User talk:Zeibgeist/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zeibgeist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Lord Bolingbroke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Please, assume not the slightest intention of any offense in my objections, and feel free to simply delete my remarks from your talk page, in case you feel bothered.

While stalking the talk page of Wcherowi I noticed your intent to illustrate the claim of B. Oakly that "mathematical symbols were more highly encrypted than regular words". By referring to the mentioned "cow" I claim that this notion is by far "more highly encrypted" than the notion of "addition". Comparing the plethora of properties involved in identifying something as "cow" (this is a cow, and that also, yes, this too, ...) to the few -admittedly- abstract axioms making up the "addition", makes it obvious to me that Oakly is carried away by the rigorous abstractness of this notion, and involves a new term, encryption, which is imho not appropriate. It is not true that "cow" would not exist as a fully abstract notion, as the cow-in-itself; and it exists in an enormous variety as concrete animal, chewing grass on a meadow, within a, possibly big, herd, made up of, all of them, cows. On the other hand, the "addition" is not only an abstract notion, but has real manifestations, too: adding a dash of salt to some soup "adds" the number representing the mass of the dash to the number representing the mass of the soup (both in the same units, neglecting mass deficits of chemical reactions), putting together a number of fruits from one basket to a number of fruits from another basket adds these numbers to the total number of fruits, and infinitely many other instantiations. The essence of mathematical addition is to embody the addition-in-itself, disregarding any concrete realisation. Maybe, we cannot phrase (axiomatize) a "cow-in-itself", but math works on phrasing "addition-in-itself". Imho, with respect to addition, Oakly is right, when talking about "abstraction", wrong, when denying "physical analogs", and quite meaningless, when mentioning "encryption". Therefore, I object to any illustration of this thought.

I think your notion of "recursive" is besides my view on this term. While "iterative" is the term I use for repeatedly executing some fixed algorithm on the values, which the previous application of this very algorithm delivered, a "recursive" algorith does not finish right away, but invokes a new instantiation of itself during its run, before it finishes on some specific situation only. Only then, the innermost instantiation returns control to the encompassing one, and finally climbs up to the top level instantiation. The definition of factorials via n! := n*(n-1)! is recursive, while n! := ((...((1*2)*3)*...)*n) is an iterative definition (there is the unique starting place 1*2). So I think that claiming that the multiplication symbol symbolizes "recursive" addition is misleading. That, from a pure mathematical point of view, even the view on multiplication as iterative addition is flawed, is demonstrated in the articles of K. Devlin. However, this does not answer the question, wether the physically real processes of iterative addition, and even the abstract realizations within e.g. discrete logarithms and exponents, warrant an elementary introduction of multiplication via repeated addition in early math education. Certainly, MIRA should not be established as the heart of multiplication.

Happy editing. Purgy (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Women are choosing not to edit voluntarily means exactly what it says. That wikipedia is edited by volunteers and therefore the lack of women editing is down to free choice. This is different than if editors were employed and had to pass a job interview and more men were chosen than women to work for wikipedia. This does happen in some companies, however not in wikipedia. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I just want to avoid to be seen as impolite, so I reply to your comment there -personally addressing me- here at your TP, but keep up intending not to partake in any further discussion on this topic:
In a similar vain as you seem to have been unable to discuss my remarks about Oakley's claim last October, I am also unable to discuss your attachment -even when you deny it- to her claims about abstractness (see c-o-w, and others) and encryptedness (no comment). There are voices supporting my suggestion of radical removal, those requiring sourcing and an unconditional fanbase (Paul August) for your sustainment desires, even under adulteration of the original text. I admit, I am no WPian to the core like BenKovitz, I would prefer to have rationally sound, but unsourced sentences (pre-Oakley), to all this rubbish, extracted from books with the primary goal of "empowerment" of the mathematically challenged ("A Mind For Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even If You Flunked Algebra)"). Purgy (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ready to dispute this; how's about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themindelectric (talk • contribs) 04:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia needs to be based on independent, published sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). The Tumblr blog post you cited does not meet these criteria. If there are any independent sources that support the content you added to the article, I don't object to it being included. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

To my understanding, it is a run-on sentence. It doesn’t even a have a comma to separate it. ~SML • TP 19:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: It is not a run-on sentence, as "that was first produced by Lincoln Wagenhals and Collin Kemper in 1920" is not an independent clause. A run-on sentence is a sequence of independent clauses that don't have a conjunction to connect them and that aren't separated by a period or semicolon. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit: "The Bat is a three-act play by Mary Roberts Rinehart and Avery Hopwood. It was the first produced by Lincoln Wagenhals and Collin Kemper in 1920." The second sentence says that The Bat was the first three-act play produced by Lincoln Wagenhals and Collin Kemper in 1920, which has a totally different meaning than the version of the lead I restored. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the edit summary of "ungrammatical" in my revert is inaccurate. Your edit was grammatically sound; it just has a different meaning than the text you replaced. Removing the definite article in your version ("It was first produced" as opposed to "It was the first produced") would maintain the same meaning. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The article The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Bolingbroke. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll make a note to be more specific in my citations. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It is my view that local sources are rarely sufficient for anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? How small has a city - town - be, or the circulation of a given magazine, to not be sufficient? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

An argument against local sources is that at the bottom of the scale we will have stuff like high school or village newsletters, generally written by people who are can't be considered authoritative.

What is local? I draw the line like this: national, regional, local. Regional is ok and it means second highest level of administrative division (like state in US or voivodeship in Poland). Local is 'below' that, through exceptions can and should be made, if local sources are of higher quality, or can show significant circulation and impact (roughly, similar to regional sources, ex. some newspapers in big cities can be compared to regional ones for that country, if said city has population equal to a region, think NYC vs Wyoming, etc.). This can be discussed on case by case basis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to undo the test edit done by an IP right after your edit, and evidently clicked on the wrong row. My apologies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: No worries! It's easy to misclick. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your citation request at the Murder of Lisa Holm article, all such intra-EU transfers of prisoners back to their home countries for serving out their sentences are covered under this 2008 framework decision. Link. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: Thanks for the note. To clarify, my citation request wasn't about the details of the EU decision, but rather your claim that "this mechanism has become increasingly controversial in recent years, due at least in part to a hardening perception that criminals are often able to escape their due punishment because of judicial and/or political interference". This evaluation of the policy definitely needs a reference to a third-party source. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi - not sure if I am doing this correctly but I edited the wiki page for George Latimer because it contained political propaganda and not unbiased facts. and it was removed and they said I needed to explain it better my reasoning - does this help? CatherineAC23 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping with coordinates on the Kenton Club draft page. I've struggled with coordinates before, hence why I haven't cleared out Category:Oregon articles missing geocoordinate data. Thank for your work on Portland/Oregon-related articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar! I've seen you around a lot on Portland pages, and it means a lot to me that you've noticed and appreciated my work. I do hope to get back on Wikipedia more sometime— hopefully I can find a life balance where I'm editing more frequently. I really do appreciate the community here, and thank you for making it special. Margalob (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ima hop on the thank you bus and also say "Thank you!". Although for different reasons you seem like a pretty helpful person. Keep up the good work! --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oregonship. Since you had some involvement with the Oregonship redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay I was looking for the name of the creator on here and was unsure if it is real, this seem to be the one time I didn't google something when I put up the hoax tag as I usually am very careful, go figure. Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing was the article read like a classic Wikipedia hoax article (which quite a few of those were popping up recently in this form), at first I thought it could be real, but then to me it sounded odd. It might be notable though (Though I'm sure someone would of tagged it for deletion), well thanks. Wgolf (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Mistakes happen, don't stress about it. Just make sure to Google the title of an article before you claim it is a hoax next time ;) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of not biting as new editors are the future of the project.

On the other hand, Rajiv Dingra is typical paid placement. The fact that the paid contributor who wrote it did so before being blocked is a technical detail. The article is still one sided and covers a subject of doubtful notability. I declined because even though the article is junk I do try to follow the CSD closely. In this particular situation, I don't believe there's any harm in placing the tag. Are there other situations where sloppy placement of a deletion tag would be bitey? Sure.. UninvitedCompany 16:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi There, i would like to know the concerned part of the proposed page for the speedy deletion, because of which you had objected its existence on Wikipedia. I am committed to do all rectifications or improvement to clarify the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhh97 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shubhh97. In general, for a subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it must have received significant coverage in independent sources. When a subject has received such coverage, it is said to be "notable"—the specific notability guideline for companies is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). While I found the name of Acuro Organics Limited mentioned in a few sources—for example here and here—I did not find any in depth coverage that would establish the company's notability. The two sources currently in the article are not sufficient: the first is simply a listing of basic information about the company, and does not qualify as significant coverage as described in WP:CORPDEPTH; the second source is from Acuro's own website, and does not qualify as independent coverage as described in WP:ORGIND. Are you aware of any other sources that could establish Acuro's notability? If you don't add any additional sources, the article will probably be taken to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Best of luck in your efforts to improve the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to kindly question the speedy deletion of the article on the platform Culture Agora. At 18:17 I received a constructive message requesting a review, from -83.240.234.220 (talk) in any case, to retrieve the full material. And only an hour later, you did the Speedy Deletion. I believe the article could have been improved, but I see no reason at all for its deletion. And in any case, I would like to retrieve the materials. Nullaparte (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nullaparte (I'm the IP who wrote to you). The article was overly promotional and essay-like, so it's understandable that it was deleted. I would suggest to you to just start over from scratch by first collecting mentions in reliable secondary sources, and write your article in draftspace under the title Draft:Culture Agora. There wasn't much encyclopedic content there, so sometimes it's just good to start over. You could maybe find some similar article here on a program supported by the European Union and try to copy that article's structure. --83.240.234.220 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Nullaparte, I did not delete the article but rather nominated if for deletion. The actual deletion was performed by User:RHaworth as shown in the deletion log. I tagged your page under section G11 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, which is for pages that are exclusively promotional. Consider the following passages: "Agora's approach to language, both with a multilingual platform and with its automatic translation tools, offers a huge advantage to bridge the initial language barrier..."; "Agora has a fully transversal, multicounty, multi-discipline strategy"; and "Agora's content is as wide as the cultural and creative sector". This kind of marketing buzz-speak reads like it's from Agora's own website rather than an encyclopedia. Because the whole page was written like this (or contained content that was only tangentially relevant to Agora) I decided that G11 was an appropriate tag. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Another factor I considered was the lack of independent sources that discussed Culture Agora. Coverage in reliable, independent sources is necessary to establish a subject's notability, which is a prerequisite for it having an article on Wikipedia. If I had found independent news coverage of the platform, for instance, I could have used these sources to rewrite the article in a more neutral way. As it was, however, I didn't see much potential for the article to be rewritten in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. Thanks for adding the missing coordinates. Nothing historical behind the name, it's from a track title on the album The Owl's Map. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. I think it rolls of the tongue nicely, in any case. :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Europe Supported by Africa and America. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I have started a discussion on the talk page. Please do not continue to edit war. Dartslilly (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dartslilly: Um, excuse me? You removed the {{William Blake}} template without an explanation so I restored it. Reverting (part of) an edit one time is not edit warring. If anyone is edit warring here, it's you: you reverted me twice and I reverted you once. I'd also advise you to read the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – OP blocked as sock – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

[1] ZanerG30 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me ZanerG30. While this source verifies Gardner's existence, it in now way establishes his (your?) notability. People need to have received significant coverage in multiple sources before they can qualify for a Wikipedia article, and this source just mentions Gardner tangentially in a single sentence. Let me know if you have any questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes what does that mean can I keep my page with out being deleted? ZanerG30 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@ZanerG30: Whether or not the page will be deleted is up to one of Wikipedia's administrators, who will review my deletion request. In all likelihood, the page will be deleted because Gardner hasn't been covered extensively in independent sources. Please review Wikipedia's general notability guideline to understand the kind of coverage a topic must receive before it can be a Wikipedia article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

