Wikipedia

User talk:Dusti/Archive 14

< User talk:Dusti
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Chris troutman in topic Missing
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Articles for deletion/Lantern Entertainment (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Your closure of the 2nd AfD for Lantern Entertainment shows you did not read what occur. There has been no notability established in the prior AfD or in this. Then they come to this AfD and falsely claim that notability was established in the prior AfD. The prior AfD was about Lantern not being a separate entity per standing corporate article treatment (which did not originally agree with) and I supplied them some sample cases to which editors then went personal attacks. Nate: "We're not here to discuss other quixotic split attempts, just this article in particular." So that is a statement that supports notability? Obviously not. So you incorrectly support WP:INHERITORG, which is the only way to support Lantern for a separate article ("Obviously notable as de facto continuation of TWC." - nope that is expressly INHERITORG), because it purchased The Weinstein Company assets and transferred them to Spyglass Media Group, two known notability corporations. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP - AFD may not normal be clean up (which it has been The_Weinstein_Company#Lantern_Entertainment, the only thing standing in the way is the continual return of the Lantern Entertainment article), but less knowledgeable editors choose to reverse said clean up. Spshu (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinions myself on the article. I did not participate in the discussion and I did not read the article itself. I gauged the consensus of the discussion at the time of closure. Taking an article to Articles for Deletion means that it doesn't qualify our general notability guidelines or one of the other (hundred?) policies we have that support the inclusion of an article here but in short, if something isn't notable, it's not going to remain on Wikipedia or survive an AFD discussion. In this case, the article has survived two AFD discussions which should tell you that other editors disagree with you. Perhaps you should step back from this topic and/or article and work on another area - there's plenty to do! Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It just survived two AFD discussion with no notability!!! Reading the first AFD there was no notability discussion, then they assumed that it was in the second AFD! They were delusional! One wanted separate articles because "separate brands" that doesn't support notability. Renames are not reasons for another article. They did not just disagreed with me but the expressly attacked me!! There has been only one stand alone story about Lantern, the other articles were based on The Weinstein Company's notability and Spyglass Media's notability. You gauged the vote not that they were ignoring policy allowing Lantern to INHERIT notability, which they were told they should not then did just that. That means that you did NOT properly close the AfD. "In this case, the article has survived two AFD discussions which should tell you that other editors disagree with you." No they just sat there and personal attack me as a reason. There was an expressed reason for the 2nd AfD, a new event transfering assets to Spyglass, so for them and you to continue to cite the first AfD for anything. This clearly makes Lantern at best a permanent stub.
You seem to have fallen into WP:NACPIT 2. It is hard to move on when they are voting against me not on the matter at hand and when this is the last set to finish to move on. They cannot seem to move on when some indicates that the subject is not notable and would be a permanent stub. Spshu (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Spshu: "They did not just disagreed with me but the expressly attacked me!!" and "No they just sat there and personal attack me as a reason." are serious accusations which I would caution against making without supporting evidence. If you are able to provide such evidence (preferably diffs) then I would recommend filing at the incidents noticeboard, but as you are probably aware: things can boomerang if not careful (not a threat, just statement of fact and something I try to always mention as best practice). As an admin, I have reviewed the close and do not see an issue with it. However, you are free to request review and I will recuse myself from closing it (regardless of outcome) given my comments here. If the deletion review were to uphold the close, then I would strongly recommend dropping the stick. If not, the AfD will be reopened for further comment and we can all take it from there. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

NAC at AfD

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Dusti. I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ware Junior Senior High School and from looking at the messages on your talk page some other AfD. I would encourage you to read the fairly recent discussion about non administrative closures at AfD (and other forums) at WT:NAC and consider not closing these discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I shall review it. AFD is always a minefield to work in, however, regarding the messages above - one editor is upset about the lack of a lengthy closing statement (which I usually provide but didn't in that case... in any sense, I went back and added a closing rationale), another editor erroneously thought that I didn't close the AFD right but I and some others went back and checked and we're really not sure what that editor means, and then the one directly above this that's contesting the closure. I am always open to feedback and a discussion about why I do what I do - not only at AFD but anywhere here on the project. If I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong and revert myself. If I don' think I'm wrong, I'll still revert or ask for a 2nd opinion from someone who's an admin. The AFD that you linked above there was one oppose !vote however, HIAB was citing his on opinion based on past experiences and didn't really give a policy based argument about how it fails WP:GNG whereas everyone else (except one keep !vote) elaborated on and expanded on their rationale citing policy based arguments. In my opinion, and in general, those !votes are given more weight. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Dusti I voted keep at Ware so I'm on record with what I think in that instance. However, in general, I don't think anyone should be closing discussions who doesn't have the delete button (except in cases of speedy delete/keep). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I appreciate how you feel, and your opinion, however, I will continue to work in AFD despite not having the delete button. I routinely close No Consensus, Keep, and Speedy Keep closures. In looking at the NAC thread, it seems that the only main issue that folks have are with the relists that happen when they could be closed as an uncontested PROD. Ever since learning of the change with that process (I had been on a wiki break for some time), I've simply stayed away from relists. I agree that it tends to clog up things. In any sense, thanks for stopping by and I'll see ya around. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Świdnicka Street, Wrocław

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Have you verified that the page wasn't suitable? Is this Wikipedia better without the page? Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always better with more information and articles. The problem is that you had started the page but abandoned it, never submitting it for review. If you follow the instructions left on your talk page it's possible that the draft can be restored so you can continue to work on it and submit it for inclusion in the Mainspace. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I would be willing to restore the draft for you Xx236, if you wish. --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Krishnapal Malik page

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why delete sir Monismansoori (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Bliss (again)

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Anthony Bliss (AB) was nominated for AFD at 21:09, 11 April 2019 and you closed the AFD at 02:42, 18 April 2019. I agree that your summary reflects the discussion, however the seven sources in the article are very poor: only one is to a secondary source (a brief mention in a book published in 1874), one is to a listing of Oxford graduates and five are to works by Bliss or listings of his works. The article also needs cleanup, as two ABs mentioned in the listing of Oxford graduates appear to have been confused: one wrote a book in 1725, the other died in 1815, ninety years later. Do you think this article is eligible for deletion review or does it need to wait another six months for renomination?TSventon (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@TSventon: Hey there! I'm not familiar with Deletion review as it's not one of the areas I work in often, so I'm kinda going on a limb here. According to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose #1 says:
Deletion review should not be used:
1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe
I would assume based on that we'd have to wait to do another AFD. I'm going to ping @TheSandDoctor: and @Oshwah: as I know they stalk my talk page and see if they have any input. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I would give it some time, but 6 months seems in excess to me. Dusti is correct when it comes to the use of DRV. In this case, I agree that it would be inappropriate. (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@TSventon: ^ --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor:, thanks for your advice. Having read the deletion policy again, could Dusti reopen the closure of the discussion and relist it as i) the discussion was closed 18 hours early and ii) the discussion seems to be lacking arguments based on policy?TSventon (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor:, Dusti, I have done a quick update to the article to separate AB the older and AB the younger.TSventon (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Another reason for reopening is procedural errors in the discussion: the article nominated for deletion was about Anthony Bliss (son) and the participants agreed that seven references and four books relating to Anthony Bliss (father) established the notability of the subject.TSventon (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I would personally be more in favour of a new discussion given the confusion of the two, TSventon. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Thanks again, should I do another AdD request now (probably on Monday)? Could I quote your advice? Or is there a better way to resolve the confusion?TSventon (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@TSventon: Request a new one with the clarifications whenever you prefer and feel free to quote me. All I ask is that I get a ping or something when it is filed (thanks!). --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: As you have seen I have created the discussion. Do you know whether there is any guidance about how/ whether to change the content of an article such as Anthony Bliss from the son (as created) to the father (as it stood yesterday) or both men (as it now stands). It seems confusing if the subject of an article and its wikidata entry can change from day to day through normal edits.TSventon (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A10 at List of songs recorded by Sithara Krishnakumar

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm just letting you know I removed the A10 you placed on List of songs recorded by Sithara Krishnakumar because it seemed like a plausible search term to me and had some more information. Thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: The list of songs is located in the article at Sithara_(singer)#Discography. I'm not sure what else could be beneficial from the article? Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Further, the beginning of the article is a word for word copy/paste of the beginning of Sithara (singer) Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Dusti, You can boldly redirect the page if you think there's nothing helpful. I'm fairly sure that's why A10 explicitly excludes pages that can be redirected. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Alpha3031: I guess I'm just not seeing how it would be a useful redirect or a plausible search term. The singer goes by her first name, Sithara, the beginning of both articles are identical (the page creator literally did a copy/paste), and the target page has the same Discography information. The purpose of A10 is if it's a recreation of a current page, which in this case, it is. A10 states ..does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject... What do you think that this expands upon, or improves? Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my computer is being unseasonably slow today. A10 also states This criterion should be used only if its title could be speedily deleted as a redirect. I feel it's plausible for people specifically looking for "Songs by person" to search list of songs by person. If you disagree you can always retag (I'm not an admin so it's not adminshop) or list it a XfD Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthony Bliss for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthony Bliss 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/Anthony Bliss (2nd nomination) 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. TSventon (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Block notices

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know, WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING disallows the removal of declined unblock requests. They don't say anything about block notices and AFAIK it's generally accepted that these can be removed. It's my understanding this is because they are intended for the block editor, info on the reason for the block etc should really be in the block log. Therefore anyone reviewing the block should not need to see the block notice and if the editor affected by the block wants to remove it, they are free to do so. The situation for declined unblock requests is different. It's not necessary to annotate a block log when you decline an unblock request. Further it may not always be obvious from the page history there was a unblock request, especially if the page has had a fair amount of activity. So declined unblock requests should be kept, then they can be easily seen by anyone reviewing a future unblock request. See this discussion Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 13#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. These comments Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 17#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 17#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings#Did consensus change about the sockpuppetry clause? also illustrate the modern understanding IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Another dodgy AfD close?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See User_talk:Sitush#Dodgy_AfD_close?. I'm not around much, so unlikely to respond, but I have a fair few talk page watchers. Should have mentioned it here first, sorry, but wasn't thinking straight. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Dawn Fantasia nomination for deletation

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are plenty Wikipedia articles for many local and, arguably, unnoteable officials. In fact many Wikipedia articles exsist for Former Members of NJ's General Assembly with minimal information, and they have not been deleted. So why must that standard be applied here and not elsewhere? I also left this on my talk page. Bnml84 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bnml84: Good question. Check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dawn_Fantasia and read what @Bearcat: had to say, that's probably the best explanation that I could give. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I will acknowledge that Wikipedians do not always put much effort into actually making our articles about state legislators good, but state legislators are inherently more notable than county councillors. They get wider media coverage, and they vote on more important issues, and they're of public interest to many more people, and even a bad article about a state legislator is always improvable because better sources always exist to expand it with. None of that is necessarily always true about county freeholders, which is why they aren't automatically all accepted as notable just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Dusti, thankyou for your email inquiring about running for RfA. Unfortunately, I have to advise you that I don't think it's likely that you will succeed. This would be your fifth RfA; the previous four can be found here, here here and here. These are spread over a four-year period, all were self-nominations with increasingly desperate and pleading nominations statements, and were all closed per SNOW or withdrawn. I wouldn't mind a single bad RfA with a second one run years later, but this track record needs something out of the ordinary to overcome.

You have come back after a lengthy absence and got stuck into AfD closes, which is not intrinsically bad in itself, but they have attracted a large amounts of complaints and discussion; as an admin, challenging AfD closures should be exception, not the rule. Your CSD log contains a significant number of A7 nominations that were declined, such as James Gillingham, Song Sun and Tim O'Shaughnessy, which is normally an instant "oppose" vote from me.

I would forget all about adminship. It just isn't going to happen. I'm taking the unusual step of replying on-wiki here because I'm wondering if if you were going to email anyone else about this, and they need to know the results of my findings. I'm not saying any of this to be mean, it's just the simple honest truth. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: No no, I appreciate you taking the time to look. I was looking for exactly what you gave. You, honestly, confirmed what I had thought. That the younger, eager, immature me kinda ruined the future options that I may have had an opportunity for. I didn't look that hard at the RFA's, I knew there had been a couple but I had honestly no clue there were four. There shouldn't have been any, but I unfortunately cannot change the past. Again, thank you for taking a look and for being blunt and to the point. I'll continue to piddle around here and there but I won't waste the communities time. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Dimpletisha / KaranSharma0445

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Dusti, FYI, this SPI might be of interest to you since you previously opened an SPI about one of the involved sock operators. TL;DR: there are two operators who kind of look alike and it may be difficult to differentiate them. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Dusti,

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
Discussions of interest

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)

Guestbook

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Just wondering if you wanted to sign my Guestbook, which is located on my User Page

many thanks, 

- JJBullet (Talk) 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Displaying personal email

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, i have noticed that a certain user has given out their personal email on his/hers User Page, i wanted to ask you if this is allowed before i hand out a warning.... many thnaks - JJBullet (Talk) 10:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

JJBullet, it depends on the context. Can you show me a link to their page? If they're treating the page as a social profile, that's not allowed. If they're displaying their email address on their user page as a way to contact them regarding something related to Wikipedia, it's okay. You might want to let them know they can link their email account via Special:Preferences so users can use Special:EmailUser to email them through the MediaWiki software. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

wikifarm

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Whilst cleaning up massive block evasion, I've been checking Australian IPs, and I noticed the level 4 template you left for 43.248.55.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I don't think that edit fits the Wikipedia definition of vandalism at all. It seems, rather, that the IP is following the instructions in the {{Main}} template documentation explaining when to use Main and when to use {{Further}}. Would you reconsider your warning to them, please? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea That's really weird... I wouldn't issue a warning for something like that. I may have hit the wrong button while using Huggle. Thank you for telling me about that! I'll revert now. Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad to know it was a mistake. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

wiki farm

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Third Opinion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have given my viewpoint about the naval combat, Third Opinion. Thank you --Caminoderoma (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Dusti,

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)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Dusti,

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)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Credit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hey dusti, i copied the code (and altered) for my page, and signature. :), hope this is ok.Bo88y*Talk to me* 18:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Dusti,

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 815 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 

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)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

 

Hello Dusti,

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
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)

Happy Birthday!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy Birthday!
 

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy First Edit Day!
 

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Notifying blocked sock operator?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Dusti, re: this, is there any reason why you thought it necessary to notify a long-since-blocked user that they were accused of sockpuppetry? A) There is no requirement that anybody be notified when they are suspected of sockpuppetry and B) it just seems weird if the assumption is that someone who was blocked in 2018 would still be logging in periodically and checking their talk page, and then even if they did, how would they respond to the sockpuppetry accusations if they can't edit anything? Just a thought. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dusti/Archive_14&oldid=1079160783"