User talk:Spicy/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spicy. 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Asking why you would revert content which is from sources which are clearly WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lightburst a primary study from 2006 and a popular press article are not reliable sources for content related to human health, as WP:MEDRS clearly explains. Spicy (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- A study published in Medical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 4, 549-552, 2006...and an abstract from National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, are not RS? I understand it may offend some that honey has been studied as a therapeutic. Unfortunately it is dismissed as quackery even when it is published in RS. Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I will discuss this on the article talk page, you don't need to post in two places. MEDRS is quite clear about the need for recent and secondary sources. Spicy (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was writing an article earlier and came across the research in that effort. I knew that it may be bothersome to scientists to consider a supplement might be helpful. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly feels like you are displaying ownership over these topics - with reverts on two articles. I will go back to my corner and read more. Lightburst (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS is an official guideline, which exists for very good reasons. Enforcing it is no more ownership than enforcing the WP:BLP policy, and I would hope that you don't believe veteran medical editors like Zefr and Graham Beards are acting out of personal prejudice. I am happy to see someone interested in improving our medical articles, many of which are in a truly awful state, but we do have to follow the relevant policies and guidelines, whose purpose is not always obvious to editors who are not experienced in this topic area. Spicy (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I understand you clearly. Honey is not a medicine in the classical sense, and perhaps therein lies the issue - conflict with science and pharmaceuticals. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, and we wouldn't require MEDRS sources for content about culinary, cultural, or historical uses of honey, but statements like
honey may be useful for controlling the many side effects of radiation therapy or chemotherapy
,honey was found to have health benefits for Chemotherapy patients
,The honey was also found to lower the possibility of fatal thrombocytopenia (low platelets)
are quite clearly medical claims and require reliable medical sourcing. Anyway, further discussion of this would be better had on the article's talk page. Spicy (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)- Just to push back on the medical claims...the sourcing exists, however it is rejected by editors as being not current. Hacve a great weekend! I am moving on to other non-medical/science topics Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, and we wouldn't require MEDRS sources for content about culinary, cultural, or historical uses of honey, but statements like
- I understand you clearly. Honey is not a medicine in the classical sense, and perhaps therein lies the issue - conflict with science and pharmaceuticals. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS is an official guideline, which exists for very good reasons. Enforcing it is no more ownership than enforcing the WP:BLP policy, and I would hope that you don't believe veteran medical editors like Zefr and Graham Beards are acting out of personal prejudice. I am happy to see someone interested in improving our medical articles, many of which are in a truly awful state, but we do have to follow the relevant policies and guidelines, whose purpose is not always obvious to editors who are not experienced in this topic area. Spicy (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly feels like you are displaying ownership over these topics - with reverts on two articles. I will go back to my corner and read more. Lightburst (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was writing an article earlier and came across the research in that effort. I knew that it may be bothersome to scientists to consider a supplement might be helpful. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I will discuss this on the article talk page, you don't need to post in two places. MEDRS is quite clear about the need for recent and secondary sources. Spicy (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- A study published in Medical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 4, 549-552, 2006...and an abstract from National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, are not RS? I understand it may offend some that honey has been studied as a therapeutic. Unfortunately it is dismissed as quackery even when it is published in RS. Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Sock City (2020 soundtrack)
Wow, so much deleting and salting. I don't understand putting in all that effort when you know they're all going to get deleted? In any case, I also was able to block (6 months) a few ranges they were using, so hopefully that will help a little bit. Thanks for sending those my way. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ooh, thanks for putting down a rangeblock. I was thinking of filing at SPI to see if a rangeblock is possible but I wasn't sure if it would be worth it since they're so incredibly obvious. I think they are just a young user who enjoys making up stories and doesn't really understand what Wikipedia is for, they are annoyingly persistent though. If I see them again maybe I will let them know that Fandom wikis exist for this kind of stuff. Spicy (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Change the citations!
Ok, so plz change the page as you want it RMAerospace (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's the responsibility of the person who submits the draft to demonstrate that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This page has some advice for finding sources. Spicy (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of Ireallyreallylikewriting's sandbox on Lisa Von Tang
Hi Spicy. Hope you're safe and sound. I recently wrote an article (my first Wiki article actually!) on Lisa Von Tang, which is my favourite fashion brand. Unfortunately the article was deleted because Wiki thought it was "unambiguous promotion" of a product or service. Um, I don't understand how people could arrive at that interpretation, because nowhere at all in that article did I encourage or push people to buy the brand's products. I hardly even described the products. What I did do was tell the STORY of the brand: how it started, who its founder is, the rationale for it doing certain things, and how it has evolved from past to present. So yeah, it would be greatly appreciated if the Lisa Von Tang article could be restored. Thank you! IreallyreallylikewritingUser:Ireallyreallylikewriting (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ireallyreallylikewriting You can ask Cryptic, the administrator who deleted the page, but I doubt it will be restored. "Telling the story of the brand" is basically what promotion is. Spicy (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Message from T.E. Meeks
Spicy, thanks for looking at my Caroline Wiseneder article. I usually try to include links from other articles but couldn't find a link for this one - would appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm working off the Women in Red Composers List - T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- T. E. Meeks Unfortunately I can't think of anything either, but thank you for writing the article. I've seen you around and noticed all of your great work on women composers - keep it up :) Spicy (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
It's the least I could do
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| Please accept this little non-twinkling star for replacing the image at Cleavage (breasts) and leaving such thoughtful comments on the talk page. Thank you. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
If possible, can you also take a look at the comments left on the talk page for you? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, will do. Spicy (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
My submission to AfC
I had given some sign of notability in the reception section before some user randomly emptied it. See the history. Thank you. the ultraUsurper 11:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- UltraUsurper, I looked at the reception section before it was emptied. It still failed to show that the game is notable. We do not rely on numbers of downloads or user reviews to demonstrate notability - we need in-depth reviews from media outlets with a reputation for reliability. See WP:NVIDEOGAMES for more information. Spicy (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Spicy: Thanks for clarifying. the ultraUsurper 11:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Request on 14:55:17, 28 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Anders Grubb
- Anders Grubb (talk · contribs)
Dear Reviewer,
I was not aware that there was a separate English and Swedish Wikipedia. I produced the text both in English and in Swedish. I have now replaced the Swedish text with the English one. But I did not know how to change the title from Swedish to English i.e. from "Krympt-por-syndrom" to "Shrunken pore syndrome". I would be grateful if you could help me to do that. I have never submitted an article to Wikipedia before.
Best regards, Anders Grubb
Anders Grubb (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Anders Grubb, I redirected the draft to the English version at Draft:Shrunken pore syndrome. You can add the text {{subst:submit}} at the top of that draft to submit it for review. I'd recommend adding a WP:LEAD section with a summary of the article. Happy editing, Spicy (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Margery Knight
Hi! Thanks for reviewing the page about Margery Knight. I appreciate it. --MerielGJones (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:MED Newsletter - August 2020
- Issue 3—August 2020
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Despite continued tumult in the real world, the show–and the newsletter–must go on at WP:MED. As always your comments, concerns, and ideas are welcome at the newsletter talk page (and at WT:MED). Here is what's happening this month:
|
|
|
|
News from around the site
- If you've got the time, please review a GA nomination (criteria/instructions). Nominations currently sit two months before review. Let's aim for a month or less.
- Starting July 3rd, the WMF's "Wikipedia" social media accounts will highlight an "article of the week". If you've got the bandwidth, you can watchlist Social media/Article of the week (on meta) where they'll post the article around a day ahead of time for us to clean up. You can also suggest articles to highlight.
- A new sister project has been approved by the WMF Board: Abstract Wikipedia.
Discussions of interest
- Several medicine-related FAs promoted 5+ years ago could use a review and update. An effort to organize our efforts is at WT:MED.
- A large university class is working on medicine-related articles this month. They're largely focused on articles with maintenance tags. The students are working in small groups and posting their goals at each talk page. Consider watchlisting some of the assigned articles and helping the students (and us regulars) have a positive experience.
- Tom (LT) is spearheading an effort to clean up and organize medicine-related templates, resulting in many active TfD discussions. See a list of active TfDs at WP:MED/Article alerts.
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
Under the Wikimedia Research Spotlight
This month's Wikimedia Research Showcase was on the topic "Medical knowledge on Wikipedia". It featured two presentations from invited academics (link).
First, Denise Smith (Mcbrarian) at McMaster and Western Universities received a WMF grant to review the academic literature on "Wikipedia as a health resource". She found 89 papers on the topic, most of which aim to assess our health content's accuracy, comprehensiveness, or readability. Findings vary, but are complicated by poor comparators (e.g. Wikipedia vs. a surgery textbook), the fluidity of content (research becomes dated quickly), and attempts to generalize to "health content" with no discussion of how our content is a patchwork of articles in vastly different states. The remaining papers fall into one of three categories: the use of Wikipedia as (1) a general medical resource, (2) a tool for health education, or (3) a tool for research. Interesting papers in each group, but I'll leave further exploration to the reader. There's a general trend of more papers on this topic over time; Smith is hopeful the stigma towards Wikipedia in academia and healthcare could be eroding. With any luck, her review will help orient academics as they consider studying our content. For more, see her paper in PLoS ONE.
Second, Giovanni Colavizza at the University of Amsterdam sought to assess the reliability and comprehensiveness of our covid-19 coverage by studying our citations. He collected the ~3k citations in our covid articles and compared them to the ~160k total papers on covid/coronaviruses. He found we disproportionately cite articles in more reputable journals, as well as articles that are highly cited, mentioned on Twitter, downloaded on Mendeley, etc. We disfavor citing preprints. To investigate the comprehensiveness of our citations across topics, he used the titles and abstracts of all covid papers to cluster them into five broad topical groups. He finds our citations to each group largely match its proportion in the total literature, with some exceptions (we overcite molecular biology and epidemics papers relative to their proportion in the literature, and undercite clinical medicine and public health papers). One might assume this means our coverage of covid-19 is fairly balanced to the broad topics of the literature. For more, see Colavizza's slide deck and biorxiv preprint.
For the time/interest constrained, see summaries from the authors and from WhatamIdoing.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Revdel at Self-esteem
Are you sure you placed the right link in the rvdel request Self-esteem, and not a paste from the other one? I got an {{ec}} placing a revdel moments after you did. I ended up adding mine as well, so now there are two of them. I suspect you may have placed the wrong one, though. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot no, it's the correct link - if you go here you'll see that the text added in that edit is a blatant copyvio of that page. The links in the cv-revdel template are not working properly for some reason. I suspect the one you added is actually a reverse copyvio, as the relevant text wasn't added in that one edit, and it's just some random spammy website that is likely to copy from Wikipedia - although I haven't actually looked into it. Spicy (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, how could the website be a reverse copy, if the material was only added to Self-esteem in the last few minutes? Unless the website was also updated seconds ago? Confused. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- If there was some kind of reverse-copy, it must go back to 2016 at least. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The material flagged as matching the clinic site was in the article long before Old Goa edited it. I picked a random revision from 2011 and the content is in there as well. [1][2]. Since the earliest IA snapshot of the clinic site is from 2016, it's much more likely to be a reverse copyvio IMO. Spicy (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mathglot no, it's the correct link - if you go here you'll see that the text added in that edit is a blatant copyvio of that page. The links in the cv-revdel template are not working properly for some reason. I suspect the one you added is actually a reverse copyvio, as the relevant text wasn't added in that one edit, and it's just some random spammy website that is likely to copy from Wikipedia - although I haven't actually looked into it. Spicy (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Pharoah Sanders submission
Hello. Many thanks for your note re. Pharoah's First. I didn't even know the page existed, as there are no links to it from the main Pharoah page. In any case, I'll do what you suggested and merge my changes into it. Again, thank you!Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Nice work on the article. Spicy (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi I resubmitted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverDeBriz (talk • contribs) 06:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see someone else has declined it already. You will need to add reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the mall for the draft to be accepted. Spicy (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Gettin' ready for FAC
Spicy, I'm copying Ajpolino on this, as it should serve for his promising Buruli ulcer as well.
There are several things to know going in to WP:FAC. The first is that there is a serious shortage of reviewers, so that your article can sit there for as long as two months, where FACs used to pass in two weeks or less. And considering the reviewer shortage, it is important to sell yourself and your article in the FAC blurb, in ways that will entice reviewers to engage ... and for medical articles ... to encourage reviewers to not be intimidated. In the case of complete blood count, you can find a way to remind people that everyone has them, and lots of people turn to the internet to understand their lab results, so you've worked hard to make sure the article is accessible to the lay person. Put a lot of thought into writing a blurb that will convince reviewers they should want to engage ... have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dementia with Lewy bodies/archive1 for a sample (I tried to hook them with Robin Williams).
Next. Since you aren't a repeat FA nominator, you should hype right up front that the article has been well vetted before coming to FAC. Cas is FAR Coordinator, both Graham and I are former FAC coordinators, and Ceoil is a long-time and well-known FA writer, so you should mention in your blurb that all have helped out, and that Nikkimaria (also FAR coordinator) checked images, while RexxS checked accessibility. Be sure to ping these people from your blurb in case they want to do any re-checking.
The other thing to know is that all first-time nominators are subject to a more stringent sourcing check-- someone has to go through and make sure there is no copyvio, close paraphrasing, and that sources are accurately represented, so first-time noms can take longer as you sit and wait for someone to do that.
And finally, the most important is ... how to handle reviewers. There have been unfortunate past medical FACs, where the nominator became combative, and That Never Ends Well. Reviewers are volunteers, and treating them poorly is just never a good idea. It is OK to disagree with a reviewer, but think long and hard about whether a Hill Is Worth Dying On (I added content to DLB I didn't really want to add, but finally decided, what the heck, no big deal), and phrase any disagreement extremely carefully. What you seek to avoid is having a FAC become contentious and grow very long, so that other reviewers will be put off and won't engage. If anything starts to look tricky, move a response to the talk page of the FAC and continue there (see the image discussion in the DLB FAC), in the interest of keeping the length down. Often, reviewers raise concerns that they aren't that tied to in terms of whether you adjust something, so explain, and stay open to ideas for change without ever becoming combative. You will have plenty of experienced FA writers watching, so if someone asks for something unreasonable, others can speak up if needed.
ANd lastly, never use done, not done checkmarks etc at FAC. Keep your responses as brief as possible, and well threaded. I think that's everying ... I'll head over for another readthrough at CBC today ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I saw your comment at WT:MED. Still feeling a bit hesitant, but I figured I might as well rip the band-aid off and let whatever happens, happen. It's up now. So grateful to you and the others for all your help. Spicy (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you realize how AWESOME it is that your effort has brought back Colin and Jfdwolff-- two more of the WPMED masters at FA writing, who had been long gone ... the fruits of your effort have already gone well beyond the bronze star you will earn :) Having this kind of serious review from Graham, Jacob, Colin and Ceoil means you will have earned one serious star !!! Next up is Ajpolino! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spicy! I made edits to the PlexoBoy Pesh submission and resubmitted. Thanks so much for your notes, the submission now includes reliable sources which also show significant coverage. Your notes were very helpful and clear - it is ready to be reviewed when your time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyathomas.nyc (talk • contribs)
Submission: Matthew Campbell-Hill
Hello Spicy and thanks for the comments. Looking at it again with fresh eyes, I can see why it was removed. I've re-read the introduction tutorial and contributing to Wikipedia pages, will do a major revision and try again. Many thanks Goldfinchshuffle (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Help: Ravipalli Venkata Ramana Murthy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravipalli_Venkata_Ramana_Murthy
Hello Spicy, thank you for your indirect help (marked it for Speedy Deletion) to tone down the article. Based on the gathered data, the subject in the article is noteworthy, as the subject has been acknowledged/ recognized by various Indian and Global notable and neutral bodies. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because, the facts mentioned in the profile has documented evidence provided with online links. All the original documents and information are available in references. Few phrases/ words which might have lead to CSD G11 needs to be removed, and that shall be done right away. ) --Nishantbhushan3 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (words which were making proclamations have been deleted now. Content is based on facts, for which supporting evidence has been furnished through reference links. Also, if you could further help me with specifics on wordings which are present in the current version of the article which lead to CSD G11, it will be a great help. Those words will be removed immediately once you advise.) --Nishantbhushan3 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Further, help me to improve the article and request you to clear the article from the "Speedy Deletion" tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishantbhushan3 (talk • contribs)
- An administrator will review the article and decide whether or not the tag is valid. Spicy (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleting Mary Wiggins
Spicy, Thanks for your comments re keeping the Mary Wiggins article! I really appreciated your input. T. E. Meeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by T. E. Meeks (talk • contribs)
Willie "Corn Pop" Morris
Spicy - With regard to the proposed deletion of the article about William “Corn Pop” Morris - Mr. Morris and his life and background have now been discussed hundreds of times in national and international television, print and radio reports spanning more than a year. His relevance and notoriety is similar to another individual who is the subject of a Wikipedia article and only became known when his name was brought up in the 1988 Presidential campaign. That individuals name is Willie Horton. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
There are many similar examples I will share. It would be inconsistent to delete this article and not those articles. It would seem to be biased censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number9060862 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The article will be discussed by the community to reach a consensus on whether or not it is notable. In the meantime, see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x?. Spicy (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Haven Protocol
Hi Spicy, thanks for your feedback. How can we get the entry approved? There's no NYT or Guardian reporting about Haven yet. But it's listed on Bittrex (10th largest Cypto Exchange) and listed on Coinmarket, Coingecko and 2nd largest customer of Chainlink. Market cap is around 20 mio USD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowzr (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bowzr, if there is no coverage from the mainstream media it probably does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for corporate notability at this time. I notice you wrote "we" - are you working for the company? If so you must disclose this according to Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and paid editing. Spicy (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Spicy Ok, this project is open-source and community driven. hence the "we". This is the world's first private stable coin - is there another way to get approval other than mainstream media?
