Hey Miniapolis, I noticed you undid your edit to include October in this blitz. I was wondering if maybe it would be prudent to put it back in. I understand the want to focus on requests. My understanding is that the requests (especially those seeking a bump in article status) should be tackled by experienced copyeditors. Since the backlog campaigns bring newer editors like myself in, often all we have to work on are the non-request backlogs. With only five articles left in September and only eight articles on the requests page not seeking the bump, I am not sure there are enough articles for editors like me to participate. PopularOutcast ^talk2me! 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Please see the original discussion. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Not all requests are GANs, FACs etc. by any means. The guild's only caveat is that copyeditors have some experience before working on articles up for promotion (advice I didn't follow when I started :-)). The current length of the requests page is why I decided against including the October backlog in the blitz, and the March drive (which will certainly include October) is just around the corner. All the best, Mini apolis 16:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Miniapolis, Yup, I've counted. There's only eight on there right now. I've only worked on those type of articles before and realized when I went back to one to show a friend that another member of the guild has been editing my work. I don't have a problem with that but what it tells me is that my work isn't considered good enough so I've been staying away from the requests page since then. PopularOutcast ^talk2me! 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

We only monitor the edits of new copyeditors out of consideration for the requesters (who depend on us) and to reduce the occasional gaming of the system during drives and blitzes. Some editors get caught up in the barnstars and what-not and lose sight of the big picture :-). All the best, Mini apolis 16:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Jonesey95, I didn't know there was one. Sorry about that. PopularOutcast ^talk2me! 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

PopularOutcast, I encourage you to participate in editing one or more Requests. I'll be happy to check your edits and offer feedback (or, more likely, continue your work so that you can see the choices I make in adding to your improvements). – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Jonesey95, Cool beans. Thanks for the offer. I will let you know once I finish a request during the next blitz. PopularOutcast ^talk2me! 10:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply

This is my first Blitze, and I started and completed an article before it started. Can I still get the points from that? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Um, no; the blitz began at 00:00 UTC, so you have almost a week :-). Thanks for your help and all the best, Mini apolis 02:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

One of the coordinators should revert this vandalism, as it causes the article to show under the inappropriate category. Dhtwiki ( talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply

 Done; it looks like the year changes have already been fixed. @ Dhtwiki:, thank you for alerting us but you could have fixed that yourself – being a GOCE coordinator doesn't confer special privileges. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I know I could have changed it myself, but its appearance as a January 2018 copy-edit might have mystified others. Also, I always put pages I edit on my watchlist; and I didn't want to add this one, just yet. Dhtwiki ( talk) 13:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi, I just noticed that there were no bonus points in the lead section or the main blitz page; is this intentional, or is it an accident? If it's an accident, please fix it; it's confused me. – Ben79487 ( talk contribs) 19:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Ben; thanks for noticing. it was probably left out to avoid blitzes becoming barnstar-getting exercises; awards are fun but aren't the main point of blitzes. Baffle☿gab 03:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

We don't count bonus points for blitzes. All the best, Mini apolis 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Just so everybody knows, there's an article Neutronium that has a November 2017 c/e tag; it mystified me. However, looking at the page history it seems that Dan Harkless ( talk · contribs) added a {{ copyedit-section}} because his issue was not addressed. It was "breaking up the monolith that is the final paragraph into digestible chunks". I think he should've added it to the Feb 2019 c/e category, so I changed the date to Feb 2019. Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.

Courtesy pinging: @ Dan Harkless:

– Ben79487 ( talk contribs) 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I realized that putting back the original date on the tag might be controversial, and thus I gave warning in my edit comment that I was doing so (and why). Sorry for any unnecessary concern that prompted. -- Dan Harkless ( talk) 00:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

 Fixed; I've split the long para, made a couple of tweaks to text for clarity and removed the c/e template. Thanks Ben for bringing this copy-editing emergency to our attention; a disaster has surely been averted and you can return safely to your homes. If anyone from the press asks you, blame Brexit! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Baffle; this issue sometimes arises when edits are reverted (restoring a previously-removed tag). All the best, Mini apolis 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Dan Harkless: When a tag is re-added, though (as seems to be the case here), it should be dated the current month. IMO, "breaking up the monolith that is the final paragraph into digestible chunks" is article writing (not copyediting) :-). Mini apolis 14:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Miniapolis: Thanks, y'all. And yeah, I didn't actually realize the for= parameter was going to show up in the banner when I first put it in (I hadn't had one when I first added the tag back in '17, and only mentioned my main concern in my edit comment). I was expecting it to be like other cases where it either is only available on mouseover, or is only available in the source. But yes, after seeing it was reader-visible, I did end up leaving it in, in part because my concern was ignored the first time the tag was removed. I'll endeavor to use less flavor in those for= parameters in the future. 😉 -- Dan Harkless ( talk) 02:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply