hoop dat je dese chckt gappie spreek je snel broer van andere moer whahwaha
hoop dat je dese chckt gappie spreek je snel broer van andere moer whahwaha
love you boy gr rhooo <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rhootjuh|Rhootjuh]] ([[User talk:Rhootjuh#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rhootjuh|contribs]]) 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
love you boy gr rhooo <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rhootjuh|Rhootjuh]] ([[User talk:Rhootjuh#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rhootjuh|contribs]]) 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== PGA Awards: Long-Form ==
Hi, I wanted to consult you about the [[Producers Guild of America Award for Best Long-Form Television|PGA for Long-Form]] page, because I just linked it to other related articles and I added some source links. So, can I delete the templates? --[[User:Vivien_Harmon|Vivien Harmon]] ([[User talk:Vivien_Harmon|talk]]) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Revisionasof15:53,21February2017
DrStrauss is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on 4th March 2017.
Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!
Rulers of Russia family tree
Hi. May I know why you removed the <small> parameter from the Rulers of Russia family tree article? I'm asking because somebody else also did this in the past and I was wondering if there is something wrong with the format. That parameter is making the boxes smaller and easier to read/rendered on smaller monitors. The chart is already very wide. --Daduxing (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daduxing, if you're talking about this diff then it was a semi-automated edit using AutoWikiBrowser aimed at changing the {{unreferenced}} template into a {{refimprove}} template. Those "side-effects" appear to have been identified as a cleanup-type operation which is why you've probably experienced this before. The difference between the two versions of the article seems negligible but I'll try and find out for you and post back here. Thanks. DrStrausstalk16:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - last time this happened it was done by a bot which cited a WikiProject Check Wikipedia error which suggests there's a problem with the syntax so I would suggest restoring my earlier diff as it's likely another AWB user or bot will come along and re-do it. I've since edited it because by undoing my edit you also moved the reference tag back to the bottom. DrStrausstalk16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you added the {{refimprove}} tag to the article on Eleanor McMain. I'm certainly glad to address your concerns about this article, but I would like clarification about your concerns. I believe that every point in the article is substantiated by credible references, although some of these may only appear at the end of an article, rather than point-by-point. Again, I'll address the concerns if you could clarify them. Thank you! Nolabob (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nolabob. Thank you for your feedback. My issue with the referencing is that some references are used extremely frequently (one is used 16 times). It might be an idea to provide a wider breadth of sources to show independent verification. Thank you! DrStrausstalk09:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DrStrauss, I'm not sure I can find any more references on the subject of McMain. The one that is referred to 16 times is in fact a book, which I have read cover-to-cover. Being a book, it is only natural that it would contain much information on the subject. Should we just leave the article as is? Any other guidance? Thank you. Nolabob (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolabob: if you think that no further references can be added at this point you could remove the {{refimprove}} tag as ther doesn't seem to be any controversial stuff or any claims / assertions being made which means that there isn't a particular impetus for further citation. DrStrausstalk11:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolabob: I've removed the tag. However, reference number 1's syntax appears to be broken. As I'm not familiar with the source in question, could you fix this? Thank you. DrStrausstalk19:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Koavf: unfortunately I disagree with you on this. The {{unreferenced}} tag should be used only on articles that contain zero citations or references of any kind as per the template documentation here. Near Wild Heaven has one source. Therefore, it is not eligible for such a "serious" tag and requires the {{refimprove}} tag. I'm going to continue to re-categorise them as it is helpful to editors like myself who attempt to also improve references so we can ascertain the seriousness of each case. DrStrausstalk10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would apply to speedy deletes on any sourced stub which says "expand from French" "expand from Italian" etc. The purpose of the "expand" tag on stubs is to indicate further information, and sources, are available on the foreign language interwiki. I thought this was mentioned in the speedy deletion tag guidelines? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: you're just making empty statements. I could just as easily say read the policies on contesting and not removing CSD tags. I read the page history - I always do - where is my page history reading insufficient? DrStrausstalk21:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check this, this article is marked as videos games developed in China. But the game designer is not Chinese, and the group team isn't, too. Don't you think it's weird? --Beta Lohman (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiBeta Lohman, thank you for alerting me to this and coming to me for advice on the matter. After skim-reading the article, I agree with you and I have removed the page from the category in question. Do you think there would be a more suitable development location category which we could put this article in? Best -DrStrausstalk21:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be a good idea to put a notice on the talk page asking where exactly it was developed, because it looks like it perhaps could have been developed in China, as it was first revealed at a conference there. You should probably hold off on putting a new category onto the article until you know exactly where it was developed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits22:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? Who are you? Maybe you should ask the main editor why they put a category then, anything is made in China, it doesn't make any sense.--Beta Lohman (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beta Lohman: The reason I responded was because I though I could help. I saw this because I have this page on my watchlist (totally not a talk page stalker). I just was suggesting that you could either do some research and then put the correct category on it, or you could put a message on the talk page (of the game) asking for somebody else to do the research. Also, Strauss, do you have any objections to me occasionally answering questions for help and such? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you tell the main editor and ask is this Chinese game. I don't know who but there must be someone, so here is the shortcut I told you. Are we done here? --Beta Lohman (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RileyBugz: not at all! It's actually helpful because it reduces my workload as well - please continue! :)
We now have 804 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
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.
I appreciate your work on Beenish Raja but it remains an article without a single viable reference. I note your removal of the PROD, but I now see no option but to take it to AfD. Do you agree VelellaVelella Talk 10:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DrStrauss. If I recall correctly, I started the page Urgrund (comics) by pulling material out of another page that went into (it seemed to me) excessive detail on this subject. I am not knowledgeable in this field, not having read these comics-- any, really-- in a couple of decades, so I'm not in a position to expand it. I'll poke around a little and see what I can do. -- Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiThisisfinal, thanks for your contributions! As long as it's linked to by another page, it's not an orphan so the tag can be removed. De-orphaning articles is important to integrate them into the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask - new contributors are always welcome! Best -DrStrausstalk09:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work in new page patrol. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of CSM Roman - a page you tagged. Please keep in mind that CSD A7 (which {{db-club}} links to), does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance, which is a lower standard than the notability guidelines. For the same reason, I will probably decline your speedy deletion nomination of Faith Wood-Blagrove. Let me know if you have any questions :)
You removed the stub-tag on Naarda through AWB. Would you mind terribly if I re-add it? Although the article is sizeable enough in length/character size, the prose content is ~15 words in 2 sentences, and usually only prose is counted.
By any chance, do you have AWB set to automatically remove the stub tag over a certain amount of words? That can be a bit iffy when it comes to articles on taxa above species, because the great majority of the 'words' there are in lists (of species in a genus, of genera in a tribe, etc.), references and the infobox, none of which are conventionally counted when it comes to de-stubbing an article. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, will do. Figured it'd be ok, but in cases like this where there's no hurry, I prefer to ask first just to make sure.
Hm, no clue to be honest. I only use AWB to make lists at the moment, really—and for a fair while, now. Think I last logged in on it in 2014 or so?&mdashh;and while it's something that I happen to come across here and there from time to time, at least within the whole tree of life/taxonomy articles area, though it's not so common an issue that I've really looked into 'how can future cases of it be avoided', just enough to know why it happens. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When requesting AP for someone else you need to change the {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} to the username of your nominee, no "User:" required, & preview. Your contributions got assessed by the tools instead of User:Ocfootballknut's. It turned out Ocfootballknut already has AP. I find Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups useful for quickly seeing what privs a user has:
The list is 3 weeks old. It only refreshes monthly. I've altered the editnotice on the RFP to give a prompt about nominating other users. If you can cast an eye over it now or the next time you're nominating & see if it's helpful that would be, um, helpful. Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of expanding this entry. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding meets notability requirements as it has received coverage in third-party news sources including but not limited to Al-Jazeera, The Detroit News and Free Press, the Los Angeles Times, The Cavalier Daily, National Public Radio, Patheos, FiveThirtyEight, and the Chicago Tribune (A cursory Google search of the organization reveals its notability.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finelinebilly (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Finelinebilly, it's probably a better idea to start off your new pages in the draft namespace or submit them at articles for creation so before they go "live" it has sufficient references on it to ensure that it passes the notability guidelines which require media coverage. I'm not saying the subject of your article hasn't contained significant media coverage but the article certainly didn't convey that. Thanks. DrStrausstalk17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gentium Law Group
Thank you for patroling.
Could you please tell me what was wrong in my article so I can correct it and put it back online
Hey. I have categorised, de-orphaned (parented?) and added interlinks, content and three references since you visited the article.
Can you check if it meets mainspace requirements yet please?. Thanks for working in NPP. Cesdeva (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiCesdeva, I've done a tiny copyedit and a ref fix on the article and I've reviewed it. It looks great and meets all the requirements. Thank you for your contributions! DrStrausstalk10:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider combining the several <nationality> New Zealanders pages you nominated for deletion into one? It might help the discussion to coalesce. The Russian and German editions seem to be duplicated, too Mortee (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
You have been trouted for: Hi DrStrauss, is the issue that fact that they are Portuguese sources? These are 4 of the top newspapers in the country and there is no "higher" recognition in the ad world in Portugal. On top of this, he has been sited by The Telegraph which is one of the largest newspapers in the world. Is there something I am missing? for the Joah Santos article? Thanks Wallst1Dr (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiWallst1Dr, thanks for the trout! I tagged the page for curation in order to ensure that if it isn't deleted (I was not the deletion nominator), issues could be fixed. The article uses bare URLs which are prone to linkrot which means that at a glance it's tricky to assess. I probably should have used a {{linkrot}} tag in fairness. Feel free to remove it. Thanks! DrStrausstalk13:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the AFD you filed for The Incredible Kung Fu Mission, you note that you're AFDing it because the speedy was declined. The speedy tag you applied to it (WP:A3) was simply inappropriate for the article as it stood, as it clearly had content, if very stubby, from its earliest incarnation. Let me suggest that if you find something similar in the future, a stub that simply doesn't assert notability, a WP:PROD might be more appropriate than going to AFD; it takes up less of the community's resources and, in the case of a page like this one created by someone with no history of editing Wikipedia, is likely to be successful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the heads up - I only created a redirect to Bibliothécaires Sans Frontières, but since the NGO seems to have a US subsidiary it could make sense to rename (or not: Doctors without Borders' mothership is also in France but the article kept the French name). Waddaya think? (either way, we probably need to let the guys doing the multiple article (re)creation that they should work on the existing one) Cheers, Popo le Chienthrow a bone17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC) PS: The trout thing is pretty cool :-b[reply]
HiPopo le Chien - is it usually referred to by its French name? If it's the same with the Doctors without Borders then yeah - continuity would make sense. Thanks for the vote of confidence in the trout - feel free to use it if you want :) Thanks, DrStrausstalk18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suspect that they use one (in French) for their national operations, and another one for the international ones. I'll look it up more closely and, if need be, recreate a redirect. Cheers, Popo le Chienthrow a bone07:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DrStruss, An genuine heartfelt Thank you for the suggested link concerning the page Akber Rashid, if at all any specific changes you can recommend it would greatly help me in fixing the page, again much appreciated.Theartiz (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiTheartiz, on Wikipedia, especially on biographies, independent references are needed for verification. If you can find reliable sources to cite that firstly improves the article's verifiability but also cements its claim to notability. The links I've given should help and the correct way to cite sources can be found here. If you require specific help with the article in question let me know. Thanks! DrStrausstalk08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your corrections and review of this new article. The talk page is now open and ready for any further discussion about POV or other issues.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Hi,
I was looking through old page move discussions to close them (attempting to help) but forgot to check the discussion page (stupid, I know) on which consensus appears to be divided. I can't move the page back as it requires page mover privileges. The pages in question is Belle's Magical World and Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World.
So sorry for any inconvenience caused. Feel free to {{whale}} me.
Thanks!
DrStrausstalk18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page back. For future reference, it is possible for non-admins to undo a page move - if there have been no subsequent edits at the redirect created by the original move. If that redirect has a non-trivial history it takes an admin to delete it any make way for the return move. Huon (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see that this page got deleted when I could find at least 733 references for it on google news right now. I would like request you to kindly have a look at it. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see if there was any discussion before deletion. Can a long standing article be proposed for speedy deletion? Should I create the article again or some discussion will be needed before creating it or it is being thought that it is not important altogether so no need to create it again? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhijeet Safai:WP:CSD can be applied to any article regardless of its creation date. Speedy deletion is designed to bypass the community discussion process for articles which clearly fail notability guidelines. I myself did not delete it - I tagged it for deletion. If you want to recreate it I would strongly suggest creating it through the WP:AfC process. DrStrausstalk10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not a new 'new page patroller'. Because "Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions" as per this section. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhijeet Safai: I do have the new page patrol user right and I am quite active there. NPP is an instrumental part of upholding Wikipedia's content quality and should not be frowned upon. Anyway, the fact that it was not me but an administrator who deleted the page shows that it was not just myself who believed that the article in question failed A7 but an experienced administrator. DrStrausstalk10:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I need not be over passionate about an article. If it has importance, notability, significance (whatever words one wish to use), it will be created again. If it is not important, it will be deleted. I need not worry much about it. Instead of heating the discussion here (because still I feel that you had wrongly tagged it) I shall use this time in more constructive things. Again I had started assuming that you are just doing it because you are new, but that might not be the reality. You might be genuinely interested in some higher aim like maintaining the quality of WP. Hence I feel that it is best left to collective intelligence of WP because I believe that projects like WP can only succeed when people come together forgetting their personal egos to do something great. As I strongly believe this, I may not be able to take part in further discussion here. I leave the decision to your and communities good faith. I am sure you will do what is right. Take care. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhijeet Safai: I'm not that new to Wikipedia and I'd like to think that I've got a good track record with helping out as you can see from my thanks log and a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Long membership doesn't necessarily mean more experience. Of course I want to improve Wikipedia - I wouldn't be here if I didn't and I've put in a lot of time to contribute and without trying to sound egotistical, I think the community by and large trusts me otherwise I would not have been given the user rights I have. I see you've proposed the creation of the article which I think is the right way of going about it. Thank you. DrStrausstalk11:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiBiwom, I've read WP:PROD. Am I right in saying that failed PRODs should not be re-PROD-ed but AfD-ed? I see that as the only possible objection to the PRODs as the rationale behind them is sound. Thanks! DrStrausstalk10:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can AfD these 2 articles. Although you should check why the PROD "failed" in the first place. You need to keep in mind that St. Joseph's Degree College, Kurnool is likely to "survive" an AfD because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - unless you can prove it's a hoax that is. And Rumah Akar is a remarkable building located in one of the World's most vibrant city, about which reliable sources are easy to find ([1]), so you might not want the community to lose its precious time on this one either. But it's up to you of course. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Biwom: fair enough with the former but the latter doesn't assert its significance. Tagging pages for deletion often prompts the page's author to properly reference them meaning content isn't lost. DrStrausstalk10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're deleting your ACTRIAL proposal?
I hope you're not getting down about that. The community really wants a resolution to the problem. Some believe we can implement something locally. I don't see that working as WMF will likely use Superprotect to stop any innovations we might enact. Developing a new RfC to force WMF to acquiesce will likely have to happen. If you want to delete your draft that's fine but I was watching that page and was interested to see how this develops. Enjoy your wikibreak. Chris Troutman (talk)13:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiChris troutman, whilst I'm on my wikibreak I will modify my proposal locally and upload it afterwards. Thanks for your concern - I'm sure we'll be able to figure something out but I see that it needs a bit more thought before being submitted to WMF. Regards -DrStrausstalk16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiChesipiero, that's fine don't worry. I meant to put {{citation style}} on as opposed to {{refimprove}} - I've now corrected this. The issue is that the placement of the inline citations is a bit confusing or at least could be improved with a small introductory section. Thanks for your contributions! DrStrausstalk18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will like to defend the important of the above article, Ajene Abongo is young entrepreneur and researcher who is working to change the life of youth and women and is, therefore, important to have his autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashood1981 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have bee stringy advised by many highly experienced editors ad admins that a new and premature RfC on ACTRIAL could damage the very objective you are hoping to achieve. In open defiance of this advice you have gone ahead and created another one which is totally malformed and in the wrong place. Would you now please desist. You have little to no experience of how Wikipedia or its RfC system works and you may be compromising your own freedom to edit if you persist in disruption against all good advice. Please withdraw the current RfC from the VP. 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
@Kudpung: I consulted with multiple editors on IRC before posting it including Oshwah and Qaei, both of whom were very complimentary about it. I'm not sure what the penultimate statement is meant to suggest - I don't want to assume bad faith but it appears to be a veiled threat of a block which would be at best misplaced. Thanks. DrStrausstalk17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - I'd like to downgrade (if that's the right term) the RfC to a VP discussion but keep the current discussion at the VP going as it appears to be constructive. I'm not too sure how to properly remove an RfC or take it off CENT - please can you do it for me? Thanks. DrStrausstalk17:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's a proper place for that discussion and you've been told about it multiple times. Be it on your head if you, as a total newbie, have refused the advice of others and the effort I went to great lengths to explain on my talk page without waiting for the input of others, and scupper the work of years by people who far more experience in these matters than you do.Wikipedia is serious stuff - please do not mess with it, you might not end up being blocked but you might be responsible for the ultimate retirement of not one but several dedicated Wikipedians. It's happened before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: as I say, if you think it's best to remove or close it then please feel free as I am inexperienced in RfC (I'm not too fond of the term "total newbie" because I have had experience in other areas of Wikipedia) - you are more experienced and it'd be a great loss to the community if you resigned. DrStrausstalk17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've just demonstrated your total inexperience in that you are now asking me to revert something you have started in blatant defiance of all the advice you have been given and refusal to read up on the history. I'd be doing you a a favour to yourself if I were to block you now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: an editor of your experience should remember to remain civil, someting which you are failing to do. I have made several polite attempts to comply with what you are asking for and you have repeatedly denied to accept. The only person who would be affected if you blocked me would be you as such actions would be a clear violation of the blocking policy. I make valuable contributions to Wikipedia in several different areas and as a pioneer of editor retention you should not be so demeaning and rude to other users. Back on point, do what you see fit with the Village Pump entry. DrStrausstalk17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: Although you may not like his methods (I view them as i bit too harsh myself), Kudpung is trying to give you advice on a subject. I could probably rant on and on about this for hours, but anyways, just take his advice. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits18:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) DrStrauss, please discuss these types of proposals thoroughly with experienced editors before pushing them to a main venue. In fact, better yet, don't push them to a broad venue yourself; let an experienced administrator do so, because they'll be more experienced in, for lack of a better word, the politics of the encyclopedia. If a proposal like this is framed the "wrong way", it will fail, and once it fails once, the community has no appetite for considering it again for several years. The damage done by not framing a proposal properly is enormous on such a weighty issue as this. Kudpung and I disagree on many things, but I believe we're in complete agreement on the fact that ACTRIAL is the single most important and potentially impactful reform that needs to be made to our new page reviewing process. It would set the reviewing process back by years if it were to be proposed and declined due to lack of statistics, thorough explanation, and implementation details (including lots of explanations of how this won't be a repeat of the fate of the original ACTRIAL RfC). I made similar mistakes when I was a newcomer (see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, which I believe was my worst mistake as a newcomer), and it's extremely important to learn from those mistakes. Advancing proposals that affect how the entire encyclopedia operates is almost never a good idea even for experienced editors, and it's never a good idea for someone relatively new to the inner workings of the encyclopedia. With all respect to Oshwah and Qaei, they both do a very different type of work on Wikipedia than Kudpung and many of the other "reformers", and they're not experienced in crafting a proposal likely to achieve consensus. ~ Rob13Talk17:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do take notice of what RileyBugz and BU Rob13 have said above. You'll find that my bark is far worse than my bite and I'm known for being highly supportive of new users who are willing to learn. Per WP:WER I wouldn't be the first experienced admin to retire from Wikipedia due to behaviour by a new editor who WP:IDHT - it's founder is one of them. I've reverted your RfC according to your request. Now please read up on the background of this issue properly, especially the Bugzilla report and please, please, don't trample on any more acorns we've planted while we're waiting for them to grow into great oaks. Just vote on the big RfC when it comes - trust me, your voice will be heard. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: fair enough, it's just quite frustrating. I'll stay out of the formulation of any RfCs etc and just keep patrolling new pages as per normal but please do keep me updated on any progress. Thank you. DrStrausstalk18:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of amateur hour stuff makes me regret encouraging you. As Kudpung has illustrated, this has been an issue years in the making. You apparently mistook my comments about looking for a solution with you just making stuff up. For the rest of the day, every time you hit the "save changes" button remember that I'm still upset with your lack of forethought. Chris Troutman (talk)18:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you fixed the hyphenation. But the RM proposal was about adding "The". I reverted your changes (not your move) there before I realized what you had done. I've restored the proposal to add The, even though I oppose it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DrStrauss,
Here reaching regarding Diwan Manna article marked for deletion. Actually I compiled the article based on information found on internet and might have not done up to mark per WikiPedia requirements as not being usual editor.
Kindly guide what seems promotional so can be improved.
Best regards.
--TajinderSingh (talk) TajinderSingh (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HiDrStrauss, Supposed that button was meant to ask how article can be improved to avoid deletion, as it was the highlighted button. I guess that it wasn't supposed to be used. Kindly pardon. TajinderSingh (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Strauss, thank you for the notification on the Daniel Davies (musician) article I wrote, and thank you very much for rating it a "B"! I really went out of my way to get everything right on it, and am happy that the article made the grade. Hope you are well!
When I review the flood of new pages about sportspeople, I always check whether they have any references that seem to be more than just team lists, and if they don't, I tag them with "BLP Sources" using WP:Twinkle.
HiSlashme, thanks for the advice, I usually do that to be honest but there's a specific guideline for reviewing pages made by the user who made the page in question. He created over 16,000 articles and a massive effort to clean them up is underway. More can be found here. The flood is very irksome I know! Thanks, DrStrausstalk13:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking me to that page. I took a look, and the topic of calling people "former" sportspeople is new to me, so I'll keep an eye out for it. I did notice, however, that the section with the process that mentions removing any cleanup tags has been crossed out, and there's a link to User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Guidelines, which doesn't mention removing cleanup tags. Also, neither of those two articles says anything about processing them through the New Pages feed. I think there's no reason not to tag them if they're not properly sourced (i.e. no links to sources with substantial coverage), and it's quick enough to do. --Slashme (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slashme: don't get me wrong, I use tags on a borderline-guerrilla level, I was just pointing out that there is a specific incident which backed up your point. Thanks, DrStrausstalk13:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 804 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.
heey gappie hoe ist daaroo heb een nieuwe manier gevonden om je te berichten hehehe wha whahwaha hoe vind je die street from my c ferom zdam hou vind je die hahhaha
hoop dat je dese chckt gappie spreek je snel broer van andere moer whahwaha
love you boy gr rhooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhootjuh (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]