- Bowzr, no - Wikipedia's definition of notability relies on coverage from mainstream sources. If you want to promote this project it would be a better use of your time to work on improving the project's website and social media presence. It's not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at this point of time. Spicy (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
CBC FAC
Hi, Spicy! Catching up on the Complete blood count FAC; you are pretty well over the hump now, but will just have to wait for someone to agree to do a source review. As I told you earlier, those are more stringent for a first-time nominator-- we have to make sure you don't plagiarize :) :) I would offer to do it myself, but I am already "too involved". Now that Laser brain has returned from a break, maybe he or Ealdgyth will get to it themselves if no one else does, but source reviews are quite backlogged right now and it could be a while. I wanted to move forward for the next step, that you might not be aware of ... thinking of WP:TFA.
- The TFA Coordinators write the mainpage blurb, unless the nominator or someone gets to it first-- which is preferable. And, typically the proposed blurb is stored at the talk page of the FAC (so the TFA Coords know where to find it). See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Dementia with Lewy bodies/archive1. The "rules" for the blurb are found at Point III at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. (That's kind of messy.) If you propose your own blurb at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Complete blood count/archive1 (now that you're almost over the hump), people who have your FAC watchlisted may help you fine tune the proposed blurb.
- Then, you have the opportunity to think about scheduling for TFA. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, where I let the Coords know that I am hoping for July 21 for Dementia with Lewy bodies. If you have no preferred date, the TFA Coords will be thrilled, because they can schedule the article optimally and with no constraints—there is always a concern with mainpage diversity (most of the FAs available for TFA are hurricanes or milhist articles), and we have no medical articles that haven't already run on the mainpage, except DLB. Having free reign to schedule a medical article will make the TFA Coords happy :)
So, while you wait for a source review, you can think about preparing your blurb and putting it on the talk page, and whether there is any date connection that you want to request, or if you'd rather leave it to the Coords. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed faulty ping above for Laser brain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think I might wait on writing the blurb for now... feel like it's bad form to count one's chickens before they've hatched... but I'll keep it in mind. So grateful for all the work you've put into this.. I could not have done it with all your help, both in writing the article & in getting other FAC writers together to provide advice and reviews. Spicy (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine Newsletter – September 2020
- Issue 4—September 2020
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Greetings! A relatively quiet month yields a shorter newsletter. The featured section is taking the month off, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the newsletter talk page. Here is what's happening this month:
|
|
|
|
News from around the site
- A few restrictions on signatures are being gently phased in to make signatures consistently machine-identifiable. This will enable the development of new talk page tools (and fix some holes in our current tools). Affected editors (~ 900 at English Wikipedia) will be contacted. You can see if you're on the naughty list here.
Discussions of interest
- There are numerous ongoing discussions regarding notability/deletion. Open disucssions focus on draftification, restricting comments on AfDs, and the occasional conflict between SNGs and the GNG.
- An ongoing enormous discussion considers deprecating in-line parenthetical citations.
- At WikiProject COVID-19 editors are catching their breath and taking stock of our Covid-19 coverage thus far.
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
coi
Draft:Gladys Maestre. Just the way to do it!! There are unfortunately thousands like it. . DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- TPS: she’s Venezuelan ... pls ping me if the draft improves and I will review, per my Venezuela knowledge and experience, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- DGG
There are unfortunately thousands like it.
- no kidding... it's a shame, I hate seeing articles on notable topics get declined and eventually G13'd, but AfC reviewers don't have time to clean up all of these puffy promotional drafts and no one else is going to notice them while they're in draftspace. I've been thinking that something like the Article Rescue Squadron, but specifically focused on improving notable but poorly sourced/written drafts, might be a good idea and would help to ameliorate some of the complaints that draftification is just backdoor deletion. But I'm not sure if anyone would actually be interested in doing that, often tedious, work. That sort of thing only seems to be successful when there is some additional motivation for it (e.g. WiR). - Re. Sandy - I was thinking while reading the draft that it sounded like something you would be interested in :) I'll wait and see what happens... if the author does not fix the issues I may try to do some work on it myself. Spicy (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- If notability is marginal, I can search the most prominent Venezuelan sources. But not if it's just going to sit there and be ignored ... there is SO much work to be done and I'm behind on everything ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Based on the Google Scholar citations, her notability is clear. The question for me is whether we should encourage undeclared paid editors by doing their work for them. It's bad enough they collect the money for trying to do what they shouldn't be doing--but it feels much worse to me when they are collecting the money, for work that I am doing. But even so, I sometimes have rewritten the articles if the person is crucially important . I'm a little reluctant to do so here, because the paragraph on associated institution has an uncited and unverifiable claim for association with the National Academy of Sciences, meant to imply she's a member. She is not. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- If notability is marginal, I can search the most prominent Venezuelan sources. But not if it's just going to sit there and be ignored ... there is SO much work to be done and I'm behind on everything ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Smile
|
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
| That was funny indeed. You beat me to the revert too. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
That was weird!
I have no idea what you just did, but thank you for undoing it! Bilkis Bano is a borderline acceptance. I have no objection if you offer it for AfD and will not take part in the discussion excet, perhaos, to leave a comment. Fiddle Faddle 19:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Timtrent when an autopatrolled user moves a draft to mainspace it is automatically marked as patrolled. I marked the page as unpatrolled as I think it could use further cleanup from NPP (which you seem to agree with). Whenever you unpatrol a page the Page Curation script automatically leaves a message on the reviewer's page - in this case the system considers you the "reviewer" since it was autopatrolled under your name. The automated message is pointless and annoying in this circumstance but there is no way, as far as I know, to disable it. I won't be AfDing it since there is a claim of notability and I'm not knowledgeable enough about Indian media to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. But I think it's worthwhile to add it to the NPP queue to get more eyes on it. Spicy (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- What a circuitous set of circumstances. I agree with you completely. Sometimes AFC reviewers accept a borderline draft precisely because the community has more wisdom than we do as individuals. BLP1E is always a difficult area, but sometimes those extend sufficiently far. Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Complete blood count quarter million award
|
The Quarter Million Award |
| For your contributions to bring Complete blood count (estimated annual readership: 420,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
Based on 2019 readership, you just missed the half million award!. Congratulations on a truly fine article on a topic that matters to everyone! My apologies for falling down on the job! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gah, I could have sworn I fixed all the dashes, but I guess I was wrong. I am so grateful to you, Graham Beards, Colin, Jfdwolff, Ceoil, Jo-Jo Eumerus and all the others who have offered their guidance in helping bring this article to FA status - especially for fixing up my sloppy prose and correcting my North American tunnel vision. I've learned so much from this process and now I'll have to go over all my older articles and bring them up to standard... thank you, once again. Spicy (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The curse of the FA writer ... how to pass by all those C-class articles when you just can’t fix it all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Amazing news. Well done!! JFW | T@lk 10:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Dali ... beautiful ... I would give you another barnstar, but it is getting redundant from me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Belated, delighted to see this, its a great achievement. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Featured Article Medal | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC) |
Thanks, I've fixed this now :-) Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Accepted. Thanks for your work. Spicy (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:MED Newsletter - October 2020
- Issue 5—October 2020
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Greetings! This month celebrates our second (I think) new medicine FA in 2020, a handful of newly reviewed GAs, and of course another month without major on-wiki disaster. The newsletter's featured section is off again, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the newsletter talk page. Here is what's new this month:
|
|
|
|
News from around the site
- An ongoing drive at WP:Good article nominations seeks interested editors to help review the ~600 current GA nominations. The oldest unreviewed medicine-related GAN was nominated 1.5 months ago.
- An open contributor copyright investigation involves edits to many medicine pages that need to be checked for copyright infringement. Interested editors might skim User:Moneytrees/Money's guide to CCI, and jump right in.
- An update to the appearance of various WMF sites (including this one) will be developed and rolled out slowly over the next year. For details see the WMF blog post and the page on MediaWiki where individual features are being mocked up and discussed.
Discussions of interest
- A discussion over wording at WP:PAID that centers on the extent to which folks that volunteer for an organization have an editing conflict of interest.
- Editors could use more eyes to help sort through a number of data-rich templates at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#DONTHIDE_-_estrogen_template_problems.
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Grateful for your email
Message understood Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
RfA
Hey Spicy. Wanted to check-in to see if you've given any more thought about doing an RfA. It seems like the tools might be helpful for you. Ping SandyGeorgia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 thanks, but I'm not interested at this time. Maybe in a year or five. Spicy (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
October harvest
 |
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is 
Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. 
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with 
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were 
Hog Farm (submissions), 
HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and 
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh no
Get well, keep us posted, and I hope it's nothing serious!! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's just a nasty cold... COVID test came back negative, thankfully. :) Feeling better today than I have in the past few days. Spicy (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whew, glad to hear it ... get well soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I came to post the same! I always think "man if I could just stay home sick from work for a couple of days, I could finally chip away at my wiki-todo list..." But then when my wish comes true and I am sick, I'm too tired and foggy to do anything useful. The grass is always greener I suppose... Anyway, glad to hear you're feeling better today. Hopefully a speedy recovery (and no more getting sick! It's a stressful enough time already!). Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:MED Newsletter - November 2020
- Issue 6—November 2020
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
|
|
News from around the site
- The WP:MED Collaboration of the Month returns for a trial run. We'll concentrate our efforts for November on Tonsillitis. Please help improve that article, and head to the planning page to nominate articles for future collaboration.
- An open contributor copyright investigation involves edits to ~50 medicine pages that need to be checked for copyright infringement. I've left some short instructions here for the uninitiated. Every little bit helps.
Discussions of interest
- Ongoing discussions consider redesigning the GA/FA icons and moving them to a more prominent place in articles.
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently I didn't have Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Walidou47 watchlisted. I have a free hour, so I just picked up my pooperscooper and went to go grind out a couple more copyvio checks and — what a pleasant surprise! — you'd already addressed a bunch of them! Thanks a million! CCI is apocalyptically backlogged, but it's nice to think that we could at least clear out the medicine-related articles. Plus, my secret plan is to use newsletter notices to entice medicine editors to try out different areas of the encyclopedia. So far it has only worked on you, but perhaps there will be others... Anyway, I hope you're feeling better. Just wanted to drop by and say thanks. All the best! Ajpolino (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Movie World FAC
Hey Spicy, just wondering if you have a time-frame for when you can revisit the Movie World FAC. No rush at all. Your insightful commentary insofar is very much appreciated. Courtesy ping SandyGeorgia as well. — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I am easily distracted. I replied to your comments at the FAC. Spicy (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Awaiting response when you have a free moment—no hurry!
Appreciate it again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- CR4ZE I'm satisfied with the changes you've made but I'd like to see some input from people who are more well-versed in the topic area before I decide whether to support. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's fair. I've already tried asking at WT:APARKS but it's a small cohort of editors and the project doesn't quite have the collaborative atmosphere of others. Will ping some of the project regulars though. Anyway, thanks for your input thus far and get well soon! — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- CR4ZE I'm satisfied with the changes you've made but I'd like to see some input from people who are more well-versed in the topic area before I decide whether to support. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Awaiting response when you have a free moment—no hurry!
Kyle Hill
Hey Spicy.
Thank you for your review of my article about Kyle Hill. I have a couple of questions:
- first of all, you say "Most sources are his self-written bios on various sites, his own articles, youtube and facebook etc." but that's actually the point. If you read what I wrote, you know that I wasn't referencing what he said but the very fact that he wrote those things at all. Are they valid sources then?
- Secondly, you talked about "silly stuff" and reading today what I wrote back in June I actually agree with you and I removed what you pointed out and a couple more subjective qualifiers. Could you give it a quick look again so I know I've fixed that issue?
- This is my first Wikipedia article and I know it is relevant, I just lack encyclopedic writing experience. Could you point out specific things I should change, please? I know this is beyond what reviewers do but I would really appreciate it.
Regards
- AengusB thanks for your reply. Works published by the subject of the article are considered primary sources. Primary sources can be used to confirm basic facts such as that he wrote an article for such and such newspaper; however, they aren't considered to contribute to notability, because Wikipedia's definition of notability requires showing that the subject has been covered in depth by independent, third-party sources. Tying into your second point, overuse of primary sources can lead to issues with undue weight. Wikipedia articles are meant to represent the viewpoints found in reliable independent sources, not just what the subject says about themselves. There's still a lot of detail about individual youtube videos, memes, in jokes, his hobbies and opinions etc. sourced only to his own videos and social media... if third-party sources have not commented on this, this sort of content should be removed. Writing about Youtubers is particularly difficult because even very popular ones rarely get much coverage from the media. Spicy (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 12, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 12, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Woo hoo ... I hope you're feeling better, Spicy. On the blurb
- We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed (including spaces) is between 925 and 1025 characters, or more when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
CCI update
 | Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Walidou47 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI! |
In appreciation
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 23 November 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 |
Thank you!
I wanted to stop and thank you for the suggestions for that article on Tim Grayson (poet). I was struggling to see what the others wanted but you taking the time to lay out exactly what is needed was a breath of fresh air. The issue I'm having is that there are many deleted references - some of which are still available via wayback machine, but this is hard to navigate without accurate links - and offline archived publications (I'm not too sure how best to reference these). I'll try to find more references in the areas you mentioned for the moment though, and then ask some other editors to assist with the correct formatting - thank you again for the guidance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackjackm1990 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - December 2020
- Issue 7—December 2020
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Hello. I hope this newsletter finds you well. For those struggling to focus on writing articles during these tumultuous times, you are not alone. For those stuck at home with more time and energy to dedicate to the encyclopedia, all the more power to you. There is – as always – lots to do. Here is what's happening around the project:
|
|
|
|
News from around the site
- As you can see, the medicine GA queue is full-to-bursting, with the oldest medicine nomination waiting over three months for review. Please help review when you have time, so your colleagues can move on to their next projects.
- The WP:MED Collaboration of the Month was Tonsillitis, attracting edits from 11 medicine editors! December's collaboration will be Dexamethasone. Head to Talk:Dexamethasone to coordinate our efforts.
- Thanks to the medicine editors who helped out, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Walidou47 is now closed. If you see other medicine-related backlogs that you'd like announced in the newsletter, please post them here.
Discussions of interest
- There is a large, ongoing discussion regarding the status of subject-specific notability criteria.
- The Community Wishlist Survey is live until December 7th.
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
Backlog of the month
This month I'm trying out a new element of the newsletter – a backlog of the month. The WikiProject Medicine template is on the talk page of 44,944 articles, of which 18,111 have some kind of maintenance tag on them, indicating problems large or small. Each month, I'll highlight some small task to get you out of your normal editing focus and chip away at the project's massive maintenance backlogs. I'll aim for tasks that can be worked on in small chunks, perhaps on days when you can't focus on big problems, or have 15 minutes to burn at your computer.
The first backlog of the month will be the 410 medicine articles that cite no sources. These tend to be lower-traffic topics. Some just need verification that the topic actually exists, along with a quick reference. Others are best redirected to more substantial pages, or even brought to AfD. Feel free to scroll through the list for topics that interest you, or just start at the top. This feature will last as long as folks are interested enough to engage with it. If you see backlogs that would be a good fit, post them here. Thanks all, and happy referencing!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Cheers
... that's very useful! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Spicy,
- 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
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Blood culture
The article Blood culture you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Blood culture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Graham Beards -- Graham Beards (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Congrats!
Complete blood count is today's featured article. Awesome! Isn't it great to see your own insides on the front page? It's weird, but fun to brag about.
"ayo guys my blood is on Wikipedia"
"bro thats sick in more ways than one"
Le Panini [🥪] 01:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- cracking up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and all involved, for the article, about "one of the most commonly performed medical laboratory tests. Most people have had a CBC done at some point during their lives, but they probably have not learned about the vast amount of information that can be gleaned from examination of the blood, the technology that makes it possible, or the test's long and interesting history"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Precious
bloody medical new articles
Thank you for quality articles about medicine, such as Complete blood count, White blood cell differential, Blood typing and Ludvig Hektoen, for working in collaboration, new page patrol, the more decent image but peppers spicing your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2496 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Well done on main page!! Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your kind words :) Spicy (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Blood culture
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've reviewed the article and have passed the GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it at WP:FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Graham Beards many thanks for the review. (I'm shocked to learn that drawing two sets isn't the standard practice in Britain!) I'm probably not going to take this one to FAC because it could get out of date a lot more quickly than CBC and I don't work in microbiology so I'm not as intimately familiar with the process. But any additional feedback or criticism would be appreciated. Spicy (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Movie World FAC (again)
Hey again Spicy. Just wanted to let you know that the FAC for Warner Bros. Movie World has had a lot more input since you last commented, including some commentary from WP:APARKS, and it now has 3 supports. Gog the Mild and I are wondering if you might have time to revisit. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- CR4ZE sorry for abandoning you again - I've been busy both on and off-wiki recently. I will be honest and say that I didn't go into this intending to do a full review - I only meant to give a couple of comments in passing. Of course it turned into more than that... I'd like to go over the article again & check some of the sources myself before I decide one way or the other, but unfortunately I'm not sure I'll have time to do that (especially since many of the sources are in Australian newspaper archives that I don't have access to). Sorry for letting you down here. Spicy (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- No worries at all and thanks for the time and effort you put into reviewing. If it helps, I can make checking the Aussie paper sources easy for you—I'll email you about this but no pressure for anything further. Congrats on your recent TFA and I look forward to seeing you around!
— CR4ZE (T • C) 11:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- No worries at all and thanks for the time and effort you put into reviewing. If it helps, I can make checking the Aussie paper sources easy for you—I'll email you about this but no pressure for anything further. Congrats on your recent TFA and I look forward to seeing you around!
AfC procedures
Hello, Spicy,
When I declined that speedy, the draft had not been approved. I thought that an AfC reviewer would accept the draft and then the page could be deleted and the draft moved into main space. It seems odd that the process of approving a draft causes it to be moved but I believe you, I just didn't know that this was how the process worked at AfC. I hope you found another admin who was more wise to the ways of AfC that was able to help you out. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Liz thanks for the reply. No, oddly enough there is no way to approve a draft without moving it! Normally if there's a redirect in the way I leave a comment to the effect of "I'm going to accept this, but the redirect needs to be deleted first" on the draft, but I dropped the ball this time, so it's partially my fault. But it's a good thing in a way, because after taking a closer look at the draft creator I have a couple of concerns that I want to get cleared up before I accept it. Thanks and happy holidays, Spicy (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings of the season
| Happy holidays | ||
| Dear Spicy, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
|
Hello Spicy, 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 2021. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |