User talk:NotTheFakeJTP/Archive 1
 | This archive contains messages sent to NotTheFakeJTP in 2016. |
 | This is an archive of past discussions with NotTheFakeJTP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
Hi NotTheFakeJTP! I just wanted to let you know that I have restarted the Green Bay Packers WikiProject. Come check out the page and if you are still interested, add yourself to the active member list! All of our articles have been assessed and there are a lot of new tools available to help us improve Green Bay Packers articles. Please feel free to post on the WikiProject's talk page or on my talk page if you have any questions! Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
re
No problem, thank you for reverting the vandal. He did end up getting blocked by a real admin for 2 weeks. If you have any questions feel free to message me.LM2000 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:188.220.181.101. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. CrashUnderride 05:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Crash Underride: I am aware of my mistake. I didn't know the rules and someone corrected me on it. I apologize, although a level 2 warning is a little over the top. Thanks for notifying me. JTP (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it was a caution, rather than a warning. I usually use warnings. But I Assumed good faith and that it was an accident and cautioned you. I also saw the post on LM2000's pages, after I posted the caution. CrashUnderride 07:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Bound for Glory (2016)
Hello, thanks for your edits on the Bound for Glory (2016) page. I was checking the page and it turns out that the user that you reversed for disregarding the notice about putting references deleted it back again; I put it again, but he put it again, only putting an insult in the edit summary. I'm not well-versed in the workings of Wikipedia when it comes to these cases (the English language one, at least), so I was asking if you could help me out with this. Thanks.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice about New wade on Bound for Glory (2016). I'm not sure what to do here. Whether we put an extended-confirmed protection on the page (New wade is not extendedconfirmed), bring this up to WP:INCIDENT, or get advice from the WikiProject Professional wrestling community, something should be done. I've placed an edit war tag on his talk page, and we'll see what comes from that. Thanks for the notice! JTP (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Daily Grand
There will likely be more coverage of it over the next few days, given that the cat was only let out of the bag within the past few days. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
|
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review needs your help
Hi NotTheFakeJTP,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello NotTheFakeJTP. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, NotTheFakeJTP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter
- Breaking the back of the backlog
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
- 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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
- Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
too fast speedy deletion
I haven't looked into your contribution history, so I don't know if this is a general problem. But IMO it's bad for Wikipedia for editors to be horrifically fast in nominating new articles for Speedy Deletion, as you did just now in your Speedy deletion nomination of Bound Together Bookstore Collective. I am an experienced editor, but it hurts Wikipedia with new editors, especially, when you and others do that. Obviously, you make a negative effect on an editor, and you haven't given them a chance to complete out what they intend. In general human beings need 8-10 positive strokes to counter any one negative action against them. My guess is that you are delivering negatives and hurting Wikipedia overall.
I don't particularly care what happens in this one case. But in general I would support measures preventing actions like yours, including and up to banning editors that do what you did. :) I don't know about your general pattern of edits, but you should be careful that you're helping a lot more than you are hurting.
Sincerely, --doncram 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Doncram: I agree that it may have been a bit too fast, but articles shouldn't be one sentence long to start. That's why we have sandboxes and draft spaces. Your article is primarily primary sources as well. Also, it's a little much to guess that I'm "delivering negatives and hurting Wikipedia overall" without looking at my curation history or contribs. Please don't jump to conclusions. You can always contest the speedy deletion with the blue button in the sped box. If you have any further questions, I'm always here. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't come to a conclusion, i suggested I saw a potential problem. Now, looking in your recent contributions I see a few other Speedy Deletion notices that you gave, but the articles were in fact deleted so I can't see them. However, I do see that with this edit you gave notice to a new contributor about an article named Gretak. I don't know whether that might have been a potentially valid article about a ship "Greta K" perhaps, or not. But either way, the deletion removed ALL of that editor's contributions to Wikipedia, and this was not acknowledged or apologized abovt, and the editor was not welcomed, and this is not good IMO. I can't say for sure that it was a bad thing to treat this editor badly, but it doesn't look good to me. If you don't mind me hazarding another guess: I think you maybe are not looking at the editor's contributions, when I think you should be. In my case, it should have given you pause. In the case of a brand new contributor, it should give you pause, too. That's my 2 cents. Hey, I don't want to start any running contention between you and me, and I do recognize that patrolling new pages needs to be done, and I do assume in fact that you have overall been doing good. But I want to give you pause about who you are doing what to, and I hope you can recognize that eradicating all of an editor's contributions, or taking aim at a potentially valid article that an editor is trying to develop in good faith, can in fact come across as huge negatives. --doncram 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Mojo Rawley
Hello, it's me from the Bound for Glory (2016) thing. Now I wanted to talk to you about another page. I saw the page for Mojo Rawley and, well, you know how pages for wrestlers have a "In wrestling" section that details finishing moves, signature moves, nicknames and themes? Well, I noticed that in that page, the titles of those sub-sections weren't in bold, as pretty much all sub-sections are (wrestler page notwithstanding), but when I tried to put it on them, the edit was reversed, citing MOS:NOBOLD. I read it but, at least to my understanding, it was only mostly about avoiding overusing boldface for emphasis in article text, which to me didn't seem to apply to this case. At first, I though about leaving it that way, that the user knows best, but looking at the page again... it doesn't look quite right to me. Going through the revision history of the page I also discovered that the same sequence of events has happened at least three times already, all reversions made by the same user, so I was asking if you could lend me a hand again with this again to see how the page should remain, since as of now I do not have the time to delve deeper into the matter. Thanks.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter #2
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .