![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
My request for clarification (which was in itself a bit over vague I guess) was less about the general thrust of your argument, and more that you appear to have forgotten to write a "not" in your original comment. Your additional comment cleared up the issue regardless. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee, 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! Schwede66 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quentin Tarantino you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee, all the victims and cases that I included on the Wikipedia page was all from the documentary. I also included my summaries for the episodes but some other user deleted them. The media that I included were also used in the documentary. I also included the sources but someone deleted them as well. Shahida916 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Quentin Tarantino you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quentin Tarantino for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that revert. I've been going back and forth with the IP editor since May of 2018. He/she just reverted for the ninth time. Ironically, I started the original edit on the article only to correctly format (and add) refs in order to remove the notability template. (Diener clearly met GNG.) I am ready to give up, b/c my head is about to explode. I just left a message on his/her talkpage but I am sure it will do no good. Sigh (and cheers), Julie JSFarman (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you recently created season pages for Silicon Valley, however, I'm thinking they really don't meet the threshold for standalone articles per MOS:TVSPLIT. Unless, of course, you plan on expanding those articles much further. Because neither the main article or the list of episodes page are really that long to support a split. The season articles would need to contain new content, specifically production and reception content specific to each season. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee,
Thank you for reviewing my draft Angry Birds Dream Blast! I noticed that you declined the article as "reading too much like an advertisement". Would you be able to explain how you felt the draft read like an advertisement, and how I could fix it? aboideautalk 14:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Broccoli and Coffee,
You were so kind and helpful helping me with the Marilynne Robinson article. I implemented your advise and have since moved on to other articles.
I had a question and tried asking on Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it was "archived because there was no discussion for a few days." I hope you will point me in the right direction, again! Below is my Teahouse question:
How to upload low resolution Fair Use art with copyright?
RE: Upload art history images under copyright.
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empire_of_Light .
Using: Visual Editor.
There is a Wikipedia article on a series of around a dozen artworks by an artist who died less than seventy years ago. The article already has low resolution images of three paintings in the series (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Empire_of_Light_Guggenheim.jpg ). I have low resolution images for the rest of the paintings to upload.
I have tried to “Locally Upload” reduced size, low resolution images. I am using the plain form for local uploads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload . Whatever I do it says its -- open to Speedy Deletion.
Info to include with images: "Fair use image of art: Image unsuitable for commercial purposes. Reduced size image for educational and informational purposes to enable visual identification of the object of the article."
Example of Picasso copyright painting on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg (Also, where is the form for “artist” rather than “author” ? )
It would be wonderful if someone would walk me through this step-step!
Thanks, Beth Timken (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the info! Beth Timken (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I am writing to ask for a review and reversal of the deletion of the wikipedia entry about me and my project, Noble Ape. The entries deleted were created by a series of listeners to my podcasts from 2007 through to about 2013. To be clear, I am only interested in the reversal for Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet on Wikipedia. The other two articles are less important to me.
While I appreciate the articles that were deleted were not ideal, the articles Tom Barbalet and Noble Ape did represent my work in a form which was comparable to others who have contributed a similar extent to the field of artificial life and still actively represented on Wikipedia - OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld.
They also show through Wikipedia and external academic references (http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic) that my work is not a walled garden. It has contributed to a number of different areas and been used by Apple and Intel for their development.
As the article on Artificial life organizations also shows I have also fostered a community of developers and dialogue in the field of artificial life.
Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape.
I continue to work on Noble Ape to this day totaling more than ten hours per week on average. This is a voluntary effort to further ideas in social evolution, philosophy and open source software. I appreciate that working on Wikipedia is also a voluntary effort. I thank you for your time and considering my request to appeal this deletion.
Barbalet (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Broccoli and Coffee for your assistance ensuring that Up to Snuff complies with Wiki standards. As my activity indicates, this is new for me and I appreciate your guidance and suggestions. Am editing the article to present the information in a factual rather than promotional manner. Your continued suggestions are welcomed and appreciated. Thanks, VAJayhawk (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure, Psychologists are licensed by the Board of Psychologists.
A complaint has been opened by the Massachusetts Board of Licensure, Office of Investigations, regarding Lauren Slater's misuse of the term "Psychologist" in her online promotions and Twitter Account, on which she has recently changed her title to "practicing psychotherapist". See here: https://twitter.com/LaurenSlaterI
From a letter dated October 15, 2018, from the Office of Investigations, Massachusetts Board of Licensure, is this quote: "Use of that title (Psychologist) is prohibited in Massachusetts unless you hold a current license from our Board of Psychologists. There is no record of Lauren Slater ever holding any license from our Division. I am opening our own complaint against Ms. Slater for using the title "psychologist" in violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 112, Section 122."
Lauren Slater has never been a licensed Psychologist, according to the governing body in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but she can be classified as an unlicensed "Psychotherapist". Please make the appropriate corrections to her Wikipedia page.
Contact information for verification:
Alan Van Tassell Supervisor, Office of Investigations Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure 1000 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02118 617-727-7406
PTash (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear reviewer, may i ask your advices on my article of Prof. Christoph Stückelberger?
He is one of the most experienced professors in Ethics subject in Switzerland. We have not found any information about him and his contribution to Ethics. That is why i did research and wrote an article about him. I read our policies and did not give any personal view. The article is purely information with the quotes from reliable websites, not from his blogs, personal website and so on. May I ask your advices on how to improve the article to meet wikipedia's requirements?
Thank you very much for your advice.
With best regards,
Hong
Hongbuirydell (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for bringing my post in the Quentin Tarantino talk into the right section. Maxvorstadt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Broccoli and Coffee. I was wondering why you added Historical Roaststo{{Netflix specials}} rather than {{Netflix original current series}}. Reading the article, it seems to me that Historical Roasts is a series rather than a special. Or is there something I'm missing? DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the main author of the article about Tegan Marie and just saw your edit. I don't really know what you meant with "c/e" but I figured that the source was used for this sentence didn't mention the year (1972) or anything about Tanya Tucker so I've replaced the source with a better one and added id again. If you didn't mean that, please let me know either here or by writing something into the talk page. Thanks! --Heubergen (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
when Tanya Tucker signed to CBS Recordsbecause it's really not relevant to the article -- it's enough to just say she was the youngest since 1972.
my apologies to the incorrect submission. I would highly recommending requesting someone to create a Wikipedia page for Bnny Rbbt. Thank you. Mysterysandwich899 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I visited the Quentin Tarantino article to look over the frequent collaborators table, and found it was 'removed per GA review' by you. What does that mean? I apologize for bothering you with this but i doubt it means Georgia Review, which is all my own search got me. HaxTrax (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Broccoli. I wrote a new article that I THOUGHT I had submitted properly, but haven't had any feedback on it yet, so I'm wondering if I did it correctly. I'm a bit rusty about how to do this stuff, because it's been a while and I'm losing brain cells by the day, evidently. Can you help me out and give me some guidance? Much appreciated. ARD (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, golly, thank you. It's been awhile since I've done this, so I'm really rusty at all of this. I'll make sure to read the links you provided. ARD (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me start by thanking you for being watchful on this well thought of platform.
And now, to the issue at hand: Would you say its spam when facts are being supported by references, sir/Ma? You already stated that links in Wikipedia are no-follow and sometimes could be ignored by search engines, so then, what do I have to benefit by inserting links to buttress certain loosely made statements, other than to help the Wikipedia community? I also source information from here, too. But I would not use any information that is not well supported because it is tantamount to being called gossips/speculation/false information. And I do not believe that is what you are trying to encourage here, Sir/Ma? And so, I would request that you leave the insertions, especially the topic on global warming because I speak as a geologist/authority in the field. The topic of twins was written by a professional in her own rights. So, unless you are trying to tell me that you are versatile in both fields, then I would implore you to leave the insertions as status quo. Thank you very much. Cen79 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Behind the Curve was accused of fraud by tfes.org, which is a well known website involving Flat Earth information. Indeed, The Flat Earth Society has its own Wikipedia article and has been a popularly known organization since the 1950's. It has been cited and quoted by many news organizations as representing the Flat Earth movement. Why does this not qualify as a source for Wikipedia?
KnowingTree (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. The above does not appear to be a hoax therefore you might want to remove or alter the warning you left. I've deleted the page under G13 instead. --kingboyk (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have also been preparing a site for Michael Lyons, but was told by two reviewers to do it through the AfC the wiki review process, add loads more references and add more details. I did that and it took weeks. Now I see you have created a site for Michael. Seems a little unfair that because I followed a review process all my work is now rejected. I assume it’s ok to add to your site. Michael is my father in law so I have a lot of extra information I can add. You can view my efforts at draft:Michael Lyons (sculptor) Drsteveb (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra info, which is useful.
Drsteveb (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee. I'm not sure if moving Joy Gorman Wettels to draftspace was necessary. Do you think WP:CREATIVE applies to producers? If so, Wettels seems notable under criterion 3. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
...and using a bulleted list is an improvement? And what's the problem with "and too many formatting/MOS errors"? Lone Internaut (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
claiming scientists would be devious masons(originally
claiming scientists are masons) is not really encyclopedic. Same with adding the word "clear" to
...that the United States [has] a plan-- it's not necessary, and perhaps not accurate. Finally, common terms and years, such as 2010s, don't need to be wikilinked; see MOS:OVERLINK for more. Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 20:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the Dave FitzGerald who worked with Gus Honeybun wasn't this one. He was this one. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey just wanted to drop a line and thank you again for cleaning up a bunch of the links on my edits to the Withnail and I page. I'm still getting the hang of some of the formatting for edits, etc. Appreciate you taking the time to clean those up for me. Cheers Hinckleycoldstorage (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee, I'm new to the wiki game. Please you could help me understand how i can use the below links to justify the articles notability? Hopefully the below will suffice.
https://themassifcentral.blog/2014/06/25/portrait-of-the-cycling-podcast/ https://www.rapha.cc/gb/en/stories/the-cycling-podcast-rapha https://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph-cycling-podcast/ https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/latestnews/pez-chat-richard-moore/ https://road.cc/content/review/239095-cycling-podcast-journey-through-cycling-year https://inrng.com/2018/07/tour-podcast-reviews/
In particular, this DCMS select committee report https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/36606.htm
Ronnyjowe (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags and placed after each claim made in. Let me know if you have further questions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Thanks for correcting my error on this page. I clicked to revert the bad edit; then for some reason I clicked again and reverted my own edit! A slip of the finger, I guess, or perhaps I thought the first click didn't take for some reason. Whatever, thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Broccoli! I just got back from out of town on a job, and was sitting down to re-read your notes, edits and suggestions for the Credence article I've been working on -- but now I can't find your message. I'm a little rusty with the Wiki, so...er..help! :P Hope you're well. ARD (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Update: Um, I think I found them... (sheepish grin) ARD (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You're a doll. Thank you. I may be back, as my facility with Wiki has evidently eroded to the Jurassic. ARD (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello there I am the creator of the page and I just want to say I personally don't care if the page is deleted or not. I think you would be wrong for deleting the page because the page was created to represent an actual African table tennis tournament that started in 2016 and is held annually. Since you are self claimed Wikipedia editor I think what you should do is help improve the page but then I realized its an African content only Africans care about Africans so am not surprised. The competition is fairly new so there is not a lot of sources that can be cited and I cited the official page from the ITTF website. Since Wikipedia doesn't feed me and I actually have better things to do than to feed my ego of being a Wikipedia editor I won't be wasting any of precious time in discussion something that won't in any way bring any positive growth to me. What am trying to say is that you should help improve the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmoYoruba45 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee, thank you for your review of my new article. I have seen that you proposed that my list should be subject to deletion. I understand that the article is unsourced, which I am working on right now for all of the artists listed. However, I want to add this reference since it is by far the most concrete: https://web.archive.org/web/20151029233354/http://www.lemp-arts.org/fall08_events.php?content=pEvents
In other words, that is the archived list of all past events at the Lemp Neighborhood Arts Center. This venue is in the lore of DIY venues throughout the United States, and especially in Saint Louis. The venue provided a home for Saint Louis' hardcore, indie rock, math rock, and punk scene throughout the 00's. Most importantly, it catalyzed the rise of our city's experimental and noise music scene. Most of the bands and musicians in our city's music scene began at the Lemp.
The reason why I believe the list is important is because it shows all of the variety of touring artists who once operated underground and who had continuously returned back to the venue to perform. Many people that I talk to who used to frequent at the Lemp talk about going to the shows that these bands/musicians had played and seeing them in such an intimate setting. I want the young kids in the city who are just starting to play out to recognize the rich history of our city's underground music scene, and that DIY venues such Radio Cherokee, Spooky Action Palace, Apop Records, Open Lot, and especially the Lemp (which is older than the rest combined), should not be forgotten. -- DrunkenDinosaur (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please explain your rationale for removing my edit on Big Mouth? There is no explanation given, and it seemed like a pretty innocuous (as well as correct) edit that I made. Asc85 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
make up. Just adding
Nick makes up with Connieto the end of the summary without any context is out of place. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help on the Common Courage Press article I created this morning! I appreciate you cleaning up after me. I spend most of my time doing bibliography and I’m still learning how best to write for Wikipedia. I’m paying attention to your critiques and I will learn from them! Just curious, do you have a personal interest in the publisher, or are you just lending a hand? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Would you perhaps recommend the best way I can go about demonstrating the notability of the publisher? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Broccoli and Coffee,
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.
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gohere to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Broccoli and Coffee,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
I've been meaning to tell you for a while how much I appreciate you splitting the HDTGM episodes into a separate page. The main page was getting so unwieldy. Hotironskillet (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Broccoli and Coffee,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)