User talk:Cahk/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

speedily deletion my page

hi sir, I would like to inform you that, that was not advertisement page there is some article information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachingautam007 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on QuentinBehrends

Thank you for your report on QuentinBehrends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have however declined to block because this seems like a legitimate (if misguided) user, not a spambot.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 09:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Luk: It is actually spam (and has since been blocked). I tagged at least 8 accounts tonight, and let's just say plenty more in the last few days.--Cahk (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted! I thought you were a bit heavy when patrolling the edit filter log, but I was wrong then! -- Luk ^talk 10:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Luk: Yep ... all 21 reports I made to AIV (plus 7 at UAA) were blocked. At least 70% of them were spam. --Cahk (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What kind of information is allowed on my User page?

Hello Cahk,

I did not mean to use the User page as a means to promote and/or spam. The information I wrote served as a means for others to be aware of who is contributing to the Wikipedia information base. Could you give me some useful pointers to how to create the user page in a manner which would conform to the Wikipedia standards?

IQDigest (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@IQDigest: Couple of issues here: 1. Your username represents an organization/website, which is not allowed. 2. Your userpage (along with the username) gives off the feeling it is a promotional page. In any event, there is also the issue of Conflict of Interest - in general, Wikipedia discourages editing on matters you are directly involved in. Feel free to visit the Teahouse for more guidance.--Cahk (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

THanks

Thanks for the feedback on my Charlotte Kerr page - first time adding a new page so knew it would go wrong - thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Adecollis (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To Cahk from一中人:

Hi,I am 一中人.Sorry because according to what I know,there are hundreds of thousands of mail-order brides mainly come from China,Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia in Taiwan now, actually Taiwan is not a country that offers mail-order brides. Besides, the citation came out twenty years ago,time has changed,and South Korea, Hongkong also included in the citation.If they are not in the content,why Taiwan is? Thanks for your concern^ ^. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 一中人 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@一中人: Wikipedia is based on reputable sources - personal knowledge is not sufficient. If you have other citations of countries involved/not involved, feel free to include them in the article and update the list accordingly. The reason I reverted your edit was the unexplained removal - I can't tell you why there are/are not certain countries listed. --Cahk (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VFRS.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VFRS.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) 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Cahk,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

“If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes.”

Hi, my name is Franz well known as Bleau or KFDOESIT. I believe I should be clear to add an existing page on myself due to the fact that I have a plethora of notable significant coverage that can be verified according to citings linked from a variety of reputable music blogs. I have also been impersonated on Instagram ending in the result of me not being able to claim a previous account handle (I can provide visual proof if applicable). Last but not least stage names are claimed and reported everyday. I would like to establish and solidify my distinguishable alias/brand before any more mishaps happen. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleauisnotcool (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bleauisnotcool: I have tried various Google News search based on the information you have included in your userpage, and all the results have came back with no results found. To be clear, Google and Google News results are not the same. While you have included some links to various sources, I haven't actually clicked on them to view the content. In any event, this is not what Wikipedia is for. --Cahk (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit annoyed..

I don't really understand why you would put my user page as an attack page when the only person I was possibly 'attacking' was me. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencil Kate (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pencil Kate: Because I can't tell who you are, and who you are in relation to the person you may have referred to. Attack page is simply not allowed regardless. An administrator agreed with my assessment, and deleted the page. --Cahk (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

For rightfully reporting 9 usernames in a period of 3h:10 on April 6 2019. Interestingly enough: 1. The 1st 6 were reported in just under 10 minutes. Of these, 3 were reported in the 1st minute and the other 3 about 10 minutes after. 2. The other 3 that you reported in that 3h:10 period were blocked by the same admin (331dot) in the same order as you reported them. 111.220.164.171 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TTC Transit Enforcement Unit.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TTC Transit Enforcement Unit.jpg. 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) 05:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lees of Scotland

I appreciate you're working in good faith, but there's no way Lees of Scotland meets G11 - although Lees Macaroon bars are not generally a household name outside of Scotland, you can certainly pick them up in any large Tesco or similar sized supermarket, so it's absolutely a notable topic. Indeed, from a unsourced sandbox, I found coverage in four reliable sources without really breaking a sweat, and the company is name-checked in the good article Coatbridge. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Cahk,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Inability to move out of Sandbox

Thank you for input regarding inserting CONFLICT OF INTEREST notation in my posting. I have complied with the rules, see: [[1]]

What else must be done to make this article live on main Wikipedia? Please advise.

thanks HLEV3 Hlev3 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hlev3: Please consider visiting the Wikipedia:Teahouse for guidance.The issues are numerous, and would likely take a few attempts before publishing.--Cahk (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I wasn’t sure if I should respond here or on my own page to your comment. I am editing a page. There was concern I was using multiple accounts and maybe it’s because in researching the topic I found the person I’m writing about through http://journals.sfu.ca/thirdspace/index.php/journal and then saw that there was this https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Melissa_Miles_McCarter.html that I think is a deleted page created by another user? I’m studying postfeminism in under represented groups and part of it is working on researching underrepresented topics such as trans, disability etc in that subject. Im unfamiliar with Wikipedia but I guess I was supposed to use the sand box first but I created the page directly? Should I delete the page and start from scratch in the sand box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jennmorris1: If you are not editing with the other account identified, nor are you the same person, you can proceed with your edit. --Cahk (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Ajeesh Dasan

@Cahk: I've added references for Ajeesh Dasan. will make the page have better information with references and take care in future. Almithra (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Nice work tracking down that spambot ring and reporting them all to AIV. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Cahk,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Promotional Usernames

Please report promotional usernames to WP:UAA instead of WP:AIV. Thank you! Sasquatch t|c 09:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Brand name for LECA

Hi

Thanks for your message.

I see that the page has been re-edited back to its original content.

Now this is not a problem, however, we will need to remove the reference to LECA, or at least educate users on what the name actually means, as this is a brand name which we own. In the same way Pepsi has its own brand page or Apple would have its own brand page.

LECA is not an abbreviation of lightweight expanded clay aggregate and the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_clay_aggregate consistently references LECA and this is causing confusion.

Can you please recommend how we can rectify this?

Thanks Johnny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyleca (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnnyleca: I am no expert on the subject matter but a quick Google search shows LECA is widely used to reference similar materials. You can't simply insert (copyright/TM logo) every step of the way - you won't see it on pages like Google, Microsoft, etc. where their brand-name is also trademarked/copyrighted. Feel free to visit the Teahouse where a host can assist you further. --Cahk (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, Cahk. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 11:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What happened to Suncom Technologies article?

Hi: I just tried to find article I posted in May on company I founded in 1980s called Suncom Technologies. You provided some input about it. Article seems to have disappeared. Any idea how this happened? Hlev3 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC) hlev3

@Hlev3: It was moved to draft, and subsequently deleted by an admin. You will need to leave a message with that administrator as I am not privy to the subsequent actions.--Cahk (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand why you want to delete my article,have I violated any laws or policies?

I do not understand why you want to delete my article,have I violated any laws or policies? Alpha Wachira1 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alpha Wachira1: See WP:U5.--Cahk (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE......I JUST UPLOADED AN ARTICLE....HOW DOES THAT VIOLATE YOUR LAWS????Alpha Wachira1 (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alpha Wachira1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web-site builder. Information not relevant to the project will be deleted by an administrator.--Cahk (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize the rules, I thought I was making like a profile page since most forums or whatever this would be considered have you make a profile when u first sign up. If I was in the wrong go ahead and delete the page. I don't know how yet Hot-pass-hand84 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

M H

Hi yes!

I am currently working with my attorneys etc, and i had to found all online information on this person. That's when i realized his Wikipedia page is still open, and unchanged, and as he has used to trick underage children/minors into sexual abuse situations. So this is my first time ive ever posted on Wikipedia and was trying to figure out how references/sources work.

I've updated now with some references and sources, many, many more will be added. This man is highly dangerous. He has been convicted of the rape of more than 20 kids, including my friends. And is very well known in Norway/police.

