User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 9

That recent case you removed [1] from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreCoolGuy never got archived. I remember similar issues happening at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan a few months ago as well, so I was wondering maybe there is a bug with the archiving process. Sro23 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I've manually archived it, instead. Thanks for letting me know. GAB^gab 03:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GAB, I've included you in this discussion due to your involvement in the dispute. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 06:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the 'SmythsToys' SPI. It slipped my mind that you're supposed to list the oldest as the master 'til I looked over the SPI instructions again on curiosity grounds. Kinda skimmed the rules when I was filing it and i haven't done an SPI since PabloThePenguin... (2014 i think) So yeah. Much appreciated!

MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thanks for the kitten! GAB^gab 21:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:0:FF17:17B:11D7:C1AE:63 (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? GAB^gab 21:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I thought that the assertion was saying that a villa was horrible. It turns out it was about a brutal massacre/riot that happened. It was a misunderstanding. I wonder if by worst it means that either the author thinks it is one of the most terrible ones or it is one of the deadliest... -- AI RPer (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I had to correct myself in the midst of that user's unconstructivity, but it was a good thing you arrived. -- AI RPer (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, actually - I had misread the pop-up. Best, GAB^gab 16:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you listen here I Sundayclose is the one who has been making disruptive edits and I would like you to stop acting like that user is the victim here because Sundayclose is not and have you even read the notability guide. So you see here Sundayclose is actually making the vandalism and should be blocked from editing until Sundayclose stops reverting other users edits and reasoning it with TW. I hope you please reconsider and have a big discussion with Sundayclose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover46 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 78.175.216.45 (talk · contribs)
  • Organized industrial zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Organized industrial zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More contribution needed and not enough independent sources found. Help needed.

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you would like my help with. If there are not enough independent sources to meet the WP:GNG benchmark, this may be an indication that the subject is simply not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, GAB^gab 15:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For info, I believe this user is using another sock account. You opened the previous SPI earlier in the year. I've updated the latest case here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GAB. I was wondering if you could help on something that User:EdJohnston was kind enough to start but which doesn't seem to be working. He wrote at User talk:78.129.111.57 on Oct. 7, "I've blocked your IP for a month as block evasion for User:Kurzon, per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard." Yet from Oct. 24 through today, 78.129.111.57, before a month is over, somehow has continued to make block-evading edits at Jerry Siegel. I've notified EdJohnston, but he has been mostly off Wikipedia the last couple of days. Is there anything you could do to help with this IP's persistent block-evading? With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: This is strange, because the IP's blocklog is clear and EdJohnston's blocking log does not mention his block of the IP. In that case, I recommend you take this to ANI to request a block for evasion. I'm not entirely sure whether the IP was simply never blocked in the first place, or if it's technical or whether I'm simply missing something. Thanks for notifying me, though. Best, GAB^gab 14:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked the IP. Must have overlooked this in early October. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up this morning and logged on to my mail, and then to Wikipedia. I got your note about CF and responded on my TALK page, but neglected to ping you. I'd written:

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the heads up and your civility. Activist (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: Hey, no problem. I made the same mistake myself just recently. It happens. GAB^gab 15:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of User:Truth Ninja matches User:Brand New Account. If Brand New Account is itself a sock of someone else, like User:BillyAngel as you indicate, I can't see anything in the edit history of User:BillyAngel to indicate that. Can you elaborate? --Jayron32 01:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so - I do see a similarity to the batch DQ nabbed yesterday. Of course, feel free to tag differently if you believe that is best. Thanks, GAB^gab 01:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GAB, it's been a long time since I checked in on you. I'm not using the special subpage because we don't discuss things on a regular basis anymore. How are you doing? Do you feel comfortable clerking? Do you have any questions, even small ones? Do you feel ready to become a regular clerk? (Promoting you can occur in two ways. I can do it unilaterally or I can pass it by the functionaries. There is precedent for both. I believe I'd do a hybrid where I don't ask the functionaries for a consensus but more along the lines of "I intend to promote GAB; any objections?"

While I'm here, I have a question for you regarding a check I just did. If you file an SPI, is the standard for endorsing a CU the same as if the filer had been someone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you very much for asking. I'm doing fairly well, although I must admit that I am hesitant to clerk the more complex cases with long histories. Case in point being LanguageXpert or other cases where there are many overlapping masters in a popular subject area (ethno/religious/nationalism). it is hard for me to jump into those without investing a really inordinate amount of time. I enjoy clerking generally, even though a lot of it is just easy stuff (archiving, DUCKs, tagging, moving, etc.) I'm also unsure about dealing with behavioral analysis in cases where the technical evidence is truly ambiguous and could split either way. It is also difficult to distinguish between possible socking and meatpuppetry, and to make a call when I am unable to view deleted pages (especially important for spam cases). But I think some of these issues could be resolved through practice, for sure. I do have a question, actually - is there some place I could find a full repository of all socktags used (single tags with dual masters, etc.)? That would be really helpful, in fact. Also, in what cases precisely is it best not to tag? I appreciate your intention to promote me, although I can't really comment definitively at this point... and I think it would be best to ask the functionaries, either the usual way or the hybrid way. Thanks again, GAB^gab 21:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to that second question, yes, the standard ought to be the same. I have no special analytical abilities by nature of being a clerk; indeed, I know plenty of very smart and skilled sock-hunters who are neither CUs, admins, nor clerks. Even with experience, though, the evidence presented is really the key thing. This may not be the "right" (i.e. policy-based) argument, but I think it is the more egalitarian view. GAB^gab 22:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the standard should be the same but not for the reasons you suggest. As a clerk, when you endorse a CU, you should always explain why. Self-endorsing is no different. And you are in a special category as a clerk. In any event, on the SPI at issue you provided no explanation for your self-endorsement.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so it's a question of providing a rationale. Fair enough. GAB^gab 22:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think you have to be an expert to become a full clerk. You'll get lots more experience as you clerk. My focus is on your judgment at this stage, which generally seems to be sound. As for your other questions, technical evidence is on a spectrum. The more towards unrelated it is, the more compelling the behavioral evidence has to be to override it. By the same token, when it's something like possible, then the behavioral evidence can be less strong than if you had no technical evidence at all because the technical evidence gives it a slight boost in favor of socking. Viewing undeleted pages is a problem for any non-admin clerk, trainee or full. If it's necessary, you ask for an admin to look at the deleted articles and explain what you're looking for. Everyone has trouble distinguishing between meat and sock puppetry. If you have technical evidence, the CU may provide some help. Often a CU is requested to rule out socking. If not, I'd lean against finding meat puppetry unless it's really clear. Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about the sock tags. The various permutations are found at the template itself. What exactly are you looking for that isn't covered there? Finally, as for WP:DENY, I'd take my cue from what's been happening historically. If CUs and clerks have been avoiding tags, they often say so and why. For the moment, I don't think I'd be the first not to tag, which is the default unless instructed not to.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't think to check the template page - my bad. GAB^gab 22:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations, GAB, I have just promoted you to full clerk. You don't have to use that template anymore. Just so you know, I notified the functionaries of my intention to promote you barring objections. Not only weren't there any objections, but there were many affirmative comments of support. Don't forget, though, no matter what the title, you are the same person you were a few minutes ago, meaning you shouldn't be shy about asking questions. There are still things to learn.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - that's gratifying to hear, indeed, and I'll be sure to ask for help when needed. GAB^gab 01:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAB, would it be OK with you if I semi-protect your talk page for a few days? Seems like it's been under attack by socks lately. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Yes, thank you very much. GAB^gab 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. Maybe they'll get bored and go away. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I've had an unusually long reprieve from socks attacking my tp, I guess it was bound to end eventually. GAB^gab 18:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your protection log you do seem to be uncommonly attractive to them. Why is it trolls never get bored and go away? I know the answer, of course: because they have no life. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then, do I? It's mostly the work of a few determined LTAs, I would think. But some have had it much, much worse. GAB^gab 18:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then, do I? Ouch! Do any of us? --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. GAB^gab 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re an active Twinkle new user welcomer. The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle Welcomer. Include the following information:

• Username

• Email where we can reach you

• Your city or time zone

• Best time to talk to you

• Your primary use(s) of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this. I have no idea what the bit you bolded was referring to. It looks like a misprint, since "lower on the page" implies "more recent" and the thread in question was the last place I posted. I have also only directly conflicted (read: I started a thread on them or they started a thread on me) with one user on ANI recently, and he has a very distinctive writing style that would make it obvious if Tivandir2 was him. If it was someone who happened to disagree with me on some random ANI thread that we both happened to comment on ... well, that could be just about anyone if we went back far enough, but recently ... the pool is pretty small, and I still can't think of anyone. Tivandir2's wording also implied their interaction with me goes back some time ("several instances in the past").

Again, I don't think I have "conflicted" with Mr rnddude to any great extent, but he, Signedzzz, Snow Rise (to whom Tivandir2 referred to in the third person), MjolnirPants, Ian.Thomson, JzG, Dennis Brown and EdJohnston, are the only users I can recall interacting with on more than one ANI thread in the past and also doing so recently, but I didn't "conflict" with any of them except EdJohnston (an admin) and Snow Rise (to whom Tivandir2 referred in the third person). In the (unlikely) event that it was Snow Rise pretending to be an outside observer, he did such a sloppy job that he couldn't have possibly hoped to get away with it (disagree with him as I might, Snow Rise is smarter than that).

The rabbit-hole is pretty deep, and the only thing that is certain is that Tivandir2 claimed to have interacted with me in the past. That's why I wanted CU to confirm who they were claiming to be.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey how are you?? I want some information. Firstly I improved a page, but someone revert it and the reason was that it was similar to the edits of a sock puppet. I mean what if it was same, at least I improved it, and a user thanked me for it,but still it got reverted. So will you tell me that how can I revert it again. The other thing that I want to know is that how can I edit a page that is protected for a certain time?? And the third thing is how can I block a user who misbehaves?? I hope that you'll help me. Aashka De Seene Vich Dil Naio (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've nominated for being a sock puppet but I want to defend myself. I am not a sock puppet this is my original and only account. Aashka De Seene Vich Dil Naio (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to mention this on that page under "Comments by other users." GAB^gab 17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I don't see how it lends to undue weight considering it's just a completion of the article already referenced. By referencing "Groper in Chief" wikipedia should include the entire Harth-Trump "interaction/relationship", and not just pick and chose parts of said "interaction/relationship." Robd831 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)robd831[reply]

@Robd831: Alright, I understand. Other editors at that page may disagree with me, and I trust that the question will be adequately resolved to satisfy everyone. I don't intend on editing in that area much, anyways. Regards, GAB^gab 16:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAB, you didn't handle this correctly. I wanted you to create a new case, not to move the old case to a new master. The way you've done it we've lost the original case. I haven't thought about how to fix it yet. Can you do it, or does it require an administrator? Please ping me and let me know either way. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: It doesn't look like GAB has been around since I left this message. Could you straighten out the two cases? Let me know if what I wish done isn't clear to you. Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I restored to the state as it was before GAB's move. Should I now cut and paste the latest case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingmundson? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Whatever we normally do when we create a new case without deleting the old case. I can't remember whether we copy/paste or cut/paste.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I copy-pasted the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingmundson. Hope it's ok. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Everything looks great. I archived both. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 and Vanjagenije: Hi... I'm really sorry that I mistakenly rearranged the case incorrectly. I'll be sure to take things more slowly and be more careful on future cases. Thank you for cleaning up the mess... GAB^gab 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UnbiasedVictory is back as User:Wikimikimotion and User:ChrisInNC. 2605:6001:E484:1000:A072:9B0E:7AD9:E7B5 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnInDC: GAB^gab 21:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UnbiasedVictory. JohnInDC (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations GAB. Well earned. Mkdw^talk 01:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Thank you - I've always found SPI interesting, and I'm glad to help out to the best of my ability GAB^gab 01:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.... I think User:Wikiedits161136 and User:Mcgreggorsarmy98 are used by same editor. For starters, they have the same exact user pages and talk pages, and were created on the same day. I know Generalizations are bad (no pun intended), that is why I`m asking you, can you please determine whether they are connected. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@DRAGON BOOSTER: Unfortunately, I don't see the similarities between these accounts besides the fact that they both did TWA and were created about a day apart. Sorry. GAB^gab 19:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, regards DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have revised the [Dick] Blick Art Materials page and would like to publish it on Wikipedia. I took your recent comments to heart and what now remains is a very short, very factual synopsis of the company's history, evolution, ownership, and product focus. I would very much appreciate your help. Please advise how to proceed? Thank you. Asghunt (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Asghunt: The reason I reverted was because the addition was overtly promotional; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement, and we need to write as neutrally as possible (as though we neither like nor dislike the subject). Moreover, as per our conflict of interest policy, you should not edit that page if you have an affiliation with the subject. I hope this is somewhat helpful. Regards, and have a good thanksgiving, GAB^gab 15:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GAB, for your thoughtful response. My question is this: Since Blick is a privately held company, and relatively small, it has never been on the radar for the financial media, so not much has been written about the company. Again, the art supply world is relatively small, too, so the only ones who care about what we do are artists (professional, beginning, and everyone in between), schools, students, teachers, crafters, hobbyists, architects, illustrators, camps, senior living facilities, facilities for those with disabilities -- basically anyone who has an interest in (or passion for) art for pleasure, as a learning/teaching tool, or as a profession. The only things we manufacture are our Utrecht brand paints and mediums (in Brooklyn, New York), although we have many private-label products under the Blick brand manufactured for us by others. So nobody in the media is interested in us except as a major employer in Galesburg, Illinois, where the company is highly regarded, and as a part of the communities in which we have retail stores because of the partnerships developed there. So, I’m finding it difficult to find anyone who has written anything that I could use as an impartial source. Anyone writing or submitting anything about Blick would still be doing so at the behest of the company. Our goal is to simply make sure the information on Wikipedia is correct. We have no interest in using Wikipedia for advertising or marketing purposes. May I send you the short synopsis I have written, and perhaps you can offer further direction? Wishing you a great Thanksgiving as well. Asghunt (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Asghunt: I'd like to offer some additional advice on finding reliable, independent, third-party sources. Let's continue this discussion on the Talk page. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeneralizationsAreBad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your action at User talk:PantherBF3.

But take note he is not edit warring it is vandalism.

Check his warnings on his talk page and check his block log please.

Can an administrator please take action here ?

Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the editor to ANEW. GAB^gab 23:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it is vandalism. Sagecandor (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's borderline disruptive editing, I'd generally take it to ANEW. Regards, GAB^gab 00:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 858 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralizationsAreBad,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]