User talk:Swpb/Archive/2017

Tag removal revert

You reverted the copyedit tag removal. The problem is that merging and copyediting are different things. It makes no sense to try to attract the attention of copyeditors before the merge question is resolved. It just wastes their time. The time to add a copyedit request is after the merge proposal is settled. You appear to be a dedicated editor (thanks for that!) Can you help me understand your thinking? Lfstevens (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Lfstevens:. I erred; I scanned too quickly and thought you'd removed the merge tag, not the copyedit tag. I actually don't care whether the copyedit tag is there pre-merge or not, so you can re-remove it if you like. Apologies. —swpb^T 14:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: mathematical universe hypothesis

I added a section to mathematical universe hypothesis and it looks like you marked it as confusing and needing clarification. From examining personality psychology, it seems 90% to 99.9% or more of modern-day people won't understand mathematicism/Pythagoreanism, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's confusing--it means they'd have to seriously study mathematics and its standard classic philosophy... anyway I'd like to improve the section. Would stating Euler's formula help (to show it's two-dimensional, though it's not clear which of several higher-dimensional versions would be used) or can you state what further improvements seem needed?--dchmelik (t|c) 02:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Dchmelik: I don't think it's the subject matter that's inherently confusing, but the writing style. You have a lot of long, complex sentences, with little in the way of context: what, briefly, are these philosophies, and what is the significance of their association with the article subject? What does Euler's formula have to do with all this, in whatever number of dimensions? Has anyone besides the one author/group you cite commented on this connection? Is it considered a significant development in the discourse around the MUH (which the size of the section suggests), or just one viewpoint, that may not be that significant to the overall topic? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they would ideally be inferable from the text. Someone in WikiProject Philosophy might be better equipped to address them. —swpb^T 14:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iridescent Compenetration.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iridescent Compenetration.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iridescent Interpenetration (1913).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iridescent Interpenetration (1913).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 4.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 5 - Eucalyptus.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 5 - Eucalyptus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 7.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 13.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iridescent Interpenetration No. 13.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Study for Iridescent interpenetration (from the Düsseldorf notebooks).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Study for Iridescent interpenetration (from the Düsseldorf notebooks).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Study for Iridescent Interpenetration No. 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Study for Iridescent Interpenetration No. 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Study for Iridescent Interpenetration No. 13.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Study for Iridescent Interpenetration No. 13.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Achen

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Quinton Feldberg: Read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and/or WP:DDD. This is a disambiguation page, not an article, and as such, it should not have more than one link per entry. This is the most frequently and firmly reaffirmed consensus in WP:DAB. You reverted in good faith, but you were incorrect. I am restoring my edit. If you have a problem with it, you need to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, where this consensus was established. (And maybe next time, you'll consider that a ten-year veteran editor might have some idea what they're about, before you leave a condescending talk message worded for a new user.) —swpb^T 13:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Carl Marci for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carl Marci is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Swpb/Archive,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level 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!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

apostrophe

Your WP:DDD is adding in an extra " ' " when making bold. I have fixed the ones on my watchlist.

Thanks for the heads up! This was a malformed regex in my AWB settings; I've fixed it. —swpb^T 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your assessment of sources at the Dave Chapman AfD. That was a sharp analysis presented in a witty and elegant way. — Yash talk stalk 09:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!! —swpb^T 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning

Thank you — Gorthian (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! —swpb^T 13:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Swpb/Archive,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Default sort

Hi, I've noticed that you are changing the default sort in some articles, such as this one. The surname is not just Castro, in this case, it is Fernandez de Castro. I created a Category:House of Castro and now most are under the letter C and this makes it difficult to find them. There are more that will be added to that category in the future. Are all going to be under "C"? Regards, --Maragm (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I've figured out how these are supposed to go - first surname takes precedence. I'm correcting the rest, including the ones I did wrong. —swpb^T 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Maragm (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for such a thorough and comprehensive GA review of White House to Treasury Building tunnel. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! —swpb^T 14:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raja Muhammad Anwar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PPP and Ayub Khan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

mistakes made by user ZzeonBlue

Hello, have seen the notice and warning - I also responded to it on my talk page where you placed the warning, I have been doing a lot of reading and becoming more familiar with proper process for communication - please delete this at your will & thank you! ZzeonBlue (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)ZzeonBlue

