disrespectful to any other Wikipedia user in any way, shape or form. If you don't want to copy-edit the article, then don't do it! I didn't think that there was a limit on the amount of copy-edits that someone could request, but either way, I would still like to be shown the same respect that I show others! -- Metal121 (talk) 23:20, July 29, 2015 (GMT).
- There's not a limit, but when the same article gets three requests within three months one naturally wonders why. I've since checked the last c/e (yes we take done on trust!) and I agree it was brief diff. You're still developing the article (last edit as of my timestamp 22:41, 29 July 2015); we like articles to be stable because a constantly-changing text can quickly wipe out a c/e, so if no-one else minds I'll put this request on hold until development is done; Metal121, feel free to advise us when you're done. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)