User talk:Domdeparis/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Sock notices

Hi Domdeparis, re: this, not sure if you were aware or not, but there is no requirement that we notify suspected socks. And in my years of experience, I have yet to see the benefit of doing this, other than tipping off the sock operator so that they can quickly create a new account. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: thanks for the headsup. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop deleting importrant pages!

This user deleted at least three pages with importrant information (I can't find their analogs in Russian and German Wikipedia!). I try to ask Dom from Paris to stop deleting pages if he doesn't want to be banned! Гимназист1748 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Гимназист1748: thanks for the "friendly" message you just left me! Maybe you could start by explaining what pages you are talking about. Also why you think I would be banned, if you tell me why you think I have done something wrong I will try and explain why I did what I did. Normally I don't take kindly to people leaving agressive messages on my talk page but today I'm feeling magnanimous! cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Basketball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's 3x3 tournament

This was in the similar section compared to my page and yet that doesn't get taken to draft while my mine does. Why?? HawkAussie (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: hi, I'm afraid I can't speak for the other reviewer but I can explain why I draftified the article you created.

I moved it because there were no sources at all so as per WP:DRAFTIFY which states

The community has also allowed for new articles to be moved to draft space as an alternative to deletion. Below are a set of best practices to follow when draftifying an article in these circumstances. As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if:

1. the topic has some potential merit, and
2. the article does not meet the required standard, and
3. there is no evidence of active improvement.
4. or when the author clearly has a conflict of interest (per WP:COIEDIT).

All articles have to be verifiable and we should not be creating unsourced articles in main-space. All articles must meet WP:GNG which means there has to be multiple sources. I hope this clears up the question for you. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That is understandable. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Second account

In refernce to what was posted on my talk page;

"Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Grzegorz Motyka while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)"

I do not have a second account. Sometimes I use my mobile phone to make minor edits, but other than that I have only used the account OLLSZCZ to make edits on Grzegorz Motyka. I hope this clears any confusion that you may have.

Thank you,

OLLSZCZ (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @OLLSZCZ: no I didn't suggest that you had a 2nd account but that you edited the page when logged out. There is an edit on the page from an IP address which may be your telephone. Once you have an account you should only edit with this account regardless of whether it is with your telephone or computer. I hope that helps. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Dab incubation

The incubation of Storm surge (disambiguation) was pretty ridiculous. It was a 30 second fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Headbomb: It's a shame you fixed it yourself to be perfectly honest because it defeated the point of why I moved it and left a message on the user's talk page to say it didn't meet the MOS. The aim was paedagogic. It's a case of give a man a fish and he'll eat for one day teach him to use a rod and he'll feed himself for the rest of his life (or rather show him where to find instructions on rod-use). This editor has been here since 2008 and is still creating crappy DAB pages. Had he been a newbie I would have done what you did and explain it to him (I don't know if you did this or not). As per WP:NPP Reviewers are not obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles but if you look at my edit history you will see that I do often fix the errors but this time I was annoyed that an editor with more than 30k edits and 11 years experience would stick this mess in main space. Hope this shows you why I do not agree with the "pretty ridiculous" label. In the future please don't hesitate to come here first and ask why I carried out certain actions rather than calling me out. cheers and happy editing. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jovan Milic Draft

Dear Mr Domdeparis,

Can you check out my edit in Jovan Milic draft? If you have any suggestions, please contact me and write. I try to do my best. Thank you in advance and sorry for this message. Regards, - Daca1234 18.19 CET

Deletion reviews

Dear Mr Domdeparis, most high and esteemed Wiki leader: Will you take another look the deletion notes for Karen Jackman Ashton and Sahar Qumsiyeh. I took your advice and added more information. I believe there are some good references and a coherent article. Fullrabb (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)FullRabb

Hi @Fullrabb: the place to address this is on the deletion discussion pages themselves. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Frustrated Wiki user here. I have seen both articles Karen Jackman Ashton and Sahar Qumsiyeh deleted today after only a couple days or review. What is interesting to me is that only a handful of people weighed in and all were men. If I'm working to make Wikipedia more inclusive of women, why do men get to be the gatekeepers. And their arguments were curious. 'She was only on the board of a community college not a real university'. 'Her storytelling festival isn't a bid deal'. And many of my references for both articles were not related to the LDS Church as they both claimed. Please help me understand. And how might I challenge the decision? Fullrabb (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb

HOW CAN I

Hi, how can i add my idea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey Kim09mim (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kim09mim: hi before I answer your question, I need to know if are you using several accounts? It looks like you are also using User:Mm08jimmy and User:Meyar09micheal. This is called sock puppetry and absolutely forbidden. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

my brothers use those accounts Kim09mim (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My brothers, some to contribute and some to ask questions like me Kim09mim (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If you say don’t, we will don’t use Kim09mim (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what is known as meatpuppetry as you are all working towards a common goal and have edited the same article. I would suggest just one of you edit this subject because in a sockpuppet investigation if you use the same computer it will seem like you are sockpuppets of the same user. That said could you explain what you mean by "how can i add my idea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey" --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Joaquín Bondoni deletion

Hi, I just put the sources in the article Joaquín Bondoni, I don't know how the removal process works so I write here, I hope you can remove the tag, I don't know if I can do it. Carinitos5 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Frndly TV deletion

I put a contested deletion on the talk section of this article. If you have a chance, please take a look at my reasons why. I hope this is helpful to clearup any concerns. Thanks! Msw1002 (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why your reasons not to delete are not valid. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, thanks for your reviewing of my contributions. If you feel that Radio France Bleu stations are not notable for English Wikipedia, is it worth reviewing {{Radio France}} template? Liverpoolpics (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Liverpoolpics: earlier this month I nominated a similar page for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Stuttgart as it did not meet the WP:NRADIO criteria. Local versions of a national radio station that have identical programming will invariably fail the criteria. Please do not create these pages unless you have enough sources to show they meet WP:NORG. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Communication

Our conversations are private (more or less), how does that affect the English Wikipedia in any way? We contribute to pages in English, I don't see the issue. It would be unnatural to send texts in English, we both speak Romanian.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @8Dodo8: contrary to a popular misconception user talk pages are not private pages and all conversations there are public. these messages are not private texts. When they concern editing on wikipedia it is even more important. As per WP:SPEAKENGLISH unless you are incapable of expressing what you want to say in English then there is no reason to use another language or you should provide a translation. As per WP:OWNTALK User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. If you persist in using another language than English then this shows a lack of collaboration because an editor that wishes to discuss a matter with you will have to use a translator to see if this topic is already being discussed. Alternatively you can use your Romanian talk page [[1]] to communicate in Romanian. I hope you understand. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Verification of Sang-Gyoo Lee

Thank you for your suggestion of Sang-Gyoo Lee needed additional citations for verification. I link something needed for this. Would you check it? 칼빈500 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

En français !

Bonjour cher monsieur de Bristol.

Je suppose que je n’ai pas besoin de traduire (mais je pourrais le faire, en vous imposant mon broken English ou mes fautes de preterite). Vous semblez très bien parler français. Je m’intéresse à des tas de choses depuis 15 ans sur Wikipédia et, parfois, mes créations (des ébauches le plus souvent car je suis occupé) sont très courtes, voire très simples. Cependant je n’accepte pas facilement qu’un autre contributeur (dont je n’ai pas souvenir, comme interaction majeure, je peux me tromper, il s’en passe des choses en 15 ans…) sans même me prévenir qualifie un article de « undersourced » et le déplace tout de go, parmi les drafts. Bien entendu votre intervention remarquée a (indirectement) contribué à améliorer l’ébauche en question et depuis ce jour Nedim Čović, un assez obscur athlète bosnien est rétabli comme un article à part entière (parfois il faut attendre 4 mois ou plus pour que cela arrive, plus de 4.000 articles sont en souffrance. Il n’est pas resté bien longtemps au purgatoire… Vous pensez sûrement avoir bien fait. Peut-être que oui. Moi je pense surtout qu’avec de telles mauvaises manières vis-à-vis d’un autre contributeur, votre capital de sympathie risque d’en souffrir. Ce qui compte est que je peux désormais oublier le recordman bosnien des 100 m et 200 m de 2010, jusqu’à ce qu’un autre jour ces records soient battus par des sprinteurs plus rapides que lui. Merci néanmoins de votre attention. Je vous prie de me répondre ICI 👈 dans la langue que vous voulez. Cordialement--Arorae (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arorae: je préfère ne pas utiliser deux pages de discussion pour une seule conversation donc je vais vous répondre ici. Vous avez l'air d'être vexé mais il ne le faut pas. L'article que vous avez créé ne démontrait pas que le sujet soit notable selon WP:NTRACK donc je l'ai déplacé en conformité avec WP:DRAFTIFY. Pour éviter ce genre de désagrément lisez bien les critères de notabilité pour vos articles et assurez-vous d'avoir fourni les références adéquates avant de publier. Si l'article n'est pas encore prêt vous pouvez utiliser votre bac à sable avant de le publier. Je ne cherche pas à avoir ou maintenir un capital de sympathie avec qui que ce soit mais simplement de travailler pour le bien de l'encyclopédie dans le respect de chacun. Mes actions étaient conformes aux règles et bons pratiques donc si vous les prenez pour des mauvaises manières malheureusement je ne peux rien pour vous.

Hi you seem to be upset but there really is no reason to be. The article that you wrote did not show that the subject met the notability criteria as per WP:NTRACK so I moved it to draft space as per WP:DRAFTIFY. To avoid this kind of thing in the future please ensure that you read the notability criteria for the subject that you writing on and make sure you add the required to sources to show it meets them before publishing. If the article is not ready please use your sandbox before publishing. I am not trying to be popular or maintain popularity but I am working to improve the encyclopedia in a respectful manner. My actions are in accordance with policy and guidelines so I'm afraid if you consider them to be impolite I am afraid I can't really help you there. Happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aurore: I checked out the edit history again to try and understand why you seem so upset and I believe I could have waited longer before moving it to see if you were going to add the information to show he met WP:NTRACK and for that I apologise. That said you do not have to wait for someone to review an article in draft space if you believe it is ready for main space as an auto conformed user you can move it back yourself. If you do so before it is ready then you run the risk of it being nominated for deletion though. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent redirect edit

Hi, thanks for your reviewing my page, but can you please explain why the page "United Alive in Madrid" was redirected and were can I find it? Your redirect leads to the band's discography page but the specific page created by me is deleted or does not exist. As I spend some time creating the page and both sources and references were used please explain this. Mpaoxi (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaoxi: Hi the page is still there but I have replaced the content with a redirect to the discography page as an alternative to deletion because there was nothing that showed it met WP:NALBUM. The content is maintained in the page's history so if you have read the notability guidelines and found more sources to show that the album meets the guidelines you can restore an old version and add the sources and update. Please be advised that if it doesn't meet the guidelines it will probably be nominated for deletion. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaoxi: to learn how to edit a redirect please read WP:EDRED Dom from Paris (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

{{Senior Editor}} For your work on Andy Auld and David MorganWm335td (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wm335td: you're welcome. I learnt a lot writing it. I remember the conflict vividly, I was 14 at the time and was on an exchange trip to Germany, we were doing a tour of Hamburg harbour and the guide said "Ah this will interest you English pupils that is an Argentinian ship and your country declared war on Argentina this morning"! Very matter of fact are the Germans!!! (I Nowikied the senior editor template because I think you meant to do something else). Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Advertisement

Hello. Regarding the page I recently made, Gabriel Kreuther, how would you improve it/change it? I based it on similar Michelin rated restaurants. Thank you. KoRoBeNiKi Medical Coder, chess specialist, retired SSBWiki rollback, hi? 16:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Domdeparis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

— Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 07:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masum Ibn Musa: thanks for opening the investigation into me it was an enriching experience as I have personally opened a number of investigations myself most were proved to be true but not all and it was interesting to see it from the other angle. Also it brings into perspective this comment (that I have taken on board) from User:Bbb23 when closing one that I started he stated In the future, if you file a report at SPI without evidence that I see, it will be summarily closed. And the word "duck" does not substitute for diffs.

Anyway no hard feelings on my part just next time you might want to ask yourself "am I doing this because I'm annoyed by another editor's actions or is it based on something real." Just because 2 editors agree that an article is not notable does not make them in cahoots or the same person. Take the time to look at their editing history (I've been here for over 5 years and User:HighKing for 13 years) and their rights, we are both patrollers (as you are too) and very active in AFD so we're going to come across each other there. You might also want to read this Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry.

Talking about patrolling I remember unreviewing an article that you reviewed so I took the liberty of checking out some of the articles you marked as reviewed and I think you need to read Wikipedia:New pages patrol and especially the flow chart. An article that does not have at least 2 sources in independent RS should be tagged as needing more references and these weren't and still aren't Karl Platt, Ano Doliana Mohun Bagan A.C. (youth). Please take more care in the future. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Auld (pilot)

I undid your edit. The source includes: "The British Amphibious Task Force was frantically offloading landing forces in San Carlos Water. Above at 10,000 feet, Andy Auld's Sea Harriers were directed by shipborne controllers onto four bogies streaking for the landing ships. Auld dove on the formation and within seconds fired both of his Sidewinder missiles, destroying two Argentine Daggers. As he attempted a gun solution on a third Dagger, it was hit by a missile fired by his wingman. The fourth aircraft jettisoned its bombs and headed home. Recognized for his skill and combat leadership in the Falklands War, Lieutenant Commander Auld was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross." It was in the sidebar, which explains how you missed it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I tried nice.

Stop WP:Edit warring when your factual assertion is demonstrably wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen You should not open a discussion about an edit conflict and immediately revert without giving the other editor the time to explain why they edited in that way this is disloyal. I will now explain why I tagged this as failed verification. I did not miss the side bar at all but being recognised for his skill and combat leadership does not equate to "He played an important role in making the Sea Harrier operational in the Royal Navy, and was instrumental in its success in the Falklands War" this is without a shadow of a doubt WP:OR as other editors have remarked in the deletion discussion. This phrase was added after the discussion was opened and referenced. I checked the reference and it does not support the phrase. If you have another that does please use it and let me know I will decide if I agree or not. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. WP:3RR. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ailsa Land for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ailsa Land is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ailsa Land until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Riazul Islam BD (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

- the result was Keep - Epinoia (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft articles by User:Shevonsilva

Hello! You moved an unspecified number of articles by this user to draft space, but he is currently blocked indefinitely, one of the many reasons being the huge number of his untouched articles in draft space. Perhaps it would be better just to delete them (or AfD if this is what has to happen). Imaginatorium (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Imaginatorium: I didn't realise it was the large amount of articles in draft space that was a problem which is why I draftified them rather than go through an AFD. I suppose we could bundle them all together. That said the advantage with them languishing in draft space is that if no-one touches them they will be automatically deleted in 6 months but I know that draftify is not a short cut to deletion...Dom from Paris (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

David Morgan (pilot) -- Did You Know

Hi, thank you for writing David Morgan (pilot), it is very interesting. Have you considered nominating it for WP:Did you know? It looks eligible to me. The nomination would need to be within the next couple of days at the latest I think. MPS1992 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @MPS1992: I've never done a did you know. I'll have a look at the link. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: do you think that as of March 2019 he was last British pilot to have shot down an enemy aircraft in a dogfight would be a good hook? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We might be able to get away with "is the most recent British pilot to have...". Maybe! MPS1992 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have created a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/David Morgan (pilot), feel free to tinker with it as you think best. I think I need to add it to some other page now, it's all moderately complicated. MPS1992 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992:Thanks for that, but I still like the hook that he was the last British pilot to have downed an enemy aircraft in a dogfight. I'm going to propose it as an alternative if that's Ok with you. cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Also I am sure that the source is wrong and that he is not the most decorated pilot during the conflict. He won a DSC and the South Atlantic medal as did about half a dozen other pilots I propose replacing the word "decorated" with "successful" and add "fighter" to pilot to avoid confusion with bombers or helicopters as he downed more aircraft than any other pilot. I will also remove that from the article. cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

From Here

You marked an album that is currently #4 in the UK midweek album charts as non-notable? [2] You are supposed to do some research before you tag things, you know. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Black Kite: thanks for your message.

As part of the New pages review process we look at an article and depending on the state of the article we either mark it as reviewed or we carry out another action. This can range from simply tagging the problems to requesting a speedy delete. The flow chart for reviewing [3] includes the following

• "Does the article have 2 or more references to independent reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage (GNG)" if the reply is no (which was this case) the next question is
• "Does the article contain a credible claim of importance or significance?" the reply for me was yes, the next question is
• "Is this article a biography of a living person?" ...no, next question
• "Does a google search turn up reliable sources?" reply yes...next action is
• "Tag with unreferenced or more references" which I did. Onr of the following instructions are
• "If needed, add additional tags, starting with the most relevant (max 3-4)

As you had not added any information in the revision I reviewed [4] that suggested it met any of the WP:NALBUM criteria I tagged it as maybe not meeting the criteria. The tag reads "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." (my bolding) the tag does not say it is not notable.

Had you added the chart position in the article or any other information that met these criteria I would not have used this tag.

There is no obligation for New Pages Reviewers to clean up or improve articles for their creators, I do however do this often for newbies but never for experienced editors... even administrators.

At the moment there is a backlog of around 5,000 articles and we are doing our best to reduce this and unfortunately I do not have the time to improve every single article that does not meet the necessary standards. I am sorry you were peeved by my tagging but if I may be allowed to say this, had it been up to scratch I wouldn't have tagged it. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Coteau Bourgeois, Louisiana

@Domdeparis: Hi, you seem to be the only page reviewer repeatedly marking Unincorporated communities as not meeting the notability guidelines. By moving these into incubation you are just increasing the workload on other wikipedians. Could you please explain to me why you believe Coteau Bourgeois, Louisiana is not notable? DavidDelaune (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi I don't know what other reviewers are doing with these kind of articles but the trouble is the definition of "Legally recognised place". The source you supplied classes it as U6 or a "Populated (Community) Place (except those associated with facilities). A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name." So as such the second criterion applies and it reads "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Dom from Paris (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

From the same document it states that a populated place is a "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." This further reinforces my analysis. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We can ask either @Vsmith: or @Gilliam: to help interpret what WP:GEOLAND means. My understanding is that any and all federally recognized places, including abandoned communities are automatically presumed to be notable. DavidDelaune (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@DavidDelaune: my problem is that the classification U6 specifically says that it doesn't have an official federally recognized name. I have done a bit of research and there have been a few deletion discussions that have resoundingly !voted keep based on the simple fact that they appear in that source but I am still having trouble equating being in that source as being legally recognised. So yes a bit of help would be good. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:, Well I can say that dozens of the Unincorporated communities I have added are class U6 but many of them have very high historical significance in my opinion. I added a class U6 Bayou Barbary yesterday and I got distracted for several hours reading about this area. These locations are rich with early American history. I want to be able to record these historical places here on wikipedia. DavidDelaune (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, and places that are rich with history will have an abundance of sources that deal with them in-depth and they will easily pass GNG. Had there been the same kind of secondary sources on the Coteau Bourgeois as you had found on Bayou Barbary I would not have bothered checking what classification it was because GNG is clearly met. It is when GNG is not met that I check to see the classification. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to question about Rich Gold entry and multiple accounts