Old edits

Hi Swpb, quick question...I'm noticing some dab pages have sections names "In..", years ago you added this one [1] and if my memory serves me, on other dabs, which until now I normally just fix. I just wanted to check if you're still creating them, and if you'd like to fix ones that you've added? (big ask I know). Regards Widefox; talk 12:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Too big an ask, since there has never been a consensus against "In" in any guideline. You're not "fixing" anything, just changing things to your personal preference. I won't stop you from doing that, but I see no reason to help you. —swpb^T 12:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that MOSDAB is only a style guide, but MOS:DABGROUPING has only the style without "In". Examples MOS:DABORDER. The wording did have "In.." for the (not now reccomended) short lists without sections - now removed [2]. (Changing section names does have a maintenance aspect only if there's a WP:INCOMPDAB, but that's a side issue.) After a quick look, I see MOSDAB is linking to Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area which is good work, but the talk page has the same issue raised on it, so this is far from anything to do with me or a personal preference, as that seems like consensus, I'll put a link there to this. Widefox; talk 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So I see we're agreed that it's not in any guideline. —swpb^T 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a guideline that says to keep section names as small as possible. Do we agree the consensus is to remove it from the useful guide you wrote (per talk page)? Hardly fair to write that it's personal when that seems the consensus, but the supplement still has it. Widefox; talk 14:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No, there is not. It is only there under "People", which only you objected to. I see good reason to keep it there, in that and several other cases, and I do not see a consensus otherwise. If you want too see "In"s banned across the board, you need agreement to put that in the guidelines. You haven't done the work. Do that work before you ask for my help again. —swpb^T 14:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the ask to make it clear that as soon as you objected it wasn't pursued further. Now I've reread the talk, there's only three editors, I'd read the other two names but they hadn't commented, so I'll leave your page as more opinions are welcome. Widefox; talk 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have and still do consider you a thoughtful editor, and I'm happy to help on the areas where we don't disagree, which is most of them. —swpb^T 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, me too, and I do think the further guidance you've created is useful. Widefox; talk 13:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Samurai Gourmet listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Samurai Gourmet. Since you had some involvement with the Samurai Gourmet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Farix (t | c) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for your GA review of Warrick house (Meadow Grove, Nebraska). I've done a few GARs myself, and I know that they can involve a fairly serious commitment of time and energy. I appreciate your willingness to put in the effort; Wikipedia's a better place for editors like you. Ammodramus (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Message

Thanks for given warning.now i will not mistake in CSD and i will be more careful — Adnan Enaya Afzal  ^talk 00:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kahloon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R to anthroponymy page

Template:R to anthroponymy page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cat:Basketball trophies and awards in US

Thank you for deleting this. I depopulated it when I soon discovered there was aleady a Category:American basketball trophies and awards. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prem Nath Dar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delhi College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Thank you for helping with the bat article categories. I was having a hard time figuring out the template and it all works so much better now! I appreciate the help.
Enwebb (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem! —swpb^T 19:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Swpb/Archive,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 816 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

NPVIC

Swpb, thank you for your contributions to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact page. I'm involved with a group NPVgrassroots.org, which is working to encourage the passage of the Pact, and we have found your page very useful. I'm interested in tracking key opponents of the bill in states where it's in play, and I wonder if adding some of this info to your current-year table might be helpful. What do you think? Atmur01 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atmur01, thanks!

That's a tricky question – as a supporter of the compact, I love the idea of having a public place to track opposition. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I feel a responsibility to make sure the article stays in line with our content standards. This includes maintaining an appropriate balance with respect to different aspects of the topic. We've tried to strike a balance between the mechanics of the compact, the points of debate surrounding it, and its history. Wikipedia articles are aimed at a general audience; the details of legislative maneuverings in each state may be of interest to an activist, but other readers may see it as clutter, or as giving undue support to the pro-NPVIC position. There's a term Wikipedians use, "fancruft", that's usually applied to pop-culture trivia, but probably applies here too. The other issue I see is maintainability; this is the sort of information that becomes dated quickly, and it's already a chore to stay on top of the status information that the article gives now.

However, I do like the idea of this info being available to people who are interested. I think the right answer may be to host it on an external site (maybe something editable, like a Wikia page or a Google Sheet, or on your organization's website), and link to it in the Wikipedia article's "See also" section. I'd certainly make use of such a page.

That said, I'm not the last word on this or any article – if you think there's a way to present the info without creating a balance problem, you should propose it on the article's talk page, ideally with a mock-up of how you think the table should look.

Thanks for asking the question, thanks for your work supporting the compact, and welcome to Wikipedia! —swpb^T 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:School of Languages#Is this page helpful?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:School of Languages#Is this page helpful?. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC) (posted here because of your interest in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Humanities). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)]]

Category:Budworth family has been nominated for discussion

Category:Budworth family, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Electronic music groups

Would you mind clarifying where you got the notion that it was appropriate to comprehensively categoryredirect the entire Category:Electronic music groups by nationality tree to Category:Electronic musicians? There's a clear distinction between "musician" (an individual person) and "musical group" (entities composed of multiple people), which is consistently observed for every other musical genre in existence, and I can find no indication anywhere of any consensus to merge the two trees in the isolated case of electronic music. So what's the deal? Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

All these categories were completely empty. Empty categories are speediable; redirecting made more sense to me. If you want a separate tree to exist, populate it instead of copping a ridiculous attitude at me for doing what should have been done. —swpb^T 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Y Combinator (company) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Y Combinator (company), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

SWEET! Edit notice for infopages

Hi, That is an awesome editnotice. These are tools I'm just learning about, and it looks great. Question.... please compare

• Help:IPA is tagged with Template:Infopage. The editnotice is displayed when trying to edit the talk page. So far so good. Here's where I get confused....

• Help:Editing is tagged with Template:Wikipedia how-to but when trying to edit the talk page the editnotice is also displayed, even though the editnotice says it is for infopages and this talk page is for a so called "wikipedia how-to" page.

What determines whether the edit notice is triggered?

I'm going to ping @Moxy: too, who I know is interested in these issues as well. If either of you want to move this thread somewhere else, fine by me, just let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We could setup a different notice....like this because how-to pages are a Sud cat of info pages.

....--Moxy (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to study this later. Meanwhile, it makes little sense to work on a custom edit notice for "wikipedia how-to" pages since that template has been proposed for name change to "wikipedia help page". But it may make sense later, after the rename is resolved. For now, I just wanted to comprehend what makes the editnotice trigger . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

....just FYI Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Access to nonpublic information.--Moxy (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Swpb/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Category:Taxa named by Charles Louis L'Héritier de Brutelle

Sorry I accidentally rolled back your edits but I reverted them afterwards. I misclicked a button. Just wanted to clear the air so it didn't seem like I was trying to mess with you. Thank you for categorizing! snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I figured as much. Cheers! —swpb^T 13:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Storm templates has been nominated for discussion

Category:Storm templates, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems

As part of the FAC mentoring process I've left some detailed comments in the above article's peer review page. These comments are directed towards the article's prose; I'll raise other issues later. Overall the article is in pretty good shape, and I'm sure it will be able to step up to featured standard. Brianboulton (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Parent category issue

Could you take a look at this edit? A user keeps adding a parent category, but I'm having difficulty putting together an explanation for the user. (Writer's block.) Can you help? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Northern Mexico

Is there any reason why that article wasn't deleted?Shrian (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Became there was no consensus to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Mexico. - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Languages by decade of introduction

Thanks for making these, but, apparently, the correct term is "attested from the (decade)" which makes the intro by decade cats redundant.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to help out the intro sorting Category:Train-related introductions by year and Category:Food and drink by year of introduction if you want to sort by decade.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Swpb/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Swpb/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NPVIC chart

Template:NPVIC chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 21:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotions

Congratulations on the article'spromotion to FA. It's been a long wait, but worth it. The first of many more. I trust. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't know if I have anything else that's close to FA condition, but I'm certainly encouraged to do this again when I do! —swpb^{T go beyond} 22:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Rotating locomotion in living systems. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Roman limes cats

Just FYI Category:Roman limes by province and related cats were emptied out of process despite an extensive discussion a few months ago that led to the current structure. I notified some of the relevant people/projects but I'm not sure any effort has been made to reinstate them.Le Deluge (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Swpb/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Rotating locomotion in living systems article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 22, 2017. 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/November 22, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

To editor Ealdgyth: One question about this: why wasn't it scheduled for the first open date? Sea mink, which was nominated later, is scheduled for 11/6.

Thanks, —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is there - I just added it in a second edit. As for the date, we try to avoid running too many of the same thing close together - I was trying to spread out categories. We schedule an entire month at a time, so that I can look at the "big picture" rather than just schedule a day or two in advance. Some of the articles I scheduled have been waiting over 10 years to go on the main page ... trying to keep some balance does take some juggling. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

But I don't see anything else biology-related close to either date? Sorry to bug, just wondering how that happened. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. I don't want anything biology related close to the date it runs. So I wouldn't want to have run it and sea mink near each other. It just so happened that I pulled sea mink first ... are you upset that it's not running before sea mink for some reason? I could switch the two, but since you didn't nominate it for a specific date, I didn't think there was much worry about when exactly it ran... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was imagining you might switch the two. I didn't nominate for a specific date because there's no significant date relevant to the article, but I am anxious to see my first FA on the main page sooner rather than later. I just assumed the non- specific date nominations were scheduled on a "first come, first served" basis. If it's too much trouble, the 22nd will be fine. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you poor newbie to the main page... (grins). Let me finish the month out and I'll switch them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, world's tiniest violin :) I can't help getting excited. Thanks a ton for bothering with what I realize is, for everyone but me, a very minor detail. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It's all good on this end in case you're wondering   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being cool with it, sorry! —swpb^{T go beyond} 18:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious

structurism

Thank you for quality articles such as Rotating locomotion in living systems and Abstract Speed + Sound, for expanding Black Holes and Time Warps, for a diligent list of contributions, - user living in a mathematical universe: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!! —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Bio-star
		For your most excellent Rotating locomotion in living systems --Epipelagic (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! —swpb^{T go beyond} 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most ideas are bad

	Hello Swpb, D1gggg has given you this WikiLove template! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else this WikiLove template! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of this WikiLove template by adding {{subst:Blank WikiLove}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

D1gggg (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Swpb. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

John Tye (whistleblower) GA nomination

Swpb, I was puzzled by your actions today with regard to this article: first, when you manually removed your GA nomination from the WP:GAN page—this page is created by a bot, and should not be edited by nominators, since the "GA nominee" template on the article's talk page determines what's listed on the GAN page—and then when you changed the October nomination date in the GA nominee template to today's date.

There is no need to renominate an article after you've done further work on it; I don't see any reason why this nomination shouldn't retain its original October date. I would be happy to restore the original date; since there is an extremely long backlog at GAN, having a December date instead of October makes the likely wait for a review a significantly longer one. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware of all of that. The point was to test Legobot. Legobot is supposed to include a count of the number of reviews a nominator has completed, but it doesn't always do so. I did some digging yesterday, and found that this is due to a failure in the bot's code to recognize certain signatures. So I modified my signature, re-nominated the article, and watched for Legobot's handling of it. I could have just added my reviews count manually, which I've done before, but I wanted to check the bot's behavior. I'm not particularly concerned with a couple extra months on the waitlist, especially since I know GA reviews don't always happen in date order, but if you want to change the date back, I'd be happy with that. —swpb^{T go beyond} 12:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Swpb, testing Legobot won't help very much beyond possibly satisfying your curiosity, unfortunately, since the bot's owner hasn't done code maintenance in years, and was at one point trying to find a new owner for the GAN-related functionality but both sides couldn't get it together to do anything along those lines. Right now, not only does Legobot sometimes fail to count the reviews, sometimes it adds far too many to the count when an issue prevents a review from getting added to the GAN page due to any of a number of formatting problems in the GA nominee template. The number of reviews there cannot be relied on to be accurate. I've restored the original date and time to the GA nominee template. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I knew the code wasn't being maintained, but I didn't know about the other parsing issues. That's disheartening. Thanks. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. The parsing has to do with invalid values in the GA nominee template, such as an incorrect status or subtopic, so it's nothing that hasn't been the case even before the current bot owner. (The subtopic is particularly sensitive to issues, from case to spelling to punctuation.) The review count is comparatively recent functionality for the bot, but the code was never smart enough not to add to the count if the review ultimately couldn't be included on the GAN page due to other issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Indian National Congress politicians by region has been nominated for discussion

Category:Indian National Congress politicians by region, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Swpb/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Azercosmos

Hello Swpb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Azercosmos for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Famous_dog (c) 13:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor Famousdog: The user you want is User:Aysel.soltanova. I created the page as an appropriate redirect; I was not the one who put content there. I've restored the redirect. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hey! thanks for the notification on my talk page. By the looks of it, @AnAwesomeArticleEditor: reverted most of my edits from last night. Plus, I just noticed the section on Wikiproject Userboxes with added emphasis on "If <br> is required to organize the description of the Userbox make sure it is in the <noinclude></noinclude> tags as this causes major problems (e.g. userbox stacking). More work for us." 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 19:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ben Wizner

Thanks for creating Ben Wizner. It's long overdue. KalHolmann (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up: I intend to remove the three "significant person" claims you added to Ben Wizner's Wikidata:

• Stephen Reinhardt
• Khalid El-Masri
• Edward Snowden

The reason is that the {infobox person/Wikidata} template at Ben Wizner displays significant persons as Employer, thus re-creating the confusion I tried to remedy yesterday by removing your employer claims for each of those individuals. Please discuss this at Wikidata Discussion and/or Talk:Ben Wizner. KalHolmann (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor KalHolmann: Before you do, empty your cache and reload your page. The "significant persons" should not appear as employers; they do not for me. At any rate, we should not be removing accurate statements from Wikidata because of how they display on Wikipedia; if they were displaying as employers, it would be the template that needed fixing, not the statements. —swpb^{T go beyond} 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I'll follow up along those lines. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Swpb/Archive, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Help

Ningxiang was reformed as a county-level city on April 10, 2017. As a county-level division, The name of Ningxiang is unambiguous, the names of titles should be simple. Help me move the title Ningxiang City to Ningxiang, thanks. cncs (talk) 07:59 12 april, 2017