User talk:Triptothecottage/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Triptothecottage. 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 6 | Archive 7 |
AN comment
[1] The Transhuminist created or greatly influenced the portal guidelines. They are the undisputed project leader. They knew full well that a large portion of the community wanted to kill the whole Portal namespace yet he took the influx of uninformed editors that he created by nass tagging portals as permission to radically increase the number of portals why decreasing the quantity. Second, this discussion is hosted at AN (which is highly watched) but also showing in full at WP:CSD talk where we would normally create CSD criteria. It is also advertised at Village pump and linked from other locations so your comments should be reexamined. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: As far as the location of the discussion is concerned, it’s fairly difficult to ignore the not one, not two but three threatening edit notices warning non-administrators that their contribution to AN is probably not welcome. That the rules technically allow non-admins to comment on this discussion is not really relevant: this is an issue of perception and making policy in a venue which generally discourages wide participation is poor form.
Moreover, hosting this content issue in the same forum as the discussion about the conduct issue relating to TTH is inappropriate. You and a variety of other editors seem to be conflating the two, arguing that TTH’s behaviour in creating the portals was unacceptable (which I agree with) and therefore all the portals thus created should be nuked from orbit. Plainly, this is faulty logic. As other have observed, the presence of potentially useful – if esoteric – portals among the creations calls into question whether a "delete on sight" policy is actually appropriate.
Perhaps most importantly, none of this actually addresses the main thrust of my !vote, which is that these portals are doing no great harm to the encyclopaedia and thus there is no reason to be hasty in "dealing" with them. No one is under any obligation to maintain them and so the argument that they "take editor time away from content" is faulty. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Extend that logic to articles and we can toss out WP:N and WP:V. We need appropriate guidelines and rules around what we have as portals. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Slavery
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slavery. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
2b2t(TwoBuildersTwoTools)
Thank you for the message! I am new to wikipedia and appreciate you taking the time to help me out. This is my first try at creating something. Before I created the draft/article, I noticed that several people had tried before but had been deleted for bad content, not citing sources, etc. I tried to make my draft as formal as possible so it would meet wikipedia's standards. What advice do you have for me about improving my draft to make it avalible for mainspace? Is my subject notable enough to be on wikipedia in the first place? Again, thanks for helping me out. Jreesebot (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Might be worth posting on the talk page of the user who added the copyrighted text to Beaver Field, not just me (all I did was create the page as a redirect 15 years ago). --Spangineerws (háblame) 14:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Spangineer: Bummer, sorry, forgot I was on the "old" end of the New Pages queue. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
SPI
Adding another sock to the report after a block has been recommended, making it look like I've also recommended a block of your new sock... tut, tut! I trust you'll give yourself an appropriate amount of time on the naughty step. Cabayi (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Cabayi: Ah, sorry... was just trying to be helpful. Best way to add another suspected sock in the limbo between clerking and administrative action, for future reference? Triptothecottage (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I know I asked the same question years ago and I can't find the answer I received. I think a useful rule of thumb is, once it's been taken further than you could take it under your own steam, start a new case. In this case, once the article's been deleted, and hopefully salted, the IP will be ineffectual and nothing need be done. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd love to hear more about it
in particular if any newspapers have mentioned Wikipedia around it. The tweets have been deleted. Anything at all private please just email me. thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Metro Trains Melbourne
Hi, I've noticed you've undid my additions. I am willing to talk more about it. I'd like to add at least the stuff I've put in See also. Fauzi (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
G5
If a user hasn't been blocked, or you can't provide evidence of ban violation that doesn't involve a block (e.g. a topic ban), don't tag for G5, period. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:G5 says that
the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked
. User:Selim Shaikh was indeffed in mid-February. This page was created in mid-March, by a user since confirmed to be a sock of SS. Isn't that textbook block evasion? What am I missing here? Triptothecottage (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
- News and notes: An Action Packed April
- In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?
- Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
- Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art
- Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde
- Technology report: A new special page, and other news
- Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns
- News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?
- Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
- From the archives: Portals revisited
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Triptothecottage,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bayer designation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bayer designation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
- Essay: Paid editing
- From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fire Rescue Victoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Fire Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello Triptothecottage,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
Midlife Cowboy
I understand your point of view, but Tony Hawks is pretty well known in the UK and I don't think the production will have any problem achieving notability in the long term. The draft is a message to the article creator to do the work required - to make him/her understand what we're about.Deb (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- PS: The books Round Ireland with a Fridge and Playing the Moldovans at Tennis are also likely to achieve the notability standard quite easily. I'll do some work on that myself.Deb (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- PPS: I've had another go with ROWAF, if you'd like to check it out. Deb (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb: Nicely done with ROWAF. That was why I redirected instead of a deletion nom; the book definitely looked worth an article but what we had was about the movie. I'll keep an eye on the Midlife Cowboy draft and see if the creator's interested in bringing it up to scratch :) Triptothecottage (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- PPS: I've had another go with ROWAF, if you'd like to check it out. Deb (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Deletion if Eva Lewarne bio
Hi. I've just seen the discussion and the outcome. I'm very sorry because I spent a lot of time for editing and, to be honest, I find the decision unfair. I contribute to Wiki Italia and En since 2012, you can check it out on both my accounts and you can see I'm not new to create Wikipedia articles without objections or any other problem. I love editing. I do it because Wikipedia is a noble project and, trust me, I would never create an article for promotional reasons! Regards Clelia Albano Clelia albano (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Clelia albano: If you have been contributing to enWP since 2012, then you should know that WP:N is a very important part of how we do things. Your article did not clearly indicate notability and you did not offer any evidence of notability to the deletion discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things
Autopatrolled granted
Hi Triptothecottage, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! N.J.A. | talk 12:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
- News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings
- In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff
- Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users
- Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes
- News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Triptothecottage,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
- From the editors: Where do we go from here?
- Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup
- Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads
- News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green
- Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Moors murders
Hi Triptothecottage, can I ask you to clarify something you said earlier on the FAR page? You wrote: "For what it's worth, while in the majority of cases highlighted by EEng I found the article to be verifiable ...". Did you look at Topping, and if so did you find that the majority of "failed verification" issues that were sourced to Topping were indeed in Topping, or not? SarahSV (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I didn’t have access to Topping, as I made clear on the article talk page. Instead I made the good faith assumption that the “verification failures” were indeed issues (and none had been rebutted at the time I verified it). So, I set about sourcing the statements to what I believed to be higher-quality sources out of what I had available. In many cases it was enough to swap one cite for another, without changing the prose. In some cases, I altered the prose slightly to match what I had in front of me; in those instances I can’t say for certain what Topping (or Staff) might have said, but I doubt the article is worse off for it. The remaining cases were those where the article as written contradicted the sources. I cross-checked these carefully, and replaced the previous single source with multiple sources. The obvious example is the controversy about Smith’s contract with the News of the World: I concluded that the details given in an academic chapter devoted to the incident were likely more accurate than the contradictions in Topping and whoever else.
- I hope that clears things up. I could have worded my comment better. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for clarifying. Perhaps you could clarify on the FAR page that you haven't seen Topping. At the moment, I believe the only editors other than the original authors who have seen that source are EEng and Victoria. This is something the FAR coordinators might want to know. It wasn't possible to rebut the "failed verification" tags quickly because Topping isn't easy to get hold of, and inter-library loans take weeks. Victoria has said she will send me page scans, so I will try to find time to look through Topping myself. Thanks again, SarahSV (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Robert Walker (actor, born 1918)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Walker (actor, born 1918). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Triptothecottage,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)