I am flattered that you suspect me of having a great deal of experience in editing Wikipedia pages, but I assure you that the posts listed under this account are my only edits and I have never edited through any other account. While I am glad that my posts apparently show sufficient sophistication, I actually have a great many questions about the Wikipedia editing process and recognize there is much to learn here. I appreciate your diligence in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia content but I will have to disagree with your request to delete the Rich Gold entry. According to the guidelines, a cited source must show “more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source.” Gold supports the thematic context of the source material and certainly is more than a trivial mention. Surely, news organizations such as the New York Times (one cite) and Washington Post (five cites) qualify as “reliable published sources.” Nonetheless, I will review the entry in light of your criticism. Thank you. M. Avdeitch (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Kunal Jaisingh speedy delete

Hi Dom, re: your recent nomination of Kunal Jaisingh for speedy delete under G5, or banned user, the only way we can do that is if there are no materially constructive changes by other editors, and I don't think we can say that about this article, even though I detest the sock editing. If a small handful of editors had made minor changes like adding categories or fixing weird stuff in the infobox, there would be a much easier argument to delete. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: yes I apologise I should have checked out the edit history more thoroughly, I have comme across so many socks recently that even if the CU doesn't throw anything up there editing patterns leave me in no doubt. I've nominated other pages I check I didn't do the same kind of thing and self-revert if it is the case. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for David Morgan (pilot)

On 5 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Morgan (pilot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Morgan, the most successful British fighter pilot in the Falklands War, had a hole in the heart that was only discovered after he applied to join the military? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Morgan (pilot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Morgan (pilot)), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the issue to ANI. I suspected the nominations as retaliation, but wasn't sure what to do about it. Is there anything else I can do to support you in this? - thanks again - Epinoia (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope that's fine I'm waiting to hear back from Bbb23. I'll ping you if necessary. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Domdeparis,

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)

ANI thread where I mentioned you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NewsAndEventsGuy. I mentioned you there, not with any suggestion of wrong doing. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

To review a new page

kindly review this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvesh_Amte ☆★Shubham Ghodke (✉✉)

Glosters Battle Honours

Just as a matter of interest, is the statement "the glosters had more battle honours than any other regiment" strictly true? I looked this up when I was developing the Glosters article, and found a Daily Telegraph article which states that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment "has more battle honours than any other Army regiment." On re-reading the source for the Glosters' claim ("No other line regiment carried more Battle Honours on its Colours...", Daniell p. 410), I realised it was qualified in two ways: firstly as battle honours carried on the colours (i.e. the possibility that other regiments had more battle honours but did not display them on their colours); and secondly, in comparison to line regiments (i.e. that there are guards or cavalry regiments that have more battle honours). Or did the Telegraph get it wrong? Factotem (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:David Morgan Falklands War fighter pilot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Morgan Falklands War fighter pilot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:45, 18 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Jan-Olov Liljenzin

Since this tagging was done the article has got a number of citations and improvements, and I wonder if the article could be considered relevant for enwp, and the tagging removed. If the article still simply does not meet the notability guidelines for enwp, I would propose deletion. Regards / Anhn (talk) 21:18, 19 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)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Domdeparis, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDomdeparisたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

McGregor

I have sought a compromise. I am surprised you haven't attempted the same or attempted actually to discuss. Anyway, I trust that's the end of it. I'll let the silly templates slide.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page to explain why your editing may have been problematic. I shan't ping you here as it would be more appropriate to discuss it in one place. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Domdeparis,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Domdeparis, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Domdeparis,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding draft page

Can you please review the draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shiwani_Chakraborty Is that article meets wikipedia's guideline or not? Khusin26 (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dog and Bitch Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corps of Engineers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:HEY

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your good save of the Hazon article. Ravenswing 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Dom from Paris (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)