[2] Look at this then I am to an artist ZanerG30 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I am it popular book ZanerG30 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@ZanerG30: Please stop spamming my talk page. More importantly, stop trying to create an autobiography. I've left a message on your talk page explaining why this is discouraged on Wikipedia. If you continue with the attempts at self-promotion, you may wind up blocked from editing. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok I don’t want to be blocked and I am not spamming and I am trying not to write an autobiography all I like Wikipedia I am still trying to figure why can I be unblocked? ZanerG30 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@ZanerG30: I must admit that I'm having some trouble understanding you. Let me just ask so I'm clear: Are you Zane Gardner? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am Zane Gardner I once was a martial artist and a basketball player now a painter ZanerG30 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Now that we have that established, let me be clear: Stop trying to create an article about yourself (that is what I meant by creating an autobiography). Self-promotion of this kind is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you would like to contribute constructively to other articles, we welcome that, but you should not be editing about yourself. Again, you will be blocked if you continue with the self-promotion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lord Bolingbroke. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For being an all-around great editor Chetsford (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Chetsford! It's an honor that my first barnstar would come from you. Also, congratulations on your successful RfA! – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lord Bolingbroke. I left you a message on my talk page, you missed it. Thanks for your corrections. I have made adjustments. Kindly review the page again for me. Thank you! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enkay_Ogboruche) Ogeode (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ogeode. Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you. I'll leave some more feedback at the the original thread on your talk page. For future reference, to link to a Wikipedia page you should enclose it in double brackets like so: [[Draft:Enkay Ogboruche]]. I've done so in the header of this thread as an example. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. About Fernanda Young, well, no, it wasn't a direct translation, or at least it wasn't supposed to be. I made the page making a point about only adding properly-sourced information, but now I see that an user, Jvalienforce (talk) basically copy-pasted a translation from the Portuguese Wikipedia page (and not a good one, given the many edits from other users having to correct glaring translation mistakes), including adding the many unsourced claims from the Portuguese Wikipedia article.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@EdgarCabreraFariña: Thanks for clarifying; I should have looked looked at the article history more carefully. Your original version looks good. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke: No problem; I thought at first that I missed something, it can happen.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi LB

I spoke with Tone about the deletion of Alakkuu after you it was discussed for quite a while. He/she mentioned that I talk to you because I genuinely believe I had valid arguments that I hope can be considered.

After reading "other stuff exists", it seems that

1) TedX is widely used on Wiki as a notable resource. Shouldn't that be accepted here?

2) I've come across several articles that have the subject in it via interview style being used as notable sources, even though they don't carry the same weight as Forbes. I'm confused as to why this rule of acceptance doesn't apply here

3) He has work published on www.hiiraan.com (which is used as a notable reference on Wiki as well on different articles)

4) After scrubbing the subject's social media, his work will be studied in an English Class this fall in Minneapolis, MN. He is also the son of famous Somali intellectual Abdirahman Yabarow who seems to have his own article on Wiki. Would these be helpful?

For your convenience, below were my initial comments:

Here's a podcast available on OwlTail that labels Alakkuu and Boonaa Mohammed as "two well respected, solidified poets of our generation" https://www.owltail.com/podcasts/qKFTx-Lets-Talk-About-It — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Boonaa Mohammed has 1 of 3 references of notability; one of which is a TedX talk. Why isn't Alakkuu's TedX talk given the same weight in notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Understandable that the award from CBC was considered, but Alakkuu is a best selling African poet, and I don't see why that isn't being considered. Also, an accepted article pertaining to [Boonaa Mohammed]] (https://web.archive.org/web/20110823202903/http://oromiatimes.multiply.com/journal/item/1237/Oromo_-_Canadian_Poet_Boonaa_Mohammed_Celebrates_African_Legacy) was very similar to the Forbes article of Alakkuu, but from a much less notable source (bio and answers from the subject himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Noticed that references produced by the subject him/herself are accepted , e.g. Nayyirah Waheed wrote https://www.vibe.com/featured/afeni-shakur-mothers-day-poem and this was used as a viable reference on this subject's page. Due to this, I'd like to bring into the discussion an article written by the subject that was published on a notable African News platform - https://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-op-2010-jan-light_skin_vs_dark_skin.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again and my apologies for the long message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Yortay. Thanks for reaching out to me. There are two preliminary things I would like to address. First, do you have a connection to Alakkuu in some way? Were you paid to create his article? Second, please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) and indent them using colons (:) when replying to a previous comment. See the other threads on this page for examples of how to indent.

Alright, let me address your points in order:

1) The reason Alakkuu's TedX talk does not establish his notability is because it is not an independent source. We need sources about Alakkuu, not by Alakkuu, to show that he is notable.

2) Interviews with the subject of an article are not considered independent sources. While it's perfectly fine to cite interviews, the interviews you're referring to are likely not "notable sources", as you call them. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Livas for an example of a deletion discussion where interviews with the subject of the article were not considered to establish his notability.

3) I'm not sure how this is relevant. Simply getting published somewhere is not an indication of notability; it's the response to what's published (significant critical attention, widespread citations, etc.) that would indicate an author's notability, as described at WP:NAUTHOR.

4) If Alakkuu's work was being widely studied in academic institutions, that would indeed be an indication that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. However, being studied in a single class (at what school, btw?) is not enough to establish his notability. Regarding Alakkuu's connection to Abdirahman Yabarow, please see WP:NOTINHERITED; having notable relatives is not an accepted reason for why someone should have a Wikipedia article.

Hopefully this explanation was helpful to you. As Tone mentioned, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Although there is consensus that Alakkuu is not yet notable, he may become so at a later date. The best course of action is probably to wait and reevaluate Alakku's notability if/when he receives more attention from independent sources. Let me know if you have any questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi LB - thanks for the prompt reply. I do not have any connection to the subject, nor was I paid to write this article. All of your explanations make sense. The only question I had was: regarding the other articles that use TedX as notable resources, is that something that is used as a secondary, lesser resource I guess? And not something used as a primary resource of notability? Do you have any advice for me in the future on what to look for most when trying to create an article, that you think would be helpful? I can see how this one is too soon. Thanks again Yortay (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Zeibgeist,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I nominated an article that you worked on for DYK here - Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Fortune (writer). SL93 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Thanks for the note, and for the improvements you've made to the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you attention to the Bissinger Wool Pullery article.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article Hu Nhu. I'm glad to help out with some copy editing. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke:I appreciate your offer to copy edit. Mostly, I am able to compose English well. I now see the sentence with which I began this section indicates otherwise. My use of the pronoun, you, was accidental, and I fully understand I should have used the possessive pronoun, your. Even now, as I review the article, I still see where I perhaps can revise to improve the prose. However, next, I am now going to create another article—a biography—and hope to complete it within a few days.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

On 24 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jan Fortune (writer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American writer Jan Fortune was born in the back of a post office in Wellington, Texas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Fortune (writer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jan Fortune (writer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I made another much larger page that I gotta connect to google and stuff still not to sure how to do that. If you have the time I would appreciate it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_UFC_fighters Tsims23 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tsims23. I took a quick look at the page, and I'm not sure that is passes WP:LISTN. I also notice that CASSIOPEIA brought up some issues with the article's sourcing on your talk page. I'll take a more detailed look tomorrow and decide whether to review the page after I've done a more thorough inspection of the sources. Let me know if you have any questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke Thank you for taking a look. I had a look at that and i believe my list fulfills recognized informational in take for all Canadians who love the sport. I have since updated the references(first ref is Sherdog/ second is legit reference from either news site or one i acquired form the fighters list of refs on wikipedia) i have since also asked CLASSOPEIA to take another look at it aswell, there is alot of references to got through, im also wondering does this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_UFC_fighters meet WP:LISTN standards the reason i ask is this was my inspiration for making the page(why don't we have one of those lol). i do appriate you and classopedia helping me out its still a work in progress. let me know how is goes plzTsims23 (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tsims23, after looking through the sources, I'm still on the edge about whether the article passes WP:LISTN. LISTN requires that a list topic be discussed as a group or set by sources in order to be notable—although you have provided sources showing that each of the indiviual fighters on the list is Canadian, the cited sources don't appear to provide coverage of Canadian UFC fighters as a group, which is the salient factor when considering the page's notability. I found sources like this, this, and this through a quick Google search that discuss Canadian UFC fighters as a set, but in my evaluation these are either unreliable or simple listings that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. I haven't looked very throughly, however, and there may be more sources that I'm unaware of. I hope this explanation was helpful. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke sorry about late reply am in the midst of switching jobs. I will take a closer look and make sure it fits standards.Tsims23 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

hello. Re George Beauchamp, Titanic. I am sorry if this is not on the correct page as I do not understand how this works. My parents and I moved to the woolpack inn Redbridge when I was seven. One of our “regulars” was George Beauchamp who was known as a survivor of the Titanic by everyone in the small village . He eventually moved in with us until he died in 1965. He was never on the Lusitania,a quick check on crew lists will show. The man from Hull, the subject of the recent newspaper reports, is mistaken identity. He has different birth and death dates, different places of birth and death. The encyclopaedia Titanica has his biography correct. He never married so I feel I need to clear up the facts. I have no way of proving any of this except his death was reported in the Southern Evening Echo in April 1965. Except for going to sea he spent all his life in the Southampton area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.245.90 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Zeibgeist,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 850 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

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, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lord Bolingbroke,

Thank you for refactoring my dual reflists into one for readability. I wondered if one, or two, reflist-talk templates would be better, but your refactoring was a net positive. So, thank you. I debated whether this merited just a "thanks" in the thank log, a "thanks" in the thank log + a mention on your talk page, or a "thanks" in the thank log + a Barnstar, but thought the second option seemed most appropriate.

Happy editing! : )

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Lord Bolingbroke,

Further to your useful RfD in Creepy porn lawyer, I've added detail to Tucker Carlson Tonight#Criticism. Can you take a look at my edit and see if it was well written? I believe that I've maintained a neutral tone, balancing sources from all sides.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Cecilia Harvey, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that Lord B. I had been looking into someone who had new page reviewer and who was doing UPE and had not noticed this had gone to AfD and so your review was appropriate. Sorry about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries Barkeep49. I'm glad to have someone checking my reviews, as I'm still a relatively inexperienced new pages patroller. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey. I just started plugging away on a New Columbia article today, and I didn't do the preliminary checks I should have that would have led me to your draft. I feel like a fool! Your draft has a lot of pieces, like the infobox, that I have not yet implemented. There's also, predictably, a lot of overlap in information, but I think synthesizing the two articles could make a really strong final product. Do you mind if I start adding missing bits from your article? Would you like to synthesize the two? I regret not checking and finding this draft before I started. Let me know what you think, and thanks. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Alternately, I wouldn't object at all to you blanking my article and replacing it with yours... and then I'll take on the tedium of synthesizing the two instead of putting that job on you. Just had that thought. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries Skeletor3000. My version has been sitting in draftspace for far too long, and this will be good motivation for me to finally get it mainspace-ready. I went ahead and made a few additions from my draft. I'm quite busy with work atm, but I'll try to expand and synthesize more in the coming days. Would you consider co-nominating the article for WP:DYK? I think it's a good addition to the encyclopedia, and I'd love for it to appear on the main page. The bit about Columbia Villa being the site of Portland's first known gang killing would make for a good hook, in particular. I look forward to collaborating on the article! – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll likely build the article some more as well. I hadn't thought about the gang shooting detail being a good DYK, but you're totally right. I haven't submitted anything for DYK before, but I'll look into it tomorrow. Definitely let me know if you want help with incorporating anything or if there's any disparities in our content that need to get sorted out. Have a good night! Skeletor3000 (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new enough to Wikipedia, so didn't know where particularly to leave this, so I'm putting this here as you nominated the page Bridget Mary Crowley for speedy deletion. I've fleshed out the article substantially and would like your opinion on whether it constitutes notability to have a Wikipedia page. Of course, I understand if it does not. By the way, very happy to see you say "the subject is the sister of notable Irish revolutionaries" - these heroes have been overlooked by history for a long time, and it is great to hear them referred to as "notable"! (adding this bit now as I forgot to say it earlier): I can provide copies of the records I have referenced, and some should be available on their respective websites, though the Bureau of Military History website has been acting up for quite some time, at least for me! So, I may have to show you those (through PDFs, which I have on my laptop) if needed. Kind regards, Jburke2005 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2020. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply (with a ping) to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Zeibgeist,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Zeibgeist,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Zeibgeist,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Zeibgeist,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:DouYu logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zeibgeist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.