If my references isnt enough, please for the sake of God, put his page on hold or something until you have received/confirmed this through police/Kripos (FBI of Norway) or by any means you need. But for the love of God, please do not let this man exploit his past reputation and wikipedia as a way to grab young naive kids into a "dangerously emotionless rapist" (direct quotation from the court, and in the reference i gave).

You can contact me on my phone if you want, my attorney as well, etc.

Thank you, and i beg for understanding and patience in this matter. Translate and read the articles, read what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsMidt (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@LarsMidt: I've reviewed the 2 links you added as citation - nowhere did it mention Harg's name (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). I would also assume a well-known Norwegian politician (with his own Wikipedia page in that language) would also mention something similar to what you have alleged (but there's nothing). I have also conducted a Google search and found no mention of the information you indicated. In accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE, the information must be removed until such time you can provide sources that indicate Harg's involvement in those court cases as you have alleged. Wikipedia can't use personally gathering information - it must be cited somewhere.--Cahk (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

By Norwegian law the media is not allowed to post names of any criminal during a trial. But I can give you the number to the judge? How can he use sources and citations that does not include his name, but in regards to rape situation it's suddenly strict? Is there any office my attorneys can send you court documents?

Check the text above?

"Morten Harg" (in Norwegian). Storting. "Gravdahl gjenvalgt i Bærum". Aftenposten Aften (in Norwegian). 18 November 1983. p. 3. "Etterbørsnotiser". Dagens Næringsliv (in Norwegian). 7 July 1998. p. 39. Magnor, Per Th. (12 March 1999). "Utfører ordre med godt mot". Aftenposten Aften (in Norwegian). p. 4.

None of these sources are even valid anymore, nor does they mention any names i think. Why can he spout whatever he wants unchecked, but when I actually come to help Wikipedia avoid more children being hurt it's scrutinized beyond belief? It is right there, the entire article even details his life story!...

I am speaking at an upcoming event for more than 1000 doctors and politicians in Europe, specifically on online security and dangers, and this seriously has to change. People are being hurt every week because of this Wikipedia page. As the police says, if you don't do anything.. The kids you will see in the next court case with their lives destroyed are on you and Wikipedia. And i'm sad to say this, but i will have my attorneys contact Wikipedia HQ/PR about this. At least remove/temporarily pause his website until i can gather every document you want..

@LarsMidt: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an investigative/report platform. and thus, contacting outside agencies is not an activity to be undertaken by editors (and in any event, such action would make the source a primary source). If you wish to obtain more editing advice, you are free to visit the Teahouse or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography to discuss the matter. Please be careful as editors (like myself and others) are coming from around the world to edit pages voluntarily, none of us represent Wikipedia. Your message above constitute as a Legal threat, and thus, your account will be reported for further action in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Cahk (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain to me, legal threat? A threat, or a legal threat? (Like a lawsuit). I don't really understand you. If it's about attorneys having to contact Wikipedia, then that's my legal right is it not. Especially if the website contains material deemed harmful by Norwegian/EU governments?

If it's about public speaking, then that's what I've been asked by a team of worldwide specialists to do.

If it's the comment "The children's lives will be on your hands", that's literally a direct quote the judge/police told a friend of mine when he was afraid to testify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsMidt (talk • contribs) 09:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit; Ah, I see now. Legal threat. That was not directed at you, or any editors, but Wikipedia as a organization. Rofl, there is no legal basis to sue any individual freelancing editor. But I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Though you have not answered why his entire page is without any reliable reference/sources, and a bit of the information is as ridiculously untrue as it possibly gets, though when I try to add perhaps the only information it should be there. It's not possible?

And I am forced to consider filing a complaint on the fact that you misappropriate what i had written and went so far as to report my account without even waiting for a response. It was very clear by my message i am talking about Wikipedia. You are an anonymous online editor doing your job. I understand that. Exactly why I mentioned it'll have to go through attorneys then, with Wikipedia.

And not only so, but you dont respond to anything of the important questions such that i can actually work on having the documents you need.

@LarsMidt: At no point were your comments misappropriated - all Wikipedia interactions between editors are logged and completely transparent. I actually did respond to your proposal re: documents in my previous reply, and cited links as to why that is not possible. 3 separate administrators reviewed your writings, and determined them to be of legal threats. While it may not be your intention at all, that's what was perceived by 4 separate individuals. As I am not an administrator, I am not in a position to resolve your dispute. You may wish to follow the procedure as outlined on your talk page for further information. --Cahk (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference

Hi Cahk,

What the best reference I had for Musa'ad bin Khalid Al Saud, I put it in his biography. The new reference was added 1 week ago. Can you please have a look and let me know your thoughts?

Rishi.kh (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Rishi

@Rishi.kh: Looks good to me.--Cahk (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cahk, Though you replied on 14 August 2019, the article is not published yet. When we are trying to google for Musa’ad bin Khalid bin Musa’ad bin Abdulrahman Al Saud, it is not showing any wikipedia results. Is there anything required from us? Please suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.kh (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rishi.kh: A new page patroller has to approve the page before it will show up on search engines. I will make a guess in saying because there's so few sources about the person in question, there hasn't been a new page patroller willing to approve it just yet.--Cahk (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Suncom Technologies article

Please provide a useful answer, as to why my article was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlev3 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hlev3: Per my July 19 reply: "It was moved to draft, and subsequently deleted by an admin. You will need to leave a message with that administrator as I am not privy to the subsequent actions." --Cahk (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Diane

Hi.

I've been adding cited, documented statements based on the exact text of the articles cited.

The edits are being revered.

I am unsure how to cite an action that hasn't happened, much like I would be unsure how to cite "Canada has never invaded Pakistan"

Given that the statements are factual and cited, why are facts being scrubbed?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevormerritt (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trevormerritt: Plain and simple: Your addition had absolutely no relevance to the subject of the article.--Cahk (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add it to a new article that covers the 2019 tent city in Peterborough, and link from her page to this one that documents the process.

Would that be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevormerritt (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trevormerritt: I am still unsure how Canada-Pakistan relationship has anything to do with a tent city in your neighbourhood. In any event, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a news platform or forum. Creating a new article requires meeting the guideline on notability. I have no knowledge of the matter you are describing, so I can't comment on whether it would meet the threshold.--Cahk (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Its been the primary topic of discussion in town for the last few months and it looks like its going to explode soon so having the history documented would, if you ask me, be of value to see how we got where we are. Decisions, good and bad, got us here. The Canada/Pakistan thing was because I couldn't cite an event that hasn't happened. It was a bad edit. Sorry. Trevormerritt (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Attacking my page

I know you thought I was attacking someone with the same name as me but I didn’t first off does anyone named josh have a niece and a nephew I would have liked if you could have messaged me about it instead of attacking / deleting it Josh dickerson (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Josh dickerson: Firstly, I tagged the page. However, as a non-administrator, I could not have deleted your page - That was done by an administrator who reviewed the content and agreed it did not meet the objective of Wikipedia. Secondly, whether you are writing about yourself or a fictional person, we cannot verify who you are and as such, have to treat it as an unsourced, negative biography of living person as a minimum.--Cahk (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Bakmaz

Hiya, Anthony Bakmaz was listed on XFD about a year ago and the outcome was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ante Bakmaz. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Simba kizito mangaba

Please advise me on how to add proper references... The references are there but how do I add them please help instead of deleting my page thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgraham giyan (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Mcgraham giya: See Wikipedia:Citing sources as a reference, depending on what it is you are trying to add.--Cahk (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Cahk,

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)

Prince Musa'ad bin Khalid Al Saud wikipedia page

Hi Cahk,

Based on latest recommendations, the lead page is added. Also, some new reference is added there. Please have a look and let me know if anything more to be done to make this wiki-page fully effective.

