Hi - I understand that some of the sources are new media sources and may not be considered reliable. Are the magazines and references from the .edu sites considered reliable? Are these the sorts of sources I should look for to support the other content? Thank you for your assistance.
Notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
BeaglePower (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The current reviewer has asked for a person with more expertise in chemistry to review: A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Acid and Base Strengths. Is the most recent message from Insertcleverphrasehere a clerical step in this process?
BeaglePower (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BeaglePower Its not so much about the chemistry, but about what makes an article topic. This isn't a topic at all, rather it is just an explanation, very essay like at that. The chemistry can be totally sound or not, but it still wont make it suitable as a wikipedia topic for an article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defining acid or base strength and how to compare one acid or base to another is not simple. This Wikipedia piece is meant to show that there is a way to unambiguously define Lewis acid and base strengths. To understand the definition the need for two parameters (or properties) must be clearly demonstrated. This graphical approach clearly illustrates something that many students have trouble understanding. I have taught his approach for many years in an advanced college chemistry course and have found it very helpful to students for learning the unambiguous definition of Lewis acid and Lewis base strengths. If a Wikipedia piece had been available when I first learned of this, it would have been very helpful to me as I prepared to teach this. We offered this piece in the hope that it would be useful to others trying to teach about acids and bases.
Hi there, I see that you patrolled the sandbox page that I created to test content before applying to the main article The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon, due to this I have moved it to my user space as I do not want it to be treated as an article itself, it was merely a sandbox. I was wondering if you could mark the actual article as 'patrolled' as it has yet to be marked as such (is in DYK section of main page at the moment) and, since I do not have the autopatrolled right, I cannot review it myself. Thanks in advance! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I searched it before messaging you (and now) and the article still shows up as unreviewed when I search/filter for articles by "TheSandDoctor" that are unreviewed in the mainspace. Another indication that it has not been reviewed is the fact that it does not show up when googling the title. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's not really any better source that could be used because the one I put there is from the official website. It has every information needed there so even though I understand that only one source for a page can make it a bit untrustworth, i don't really know which sources i could use other than that one.
It's a good source, that's why I marked it as reviewed, but articles are generally required to have more than one reference to a reliable source (even if the best source available is already included), as it helps with verification. — InsertCleverPhraseHere20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I'll try to find more sources, even if they only apply to just a section of the text. I still have to add one source per connection so in the future I think there won't be any issues with lack of sources Ligaanet (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the service tab on the Lisbon Subway Blue Line appear to have the terminus mixed up, instead of showing the Santa Apolónia Metro Station it shows the train station with the same name, could you look into this? As far as I remeber there's a similar problem in teh Green line where the terminus is the Cais do Sodré station (showing mistakenly the train station and not the metro one)
Ligaanet (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged my article, Speed Langworthy, for speedy deletion. I spent literally nine hours to write this article. Speed Langworthy is mentioned on the sheet music posted to Wikipedia by another user. Featured on Roaring Twenties among other articles.
Feel free to ask the admin who deleted it to restore it to a draft article that you can work on. Keeping or deleting wikipedia articles is generally dependent on demonstrating notibilty by citing reliable sources. Once you have a draft of the article, message me and I will come over and help you with the sources as best I can. — InsertCleverPhraseHere22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Garfield7380 The article content was restored to Draft:Speed Langworthy by the deleting admin after I requested it from them. I see that you worked on this considerably after I tagged it. I apologize for not revisiting it after tagging it, and the admin who deleted probably should have declined the CSD. I am going to restore it back to the article space now as I believe that in its current state it should not have been deleted in the first place. — InsertCleverPhraseHere00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List_of_Falcon_9 edit
FYI re [1] I think this was a move of date from March to February rather than deletion. I believe it is genuine, but we have no reliable source other than forum comment. Lacking cite, it was correct to revert it. crandles (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@crandles Thanks, it was an unexplained edit by an IP user so I wanted to make sure it was genuine and not vandalism. Thanks very much for reviewing the edit. Given the sourcing issue, I'd agree it is still better to wait for a better source before removing the entry. — InsertCleverPhraseHere23:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because It appears from the page history that they are actively working on it, I am keeping an eye on it, and I posted a message to the page creator about it already. — InsertCleverPhraseHere02:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, having checked up on it, it seems that the article was a recreation of some of the material at Gaturro (film) probably confusion about the name as the film is known by several names but no one had bothered creating a redirect for the alternative name. I have converted it to a redirect. Another user, GaturroNik, had added a redirect tag to the Gaturro (film) article, perhaps starting the whole kerfuffle. Thanks for stopping by. — InsertCleverPhraseHere03:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gaturro
I know, I was trying to redirect it, but I'm from wikipedia in Spanish, where I'm a auto-confirmed user, but here, then, I can not "move" the page. Could you move it?. Bye, --Tanghetto5 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to ask you a question: Why can not you translate content from Spanish to English? Or is it possible and is a mistake of my computer ?. Bye --Tanghetto5 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Translation isn't my strong suit, and I don't speak spanish very well at all, so I am not the best person to ask. Other editors will often translate articles from other languages, and I have worked with an editor on the Russian Wiki collaborating between our articles on the same topic. Google translate is generally not sufficient for translating, as it produces poor grammar and sentence structure, but it can be a start with some cleanup. What article did you have in mind? — InsertCleverPhraseHere22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Inaccurate diff-link
Hello. At the Edit warring complaint page I noticed that you intended to link to a talk page comment (by me) on Richardknight's talk page. I then noticed you linked to the wrong target. Under the heading:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
you added the following:
"05:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Steve Quinn attempted to engage with the editor about the issue on the talk page, unsuccessfully."
But, it seems you may have linked to the wrong page - the link goes here: [2].
My talk page comment, on their page, is here: [3]. I did leave a comment on the Draft talk page [4], but this was a general statement. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for bringing this to the Edit Warring noticeboard.
Guizhou Institute of Technology is no longer part of Guizhou University. This is the reference I used on my wiki page. If you still want further evidence, why don't you ask the university ?
'Guizhou Institute of Technology (GIT) is a provincial university approved by the Ministry of Education of the PRC, which is molded into a polytechnic institute focused on engineering to invigorate Guizhou Province's industry and urbanization proposed by the Guizhou Government. GIT started admitting students from 2013. currently with a scale of 9,000 full-time undergraduate students'.[1]
[1] GUIZHOU Institute of Technology (n.d) Home [Online] Available: http://eng.git.edu.cn/ (Accessed 25.07.17).
Guizhou Institute of Technology (GIT) is no longer part of Guizhou University and putting them on the same page would be incorrect [2].
In addition to the university website reference that I have already given [1], here are a few more recent articles, connected to GIT
[2][3][4][5]. It is certain, there are also more written in Chinese. I accept the original wiki page could be expanded and a logo added, that, however, might have to wait.
[1] GUIZHOU Institute of Technology (n.d) Home [Online] Available: http://eng.git.edu.cn/ (Accessed 25.07.17).
[2] says nothing of the institute being split from Guizhou University, [1] is the organisation's web page itself, which is a primary source and usually these are not used as citations on a subject's article except for trivial details. Nature Index[3] literally allows paid promotion by employers. [4] doesn't seem to have nothing to do with GIT at all. [5]... so a person affiliated with GIT got an article published? so what? I've gotten articles published too, but I'm not even close to meeting the notability criteria.
To summarise. 1 is not independent, and none of the rest have significant coverage of GIT. 3 is clearly not reliable. 2 is a listicle, and no indication that it is a reliable source either. 4 and 5 have nothing to do with GIT. See Rule 42. — InsertCleverPhraseHere10:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Style6000. Most of the references seem to be primary sources, or marketing materials. These sorts of references can sometimes be useful for trivial technical details, but articles should not be based off such sources in most cases, and to satisfy the notability requirement of wikipedia articles, new articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see Rule 42). I'd say keep looking for better sources, and I'll leave this to others at Articles for Creation, though feel free to ping me if you find some good sources and I will help if I have time. I moved the draft for you to include the space. — InsertCleverPhraseHere06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Style6000. I did a quick search. Here are a few sources that would be help establish notability: [5][6][7][8]. With articles like this searching on google with the name and "review" will often dredge up good sources if the topic is notable (This topic seems to be notable). — InsertCleverPhraseHere06:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi InsertCleverPhraseHere
Thanks for your suggestions and heading correction, I have added some good amount of references from 3rd party reliable sources and web links. Hope this should be sufficient. Please revert back for any additional corrections and requirements.--Style6000 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help working with new users during the Women in Science workshop – it made a big difference to the day, and several participants commented on how great it was to have experienced editors around to help them. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a very good "review". You should have just restored the redirect, or merged the new content, as I and another editor spotted within an hour. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't get it right every time I suppose; I obviously forgot to check the page history. Congrats to you and PRehse. You are clearly far superior at reviewing than I. Have a cookie.
Johnbod. In all seriousness though, try to be a bit more polite when offering criticism to reviewers. I've got a pretty thick skin, but for those that don't, comments like the one above will just put other reviewers off of reviewing any but the easiest reviews, and the difficult reviews are the ones clogging the backlog. — InsertCleverPhraseHere13:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for stopping by. It is good to see some very well written gems popping up in the new pages feed from time to time. Keep up the good work! Unfortunately I am not particularly good at good article review personally, I skim when I read interesting material and easily miss typos and other errors when proofreading, so the better written it is, the more likely I will miss errors. Just doesn't suit my personal strengths. From a first glace though, the article seems well written and sourced, and I don't think it will have much trouble passing GA review once someone decides to take it on. Unfortunately they have a backlog at GA review, I also have an article languishing over there (Treaty of Waitangi). Sorry I can't help out in reviewing your GA, and thanks again for stopping by. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)10:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Baa Baa Land
On 11 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baa Baa Land, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Baa Baa Land, an eight-hour slow cinema film containing nothing but long shots of grazing sheep, is described by its producers as "the dullest movie ever made"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baa Baa Land. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
Only capitalize the first genre in an album infobox unless it is a proper noun. So if the sourced genres were "Jazz, acoustic, folk", that is the correct way. The others do not get capitalized. Thanks --Jennica✿ / talk01:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere, your enthusiasm for helping clean up Wikipedia is commendable. Only in subjects you don't master and cannot inform yourself, you could probably assume good faith, and maybe check if the other editors have 10+ years of Wikipedia experience. --5ko (talk)
I am still a bit confused, but I assume from your comments that the page was meant to be a redirect? If so why did it not use the standard #REDIRECT format? I am completely unfamiliar with the #SEE format that was used here and it seemed malformed, which is why I tagged it as a test page. In any case I apologize for any confusion that the matter has caused, and it is a simple matter to fix. I'll create a redirect at the page in question to the link above. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It appears on this wiki #SEE is apparently not (or no longer) enabled as a synonym of #REDIRECT, so when it didn't work, it made you believe it was a mistake. I am also sorry if we startled you. Have a great day! --5ko (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now. Yes, I attempted to make a redirect. Yes, #REDIRECT is the correct magic word. I already asked the admin to undelete the page. Still, the judgement this was an experimental edit, the SD, and the consequential welcome-test message could have been avoided if you checked some other of my edits. For example I also made CLOSE-WAIT with exactly the same content but it was fixed instead of deleted. All the best. --Petar Petrov (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosamund Vallings
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. In my opinion the article is about as blatantly promotional as it could be. Of course the subject is notable but that does not entitle someone to create an article specifically designed to publicise her skills. Deb (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, is the sandbox version I am looking at the same as the one you are looking at? What I am seeing is a few issues with the sourcing (i.e. ref to her own web site is inappropriate), and maybe 20% of the language is overly promotional and should be trimmed/replaced. But there is also a lot of really good text there. These are issues that can be dealt with by tagging and improving. per WP:G11: "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Waitangi 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 Te Karere -- Te Karere (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 12:52:04, 19 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Obriens86
Hi there, I can see you declined my submission and yet again I'm being told to edit the first day of issue article. This article refers to first day of issue in America. However, I was penalised for talking about British First Day Covers. I believe First Day of issue should redirect to first day of issue only and first day covers have its own separate article, because First Day of issue is a sub category with this topic. I don't want to rewrite the article as this belongs to someone else. First day covers began over 150 years ago and my article goes from the very beginning right up to 2017. Can I really add all my content to the first day of issue article??
@Obriens86. I don't see any issue with expanding the First day of issue article with information and sources from your draft. If anything, that article's focus on America is a failing of that article, and adding information about the UK will expand its scope in a positive way. Note that no user 'owns' a wikipedia article WP:OWNER, all are free to edit by anyone providing that they base their edits on reliable sources. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@InsertCleverPhraseHere. That's great to know, I was terrified of treading on anyone's toes! Thank you
Greetings. I've undone your recent edit – this was already discussed on the talk page. Also, it's bad for readability to duplicate so many existing citations and have redundant sections ("Cultural responses" and "Criticism"). Feel free to re-add the text, but please leave a note on the talk page first. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sangdeboeuf your change to the article originally, cutting half of the material in the 'criticism' section and burying the rest in the 'cultural responses section in a different random paragraph is not an improvement. The lede is obviously worse the way it is now. The controversy about the appropriateness of the term 'male privilege' is, outside of academic spheres, the most notable part of this topic. But our article has been butchered so many times that it now doesn't even mention this in the lede at all any more, and the only mention is buried in a random paragraph that isn't really related to direct criticism of the topic at all. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
I had included the JTA citation to the caption of the original (German!) Antifascist Action flag, after it had been flagged by a bot, but due the Byzantine ways of Wikipedia I couldn't figure out how to place it appropriately. kencf0618 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offence meant here, but I work in New Page Patrol, not in stub sorting. The page curation toolbar doesn't give me any other option than to just sort it as a generic 'stub'. If you want me to do more than that, its not really going to happen. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the page curation bar has the generic stub template is not a proper explanation for not stub sorting. All that twinkle and the page twinkle bar does for you is patrol the page automatically a split second after tagging. You are, in fact, able to tag articles with tags not included in the page curation bar manually and then simply review it afterwards yourself, which is what new page patrollers used to do before the creation of either twinkle or the page curation bar. Doing so will slow you down, but you're supposed to prioritize quality over speed in patrolling anything on Wikipedia, anyways. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses Sorry for not pinging you before. I've installed the User:Ais523/stubtagtab2.js script and I'll give it a go, but honestly it looks like a pretty annoying massive list that I'll have to memorise If I want to use it. Honestly I am perfectly happy leaving that as a job for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting (their backlog is minuscule compared to ours). Clicking the stub button on the page curation toolbar to let them know that it needs sorting seems fine to me, and it is a bit unreasonable to expect new page patrol to do everything, especially when there is a dedicated wikiproject for exactly that. I realise that the NPP checklist says to "try to avoid" the generic sub template, but it also says not to waste time finding the perfect template. In other words; I have more important things to do with my editing time and am perfectly content handing this small job onwards to others that know what they are doing better anyway. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)10:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Being a NPPer myself (since around the time twinkle was less known about), I realize that it's often difficult to do. However, as a stub sorter, I can assure you that there are very few, if any other people other than myself going through Category:Stubs and sorting it. Unfortunately, Wikiproject Stub Sorting, while having a lot of useful information (hence the link to them in my original message) doesn't appear to be terribly active, at least beyond stub type/template creation. There certainly isn't a newsletter that I know of.
Looking at any appropriate categories for the page may help; even if you can't find a stub sub-category in the category you're in, you'll often find one in a category connected to the category you're in (you might have to read that a few times. I'm so sorry). You can also use a top-level stub template (such as {{film-stub}} and {{art-stub}}), click on "preview", and right-click-to-open-a-new-tab on the stub category to find one that's more specific and appropriate. In other words, there are alternatives to memorization. After a while, you'll start to memorize the pattern stub templates tend to be in, anyways.
Sometimes, you'll find that there is no "perfect" stub template, and you have to put an article in a stub category that's overpopulated, or a top-level stub category. That's probably why the NPP checklist says what it says. I wouldn't imagine anyone telling you to "not waste time" on an article just for the sake of getting to the next one a little more quickly. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 11:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Yes I can find all the three sources in a published-book form. You think it is necessary? Wikis are more direct.....Let me know----損齋 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that one, sorry. The copy vio detector was down at the time and I was doing it manually, copying sections into google, but I must have forgotten to do that one (I was probably distracted by the subject matter, as I am currently watching the anime series of the same name). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I'll try to remember to check the deletion log before prodding in future. Also, great work on reducing the backlog of late, I've seen you recently on the Top New Page Reviewers list, and the recent reduction in the backlog is mostly down to your hard work. Thanks! — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For it. I am a little worried that there will be a massive flood over at AfC, and am concerned a bit because AfC typically has higher standards for articles to be created than we do at NPP for articles to be nominated for deletion, which might result in some Newbies being discouraged (but others will improve, so it might be a net positive). Reform at AfC is an important issue that we should be considering more heavily, because ACTRIAL is making AfC from an optional process into a mandatory one for newbies. All in all though, I think it is going to help stem the flood of garbage at NPP at least a bit, and I think it will definitely be a net positive for the wiki, if not necessarily a net positive for new user experience. I support the initiative and hope to be involved in helping reform AfC if deemed necessary by community consensus. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a quick teply. If you are for it, then you would not be supporting the Foundations 11th hour tactics for delaying it. There might be a slight increase in the flow of articles to AfC, but a massive flood is most unlikely. ACTRIAL is not making AfC from an optional process into a mandatory one for newbies. It still remains an option, perhaps even more so, than it was before. Theirchoiceis: Wait 4 days and 10 edits to be able to create an article in mainspace, or if they can't wait, go through the Wizard and AfC. The Wzard alone presents them with further challenges , so many will give up before they even get to AfC, and that's exactly what we want. That said, as AfC is not an officially recognised feature of the English Wikipedia (some people mistakenly think it is), strictly speaking, what happens there is not our concern. On the brighter side however, as some of us are discussing reforms to AfC it might be exactly what will help the changes along. If you support ACTRIAL, you may wish to reconsider before supporting the the WMF's last minute interference. However, please do whatever you think best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. I haven't got the history that the rest of ya'll have with WMF and delaying, as I wasn't around during the first run of this, but I do think that the severity of the bug that was brought up over on the talk page warrants a delay. In any case, I'm not seeing a massive urgency, we have been working hard on New Page review and have managed to reduce the backlog by over 2000 in the last few days. While it would be nice to get rid of all the non-autoconfirmed submissions, and I see plenty of 1st edit submissions every day, I don't feel that it is so urgent that a week will kill us or sink the chance that it will start at all (I think that the roll-out of ACTRIAL in the near future is inevitable at this point). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)00:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bug? There is no bug. We can roll this out ourselves using a local script which is what we intended to do over two months ago. The only reason the WMF is involved is because in deference to their proposal to provide some additional statistics, we agreed to wait for them. They never liked ACTRIAL from the start, but it's not within their remit to prevent it. Now they are attempting to dictate the entire project. Beware of WMF staff who post without the '(WMF)' in their signature. I've met all these people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I am working on a flowchart to help new NPPatrollers work out a process to fully review any article without getting lost or having that "not sure what to do here so I'll leave it to somebody else" issue that plagues the backlog. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)00:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there seems to be an increased effort to reduce the backlog in the last few days, but I fear to a detriment to the quality of reviewing. Have you noticed the distinct rise in the incorrect use of deletion criteria? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a few (an A7 for a book today), but the recent reduction is mostly down to Wgolf and Boleyn stepping up their review counts (and a bit from me), and I haven't noticed anything sketchy from them. I did notice that Wgolf was mostly reviewing 'easy' ones a few days ago, but he/she also told me off for missing something (see above^^). Overall, I think that the quality of reviewing hasn't significantly dropped, because it is mostly experienced reviewers that have been doing the extra work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what you may not have realised is that absolutely anyone, even a raw newbie can place deletion templates on new pages. That part of the operation is not restricted to accredited reviwers. I've spent about three hours a day on NPP over the last week or two (not that you'll notice because I mainly look at what's going on rather than patrol the pages myself) and I've reprimanded half a dozen of them again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the 'bug' you mentioned appears to legit (you never know), but I'm more than convinced that it's a trump card the WMF has kept up its sleeve for the last minute. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, and am grateful for the work you put in reviewing the reviewers. All I meant is that I don't think that the recent reduction is due to a higher-than-background-level of bad reviews. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)01:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I finished my (very) rough draft of a NPP flowchart. If you can read my writing, let me know what you think so far. Ideally I'd like to create an interactive chart with links to various information pages, perhaps you could suggest some methods you might know of? — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)02:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What computer platform do you usually use? There are some free programs for quickly making flow charts. I'm happy to help you with it, but it will be your project. Shows a lot of initiative. Not many people are prepared to do this kind of thing these days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello InsertCleverPhraseHere,
Thanks for showing interests in the article Verve International I created hours ago, which has been speedily deleted without giving me the opportunity to defend it.
Let me quickly give a background of me: I am a journalist with interests in financial technology and payment industry, especially as related to Nigeria. In the course of researching for my work, I realised there is a dearth of Wikipedia contents about Nigerian payment industry. This discovery lately has spurred me to try as much as possible to get Nigerian contents published on Wikipedia. Like you know, painstaking researches and studies go into Wikipedia writing. This I have done without any prompting from anyone to write the 'Verve International' which has just been deleted. The suggestion that the page was promotional and advertising appears to me unfounded. Is Verve notable? Yes, and eminently so! Further research, as provided in the references, will confirm this. I studied several Wikipedia pages of businesses in payment industry all around the world (e.g. Discover Financial (US), China UnionPay with sections which do not cite sources, JCB Co., Ltd. of Japan, RuPay of India, I will appreciate you showing me the specifics that made 'Verve International' violate Wikipedia guidelines in related to these mentioned pages. There is nowhere in that article I laid claims to things with no citations or references.
Thank you as I look forward to your restoring the page, at least for improvement.
RovingFingers (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Baa Baa Land at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Michael Barera (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
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 Te Karere -- Te Karere (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
; see Talk:Treaty of Waitangi for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Te Karere -- Te Karere (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Done Though please note that if you have resolved the issue, you are free to remove tags, even from articles you have created yourself. Cheers and good work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
