User talk:Wumbolo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Replied

over my t/p, as to the rationale behind my closure. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 11:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants. Nihlus 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep keeping on

	Reagan Ranch
	May this image give you the rest and relaxation that the late President Ronald Reagan received when he went to it. I can understand that editing on Wikipedia can be difficult, but hang in there, and continue to improve as an editor, while you continue to attempt to improve Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. To whit: It's not synth when several sources describe the racist as a racist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It is synth in an article about something completely unrelated to what the sources discuss. Did you even read them? wumbolo ^^^ 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

Hey Wumbolo. I was wondering why you nomimated the Kurzgesagt video for deletion for being a fringe theory. While I could understand (but necessarily agree with) deletion for lack of notability, it is not clear to me why Kurzgesagt would be a or would be related to fringe theories.
FWDekker (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know, too. For example, in their video about loneliness, they cite mentalhealth.org.uk, nih.gov, theatlantic.com, as well as several academic journal articles, among others. I'm having a hard time seeing how this PROD isn't bad faith. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The article has now been deprodded by an IP editor. My concern about fringe theories is that they actually admit to extreme misrepresentation, in their latest video. They deleted the addiction video since then, which had 20 million views, because of pressure from a smaller YouTube channel, and just swept it all under a rug with an apology. Perhaps the majority of their videos are okay, but that's not enough. wumbolo ^^^ 09:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. While it is not known whether the videos were deleted because of pressure from a smaller channel (because criticism of those two videos has been there since they were uploaded), I wouldn't say that they swept it under the rug. In fact, I think they did the opposite: They publicly acknowledged their error and thereby invited more criticism and scrutiny of future videos. I would argue that their apology was an attempt to distance themselves from fringe theories.
But to get back at the topic at hand: I don't think that Kurzgesagt is mainly known for fringe theories. Even if they have at one point supported a fringe theory, I do not think that that is a reason to remove the page. That would be akin to removing a page on a politician because that politician has supported a fringe theory in the past.
FWDekker (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

An award for creating the article Fortnite Creative.

		The Special Barnstar
		Fortnite Creative is obviously an article that only a man of the highest intellegence would create. Congratulations, you have earned this totally-not-sarcastic barnstar. InvalidOStalk 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 20:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Wumbolo,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD Veracity of Donald Trump

Just FYI, and in case you can fix it... Your close of AfD on this 12 March did not get captured in WP:DRV. And no notice of the AfD had appeared at the article TALK page.

The DRV has a bit of when it was briefly reopened (due to inappropriate closer) and instead.

I’ve done a TALK section at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump to note the AfD had happened, and a permalink to the discussion is there.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   09:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories in Swift Playgrounds

Hello Wumbolo,

Upon your suggestion I've just added a categories to Swift Playgrounds. Please take a look and, if you have any further suggestions, please let me know. If you think is ok please remove the "improve categories" tag. I've also improved the language of the article towards a more neutral tone. If you think is fine could you please remove the advert tag? if not please let me know how to further improve it.

Thanks, --Coel Jo (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Coel Jo: thanks, I've removed the category tag now. 6runnerr tagged the article with the advert tag, so they know best what was of concern. wumbolo ^^^ 20:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

email?

You sent me an "email", but I can't find it or read it. Is this some kind of internal wikipedia email, or did it go to the account I registered with? I decided to not read any of the comments, etc... because I was afraid of what I might say. It's taken this long to look at them.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth preston notability

Could you reply on the deletion discussion page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Preston_(journalist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrow (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stefan Molyneux; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ GB fan 19:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ GB fan 19:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@GB fan: WP:BLPREMOVE says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [...] is unsourced or poorly sourced" The content was sourced to an op-ed. wumbolo ^^^ 19:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@GB fan: I'd like an explanation for the block. The content was eligible for WP:BLPREMOVE, I didn't break 3RR and I mentioned my rationale in edit summaries which included the fact that the source is an op-ed. wumbolo ^^^ 19:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for a 3RR violation, you were blocked for edit warring. Since 28 March you have removed the content 6 times. You did not mention in any of the edit summaries from those 6 removals that this was a WP:BLP violation. You didn't ever go to the talk page to discuss the removals. You didn't go and ask for assistance from WP:BLPN. You reverted again after I warned you about edit warring. That is why you are now blocked. ~ GB fan 19:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@GB fan: My 3rd revert states, "The source is an op-ed". Since the article is a BLP, I am obviously invoking WP:BLPREMOVE. wumbolo ^^^ 20:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Further, BLP states "Contentious material about living persons [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis mine). With taking WP:ONUS into account, that's why I didn't post on the talk page. Going to WP:BLPN is frankly unnecessary. wumbolo ^^^ 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you are invoking WP:BLP you need to explicitly state that, there was nothing obvious in any of the reverts that you were invoking anything to do with BLP. You talked about things being sourced but not relevant. You talk about primary sources and a rather ridiculous statement. You never once said anything about BLP. You never once warned anyone it was a BLP violation. You didn't go to the BLP noticeboard. There was nothing obvious that you were doing this because of WP:BLP. ~ GB fan 20:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with my block, request an unblock. ~ GB fan 20:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was asked by email to comment on this matter; as I understand it, it is true that you must explicitly invoke one of the edit warring exceptions. What is obvious to one person isn't to another(as is the case in real life). It is also true that you do not have to violate 3RR to be determined to be edit warring. 3RR is a bright line violation, but it is possible to be edit warring with fewer reverts. There was no indication that you were prepared to stop reverting, so I can understand the taking of action to stop the disruption to the article. Maybe the other editor should have been blocked too, maybe not, I don't know based on this quick review, but I'm sure GB fan had their reasons.

As for avoiding this in the future, I would suggest that you work towards getting in the habit of using the article talk page upon a first revert, and not necessarily reverting the reversion. There are also avenues of dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to keep this in mind. wumbolo ^^^ 22:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not block the other editor as they have not reverted since being warned. ~ GB fan 23:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

@Anarchyte: would it be appropriate to delete & re-create the redirect Arayan? The article's history is filled with copyvios (you only deleted the recent ones). wumbolo ^^^ 19:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Judah Samet

On 5 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judah Samet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that attendees at Trump's 2019 State of the Union Address sang "Happy Birthday" to Judah Samet (pictured), a Holocaust survivor who narrowly escaped the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judah Samet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Judah Samet), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious

personalities

Thank you for quality articles such as SethBling, Judah Samet, Parable of the Polygons and Charlotte Pence, for not minding to be criticised, for contributions to the Croatian Wikipedia, for believing "in freedom of all types of information for all", - user from Croatia, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. wumbolo ^^^ 18:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

April

... with thanks from QAI

Wow, that even made it to the statistice, - congratulations! I added it, - next time you can do it yourself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Candace Owens

Wumbolo, please stop editing disruptively. I feel like you are attacking me by making false accusations and posting inappropriate warnings on my talk page. You are beginning to edit war. Please stop reverting edits and participate in the talk page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut I don't do insults or personal attacks. If multiple editors disagree with you, try to form a consensus. As for edit warring, please read WP:BLPREMOVE. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Candace Owens

I've put an Edit notice in there now, so hopefully that'll work out. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

G5

Please use the master's name in G5 nominations. It links back to the SPI and the categories of confirmed & suspected sockpuppets when you do. I've fixed Yazidi New Year. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, I've reverted your edit at Ezidkhan which seemed to be mistake [1]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: no, I believe that it is a reliable source. The website has editorial oversight, and the editors have lengthy experience. You have previously made the argument (that makes no sense) that the website is "involved" because of its reporting focus. Would you call BBC Africa an unreliable source because it is involved with Africa? wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

• Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
• The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
• They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

• Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
• The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
• Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   01:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for indeed, exceeding the 3 revert rule (irony notwithstanding). Note that the next block will be much longer, likely indefinite, so please tread lightly and use the talk page often. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 00:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wumbolo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I concede that I was wrong this time. It is difficult to abide by 3RR when reverting several times, so I am willing to be unblocked on a voluntary WP:1RR condition. I don't want any more scrutiny, so I'm not going to settle for anything less (including an article ban). Obviously, the 1RR would be an imposed sanction for a week, and completely voluntary afterwards. wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You start by conceding that you were "wrong this time", but you then go on to say things make it clear that you knew full well that you were edit-warring ("reverting several times") and that you were only "wrong this time" because you slipped over the so-called "three revert rule". Since it was explained to you on a previous occasion when you were blocked for edit-warring that you don't have to breach that rule in order to be blocked for edit-warring, you should have known full well that edit-warring was unacceptable, three revert rule or no. You need to grasp that fact, and unblocking now would run the risk of conveying the message that, whatever you have been told, you can edit-war when you choose to, provided that you either avoid stepping over the "three revert" line, or else when you do so and are unblocked you promise not to edit-war again for a limited time period. That would not be a helpful message to convey. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @JamesBWatson: the previous time I wasn't actually edit warring because I was following WP:BLPREMOVE, which is an exception to the WP:EW policy. I was blocked merely because I didn't "specifically mention" the BLP exception. Are you justifying unsourced controversial information about a living person? wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Small notice

@Cleanupbabe: I see that you've commented at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/James Charles & Tati Controversy. Please move your comment to the discussion page (you can edit it like any other page). Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Wumbolo,

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your masterful illustration of Poe's law.[2] — JFG talk 14:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar and for having fun. wumbolo ^^^ 14:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sandy Cheeks?

Hi, I don't quite get the comparison between Sandy Cheeks and Casper you made in the edit summary. I had posted on the talk page why I let the "Jennifer" edit through - could you explain your position over there in a little more detail? Thanks. Psu256 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)