~Rishi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.kh (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rishi.kh: Another editor has already reviewed it in the mean time.--Cahk (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Thank you for making a report about ClarissaWeeks62 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, the user was not warned. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 12:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: Those are spambot accounts. I report at least 3-4 accounts a day on such spam account. You can see my edit history to confirm the same.--Cahk (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, except we actually have policies about this shit. There are admins who happily ignore those polices; I am not one of them. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: AIV states "Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior." A spam farm with 7 accounts in the span of a few hours should constitute as egregious case. The AIV guide states "What constitutes "enough" is left to your best judgment". I would also point out this has been discussed on previous occasions on [2] and [3] --Cahk (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a basic spambot. If you don't recognize that, you're not qualified to be reviewing the reports. Vermont (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If you intend to malign me, we're not going to get very far. Policy, which was written by a great many people, states clearly on item 2 "Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior." If you can't follow the rules, you're not qualified to be reporting anyone, to toss your rather hostile words back at you. Slap a warning on the dang userpage before you report. KillerChihuahua 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua:, are you seriously arguing that we should be warning NTSAMR spambots? We don't even do that before locking them. Vermont (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: I don't profess to know every policy in Wikipedia, and would always welcome to exchange of information/knowledge. It's clear to me you have no plans to change your mind despite multiple VERY experienced editors and administrators advise to the contrary. I hesitated in making the following comments - but I thought about it and urged to because behavior like this ([4]) suggest a serious lack of civility. As an administrator who has been largely absent for the last 6 years until being resysoped 3 weeks ago, I would suggest toning it down, especially at experienced editors who can spot the "painfully, astonishingly, clearly obviously" bots. --Cahk (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have received both positive and negative feedback, as you will see if you peruse my talk page. The negative has been hilariously uniform in telling me that I'm ignorant and/or lack experience. Bots haven't changed that much in 6 years, that's not a helpful argument. KillerChihuahua 12:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the core concern that we are all trying to point out to you right now: are you suggesting that we need to warn blatantly obvious spambots "in the name of AGF"? They're bots. They don't read warnings. There is no need to AGF on a bot. Warning isn't a prerequisite, and most definitely not a prerequisite when it comes to blocking obvious bots. Common sense should prevail, not blind worship of the lawbooks. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligence in dealing with spambots. Praxidicae (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no review on Musa'ad bin Khalid bin Musa'ad bin Abdulrahman Al Saud

Hi Cahk. The article is available on search engine without lead section. I have added lead section and other edits to my article, but I don't see any review by other reviewer/ patroller. Can you help, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.kh (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rishi.kh: The article has already been reviewed by a new page patroller. Once that's done, there are no other review options available. Search engines will take some time to refresh the content, but I have no expertise on that front.--Cahk (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

How you doing Cahk, please help me. I want to create a page about myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannygrande (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Cahk,

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 804 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)

CookNorman

The user CookNorman i think have a serius problem of conflict of interest, specially in the article of Bridge International Academies. --Fitmoos (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fitmoos: I am slightly loss as I don't seem to have interacted with either yourself or the editor concerned (my message on the person's talk page was on an unrelated matter), nor the article itself. I see that you have left your message on the article talk page - I encourage you to reach out for a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the issue you may have with the edits made by that editor.--Cahk (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

because you tried to delete a aricle form this user, for lack of references.--Fitmoos (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

The most reliable source can be testimonials by patients themselves for any medical claim and my description has it in plenty. But as I said pharma mafia, medicine mafia and allopathy considers itself all pervasive and eternal cure which they themselves couldn't ever prove. Now you are trusting reliable sources of them which they themselves have proven by themselves. THIS IS SCAM AND INTERNATIONAL HYPOCRISY which Wikipedia should not he biased with. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machedonist7769 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

Moreover the gentry claiming it as a total hoax have no reliable source to prove this allegation. Instead we have proofs by patients who have got cured by this treatment which is completely harmless and cheap. All the implants and medical surgeries themselves convince people that it works instead the truth is that the treatment is just a way to prolong it and convince yourself till death. So now its upon you that what kind of world you want- pharma mafia with deadly diseases and money makers or cheap sustainable psychic surgery which at least doesnt harm anyone and gives cure too. Machedonist7769 (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Machedonist7769: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NOTADVOCACY.--Cahk (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Star and stripes

What seems to be the issue with my article that you decided to gave a”speedy deletion “?

@Star and stripes: As indicated on your talk page: WP:U5 --Cahk (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

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 google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, 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 google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

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

Proposal for deletion inquiry

Thank you for interceding and proposing for deletion (in my opinion, even though I didn't say as much) this non-notable BLP. I am trying to find the discussion on the article talk page, but there is none. I presume that you are running a bot that identified my tags and thus proposed the article for deletion. You might want to check the bot, given that I can't locate the usual talk page link to discuss.--FeralOink (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@FeralOink: I do not run a bot account. The tag was placed as I am a NPR and I screen new articles as they come up. As far as discussion on talk page, it is my understanding a BLPPROD does not generate a separate page unlike the AFD/XFD deletion process.--Cahk (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay! I didn't intend to make an accusation of running a bot account by the way. (It is a common epithet on Twitter.) Thanks for doing that BLPPROD.--FeralOink (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry.

If what I wrote is considered vandalism, then I'm very sorry, due to the fact that it was my first time and I did not know that it would be deleted, so if you can please tell me on how to improve with my writing I would appreciate it very much. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksepticbenedict (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jacksepticbenedict: As a non-administrator, I can't see what the deleted page was about. As I tag a large volume of pages everyday, I regret I can't provide specific comments. Please get in touch with the administrator who deleted the page for more information.--Cahk (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Charles Enz

Please look at the article Charles Enz and tell me whether it should exist or not, in an encyclopedia that has a separate article for every episode of trivial TV shows such as The Simpsons. You guys would be a lot less hated, I think, if you were not in such a rush to slap PROD tags on new articles that are obviously legitimate. (Please don't reply, I'm just giving you this one pissed-off editor's opinion.) Eleuther (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eleuther: I think you missed the point of the BLPPROD tag. As a new page reviewer, my placement of the tag is to alert the creator there must be sufficient reference for the article to exist (and failing that, it would be deleted). A generic tag within the article does not otherwise notify the creator. If there was no merit to the article, it would have been CSD tagged and not BLPPROD tagged. --Cahk (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

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 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VIVA enforcement.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VIVA enforcement.jpg. 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) 03:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Batches?

I'm not sure of any scripts that can do this, but is there any way all your reports can be made in a single edit? The ones usually made in a short span of time... --Lofty abyss 09:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: A few years ago I batched my reports at once, and was told by more than one administrator not to do so in the future.--Cahk (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What was the reason for that? It makes it easier for those who watch for keywords... Lofty abyss 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: I don't profess to remember the whole discussion - it was a very long one spanning multiple user's talk pages. As far as the reports go, I've been reporting them as I patrol new edits. Since spambots generate multiple accounts at once, it would unfortunately mean a few reports in a short span of time. Keywords are no longer sufficient in fighting spambots ... they have been getting cleverer with foreign languages, symbols, etc. to confuse the search engine.--Cahk (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Shrewsbury Page

Hi, apologies for not leaving a reason for my edits on the page about my hometown Shrewsbury, England. As I'm sure you saw the edits that I made to the page were removing any mention of the pronunciation "Shrowsbury". I did this because it is misinformation and totally inaccurate. There is no debate in the town over the pronunciation of its name, it is pronounced how it's spelt and the only people who think otherwise are people who are from elsewhere and have been misinformed. The other pronunciation comes from many hundreds of years ago when the town was actually called Shrowsbury but this was changed in the 1600s for bureaucratic reasons, this is even mentioned in one of the references that I removed. So not only is the pronunciation "Shrowsbury" incorrect, it's been incorrect for between 320 and 420 years. Language and pronunciations are constantly changing so to hold onto this relic of the past seems strange and is, as far as I know, unique in terms of place names in the UK.

Wikipedia has, unfairly, had a reputation for containing inaccuracies and misinformation for many years now and pieces of misleading information such as this are a big reason why. If there were to be mention of the old name in a section on the history of the town that would make more sense but to pretend that it is still a pronunciation for the current name of the town would be akin to trying to tell people you could pronounce the city London as "Londinium" because that's what they used to call it. There are no other towns that I know of where people confuse the current and old names in this way and having it on the official Wikipedia page of the town like that hinders rather than helps.

109.159.66.26 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18