Open main menu


R. Hari KumarEdit

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

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

@KCVelaga:   Working: Comment: DYKs always let me learn about stuff I never would've known about before.  Ben79487 (talk contribs) 19:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I really don't know that much stuff about him, so forgive me if I break some stuff. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 19:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done! Thanks!  Ben79487 (talk contribs) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ben79487: could you take another look at this? The DYK nomination (linked above) mentions some close paraphrasing. If you could alter the sentence structure and phrasing a bit for the quoted section, that can avoid a possible copyright violation. Also, here's a link to the copyvio tool Earwig, which can help point out other close paraphrasing (though here it mostly shows proper names). Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: I've fixed most of the serious ones, can you check over what I did? The diff is here. Thanks for the alert! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 05:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  Checked I left some notes on your talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2018 video game)Edit

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

I've placed the request on hold and directed discussion here. I've no opinions about the proposed move but I think a copy-edit of the material probably wouldn't survive such a merge; it would be integrated into that article's existing text. Baffle☿gab 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is leaning toward no merge, and the topic of the other article is becoming more prominent so it seems unlikely that a merge will occur. (The request article seems pretty well written but could be made more concise.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If someone wants to watch the merge discussion and remove the on-hold tag if it closes as no merge, that's fine with me. All the best, Miniapolis 14:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll watchlist the discussion, which seems to have run out of steam before much of a consensus has been reached. A week should be long enough to wait. Baffle☿gab 00:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Beggar's ChickenEdit

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

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

  Working - Baffle☿gab 09:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If you want the recipe, here is the link for the oven bag method. Personally, I wouldn't recommend of using clay to wrap the chicken, because of the pressure built inside the clay shell. Use dough instead during a campfire cooking.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip NeoBatfreak; I'm a little short of clay at the moment anyway. :)   Done and moved to REQ talk. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
My father made a clayed-covered Beggar's Chicken once for the 4th of July, and it exploded and ruined the meal. No one in my family was hurt.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@NeoBatfreak:, I'm glad to hear no-one was hurt; it could result in an interesting conversation or two! I've moved the conversation from REQ and replied here; I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Early Bedroom Sessions and Welcome to RainbowEdit

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

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

For all GoCErsEdit

...almost Grocers :)

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

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

List of mergers and acquisitions by AmazonEdit

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

This is simply not copy editing, IMHO. There is not prose to edit. Formatting tables and verifying data is not part of our mission here. We have to draw lines somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree; we have enough to do as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Request declined and archived; thanks both. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


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

The request for a serious review, a lot of additional research and a substantial rewrite is outside of our scope. The requester is welcome to resubmit when the article is referenced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
What Jonesey said. All the best, Miniapolis 13:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both; Request declined and archived, and I've removed most of the unreferenced BLP text from the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Shameless PlugEdit

No queue-jumping or dramah please. Baffle☿gab 04:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

So now you need the content-creation-bigots? Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
[self-redacted] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
(This not the appropriate venue for your beef. Please take it elsewhere.) Is there a specific time by when you want your request edited? The current wait time is about three weeks, which should get it done before May 20. Tdslk (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tdslk that it should get done in time, and don't like attempts to jump the queue. Everyone wants their request done yesterday :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no desire to get anything done any faster than needed to be able to have the article considered for TFA on 20 May 2019. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, we're happy to honour the copy-edit request providing the article stable but you don't get to jump queues (the requests page isn't a queue) or set deadlines. I'm boldly closing this thread; coordinators are welcome to revert/unclose if necessary. Baffle☿gab 04:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're right. Eurohunter has been posting a fair number of requests here lately, and may think the GOCE is the fast track to FA/FL. Would it were so :-). All the best, Miniapolis 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I have removed it and notified the requester. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nina LagergrenEdit

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

I think declining it. And I will work on it from the current version which I guess is the best alternative.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I have removed it from the Requests page, per your message. Feel free to resubmit when it is ready for copy-editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia BaileyEdit

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

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

  Not done Contentious editor, Aoba47, involved.--A21sauce (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @A21sauce: I would hardly call myself "contentious" when I am fixing errors introduced to the article by the copy-editor and explaining my rationale in the edit summaries. The copy-editor had introduced overlinking in the lead, linked common words like "American", and moved around citations without making that the content was adequately covered. This matter could have easily been discussed in the article's talk page rather than saying I was engaging in an "edit war". I had suggested that a talk page discussion would be appropriate, but I guess the copy-edit does not want to engage in that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Twofingered Typist:@Baffle gab1978: pinging two frequent copy-editors about this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
We're in the middle of a copy drive, dude, and these are participants. Get someone else.--A21sauce (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Dude? This request can be archived. I had no interest in working on this article further anyway (as I have stated in the request). Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

  • @Jonesey95: This request can be archive. I will be taking a wikibreak shortly, and I have no interest in working on this article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests".