The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not exactly sure what's supposed to happen now but, as this process seems experimental, thought you'd like to have a fresh example to work upon. Andrew (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, thanks for your post here and being our "test case". Looking over this user's patrol activities, I agree that they are too new to be successful at NPP. I see at least one other spurious CSD nomination, here, in their recent patrols. Both of those articles clearly identified their content; the A1 speedy deletion nomination requires that the article have so little content that it is impossible to identify the subject of the article. User:Kudpung has already posted to their talk page asking for them to stand down; I see they have reviewed two pages since then but hopefully they have received the message. If they start requesting speedy deletions again, the next step would be to bring the issue up at WP:AN to pursue a topic ban. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now I'm under the impression that Wikipedia articles are free for anyone to use and build upon. But if this patroller is trying to use dirty tricks to get my article eliminated, I think we have a problem. Greggens (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Greggens has misstated facts, and a few points of information are in order:
Point #1: the paragraph was deleted from the one article, where it should remain regardless of the presence of another article. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has a policy that prefers that United States Numbered Highways that exist in a single state be over 300 miles in length. This information is still germane to the topic of the system, just like the paragraph in the article about AASHTO's policy preference to eliminate US Highways with letter suffixes. So no matter what happens with this other article, that paragraph should remain where it was.
Point #3: if you want to be hyper-technicall, Greggens violated licensing requirements by not attributing the source of a paragraph he used from another article when he created his list article, but since he is new here, I have not felt a need to correct him on his failure to copy content properly, in part because I probably did the same thing many times when I was new here without knowing it was an issue.
Point #4: being approved through the AfC process does not insulate an article from normal editing processes, including proposing an article be deleted.
Point #5: I did not cite the similarity of a paragraph of text in nominating it for deletion. Rather, I said that the "Topic is not notable for its own article." In addition, I said that "By adding simple notes to the existing list, the information [that some US Highways lie in a single state] is still present in the encyclopedia."
So in short, I have no idea what all the fuss is about, other than the appearance that Greggens is not happy. Above this very edit window, it says,『Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.』There is no term or condition that says his submissions can't be proposed for deletion. Imzadi 1979→09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Greggens, welcome and thanks for bringing your concerns here. I have looked over yours and Imzadi1979's edits, and I really think everyone did their best. I do not see a lot of newpage patrol activity by Imzadi1979, so this seems like more of a "should we have this particular list article about highways" issue. WP:AFD was a reasonable place to have that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The term is archived not "blanked out" As I am sure you must know, the removal of a message from a talk page is allowed and serves as notice to the message writer that the message has been read. WP:TALK "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their owntalk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Rather than direct removal archiving is preferred. (Which is what I did ARCHIVE) Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
WordSeventeen is now blocked for the next month due to some rather onerous behavior. Their refusal above to address the actual issue at hand and instead fixate on a tangential detail appears typical of their recent pattern of deflection. @Aymatth2: I think WordSeventeen's poor (and worsening) CSD nominations are just a symptom of a broader behavioral problem. However, neither NPP nor our page creators should have to suffer for that. After their block expires, I advise WordSeventeen to avoid CSD altogether, and suggest that a single additional rejected nomination would be adequate grounds for any editor propose an indefinite topic ban from page curation, broadly construed. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I would support that. He has been warned several times, in addition to rejected CSD nominations, and went on making dud nominations. This is WP:disruptive editing in my view. We cannot afford the potential loss of new editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I placed a CSD A7 on an article, which the author then removed, and sent the article to AfD saying "let's seek community consensus." Now I'm not interested in changing that outcome, because it will likely be deleted anyway, and if it's shown to be notable, well and good. In general, though, what do you do with an author who ignores the warning and removed a CSD template? Just replacing it seems a little pointy, and could easily degenerate into edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It depends on both the article and the editor. Generally speaking, if the editor is around and removes the speedy tag, it's best to try discussing on talk pages, and/or give them a day or two to fix the article. In this instance, they sent it to AFD, which is fine. On the other hand, if the article is obvious vandalism (something like "Bill Smith is a big Jerk!"), it's not edit warring to replace the tag, and request a block at WP:AIV. But in this instance, it's a short stub about a website, and the editor didn't just remove the speedy tag, but replaced it with a full AFD. There is no problem here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving15:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
At one point the user agreed to stop with the new page patrols [8] but has broken their word and kept on doing them. At other times, their response has just been to blank the notification.
Most recently, they nominated a species article for A1 and A7, in clear violation of the guidelines for both. This editor is clearly acting in good faith, but they appear to lack the experience to be making speedy deletion nominations. Since they have not demonstrated a willingness to stop voluntarily, this requires community action in my opinion. I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at their nominations (possibly an admin so they can review the deleted nominations as well) to see if they agree that a formal topic ban from CSD nominations is the best way to prevent further disruption. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding. I guess I'll start with the species article that you were mentioning. It was clearly an A1 when I glanced at it. When it was not previously redirected by an admin, it only had the body of Small-Scaled Lizard. I was perplexed, so when I Googled it with quotes and what not, as to find the number of search results with purely that within it, [got a whopping 8 results.] The 'lizard' portion of it, and the shortness of the length did not tell me that it was anything more, so I sought to nominate for no context. Surely you can see my reasoning for doing so, as the article had but three words in it (besides the infobox) and even later, the reviewing administrator redirected it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urosaurus_microsculatus&diff=608830088&oldid=608826615
Data-in-transit. I will not contest this one, as it was one month ago (and I would consider this one to be stale) but it was when I thought A7 applied to everything that didn't have a display of significance. I now know this not to be the case, and have taken that to heart. This will remain as just a sole reminder of that for me.
Esviet. Again, this was when I did not know the more obscure workings of speedy deletion. Over one month old. If you go to the page, you will see that it's been deleted by a reviewing administrator under a different speedy deletion criteria. I now know this criteria does not apply to content not in English, and have tagged multiple articles under the {{not english}} template, no longer proposing them for deletion. I acknowledge that this was one again of my more 'learning' mistakes.
Nightwalkin' Again, another learning mistake. I sought to nominate it for an A9, but I was more proficient at nominating articles for an A7. but I thought that it did not assert significance, nor was I aware at that time that there was a notability standard for musicians and bands, which this did clearly have. "Into My Secret" was released as the lead single, peaking at No. 9 on the Hot Dance US charts, as well as Pre-production for Nightwalkin' began in early 1986[2] after Alisha's initial success on the club charts.
Demi Ucok: A mistake of mine for an A7. I did not realize that A7 did not apply to films. If you look at the article, it's but 6 words. You can clearly see why I'd nominate it for an A7, as if it was not a film, it would've qualified. However, I now know that creative works are exempt. I've actually afd'd a recent film because I did not feel it had any notability, and it was deleted under the afd. (after I recently PROD'd it and that was contested. Knew I couldn't replace it so Afd'd.) Here that is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Price_of_Democracy
International Business Project has been speedily deleted under A1 and A7, ironically enough. I'm not sure the circumstances of what I tagged it as, but that is ironically true in this situation.
100_Computing_Lessons I thought was an advertisement for the book series (and if you go to the article now, you can see it still is somewhat advertisement-ey.) 100_Computing_Lessons The A7 category was wrong, but I believe the G11 category was fitting at the time.
Live_at_the_royal_theatre At the point, I saw the user was blocked (using a special userscript which will slash out their name if they're blocked) and saw there was a speedy deletion criteria for it. I believed it was an A7 because from the title, it looked like the name of a show at a theatre, which would qualify it as an organized event, but didn't state why it was significant. The name of it was an album, and it was only in the small text in the infobox that said this.
Whittl Again, another obscure thing, that any indicator of significance, even as small as this, is enough to avoid an A7. The startup is backed by Origin Venture[2], OCA Ventures[3], and Amicus Capital.[4] that means it qualifies past an A7.
Saintseneca I think was another misinterpreted nomination on my part of A7, because of the claim of significance Saintseneca’s latest album Dark Arc was released in April 2014 through ANTI- Records.[3]
The funny thing about having to stop new page patrolling is that I wanted to. I did. However, on FreeRangeFrog's talk page, he told me to continue to do it, but stick to the policies by the word. So that's what started me back into it. I didn't 'break' any promise, as I never made any specific promise to anyone. I said 'for awhile' and that could mean anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreeRangeFrog&oldid=608838537#Request_for_move <- This is where he told me to continue, so I did.
I did not blank the notice, I immediately archived it. It's in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tutelary/Archive_1#Page_patrols The reason why I blanked it is that I had a lot of things happen that week, and the notice on my talk page by you that you were going to pursue a topic ban on me was stressing me out. Here's your exact wording Please take this as a warning - continuing this behavior will result in my pursuing a topic ban to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. I see that you did good on your threat.
Also, I have been deferring in most cases to proposed deletions and tags, per your suggestion. You can view my PROD log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tutelary/PROD_log | You can also see that the articles that I've nominated for afd have been deleted, and if an admin (by some basis of this non binding dispute resolution) manages to go through my deleted contributions, I bet you they would see properly speedied articles. I've nominated attack pages, I've nominated hoax pages, I've nominated all kinds of pages that would warrant advertising. I believe that encompasses everything that you were attempting to portray, so please leave an upcoming message. I have made mistakes with new page patrolling, that is true, but pursuing a topic ban for someone who is nominating the majority of the articles they nominate do actually get speedily deleted I think is in bad taste, but understandable, given the context.
I Doubt it Shes Done A Decent amount of good Patrolling and as she wrote before Most of her CSD Nominations Were Deleted. I don't see why a Topic Ban is needed and even i have done a bit of Blunders myself. I think this is a little Extreme In Short. Dudel250ChatPROD LogCSD Logs00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
I have just written this article and I currently hold autopatrolled status but I would like to ask if a NPP can quickly look over this to ensure the page is acceptable and free from any POV please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems to lack info on the fallout. That was what made it considerably more notable. It only alludes to the withdrawal at the end, tucked away. Happy to chuck in a few facts from the major papers. Rayman60 (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rent A Troop:aproposed deletion can be contested for any reason, including by the page author. Either AfD (if you think it should be deleted) or a merge are possible alternatives. If you encounter a similar situation in the future it might be easiest to simply boldly merge the content into the appropriate parent article, but the AfD path you chose works, too. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this request but I proposed a deletion(not a speedy deletion) of this page with the following comment/concern "There is a Disabled parking permit page with a section for Australia's disabled parking and another page for Parking space. Maybe some of the information from this new article can be moved to the parking space article for a more generalized worldwide view".
However the author insisted not to delete it and responded with the following quote in the edit summary following removal of the proposed deletion tag "Rules are pretty different for Australia. I have saved whatever completed. Planning to improve further. Please do not delete"
I followed up with the author on his talk page with the following comment "While parking is different in Australia, there are Wikipedia pages which have a worldwide view on parking, Parking space, parking, and Disabled parking permit. The Disabled parking permit page already has an inclusion for disability parking for Australia. I think the information you want to include in this encyclopedia would be better suited on those pages. --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015" No response as of yet. Perhaps someone could come in and weigh in on the matter? I think in the future the page would come into use, but there is plenty of space to add its information onto related parking pages --Rent A Troop (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pediped Footwear article
Just read the new Pediped Footwear article. It's a probably notable company and well cited, but written by a copywriter and hopelessly promotional. I've given the editor a COI warning, but should I (or someone else) ask the editor to rewrite and removed promotional material? I don't really have time to do a rewrite and strip back to basic facts right now myself. Blythwood (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@ThePlatypusofDoom: yes, it seems like there has been an uptick in this problem lately. It also seems like patrollers have been more resistant to feedback than I had seen before. Not sure what's causing it or even if the trend is real (compared to my perception). Short term solution is to counsel the individual patrollers; the warning template Template:Uw-hasty has been recently updated to help discourage hasty A7 nominations. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi@AnomieBOT:, @Vinodtiwari2608:, @ThePlatypusofDoom: I improved then moved draft Blockstream to the mainspace and then Vinodtiwari2608 marked it as reviewed. Then AnomieBOT came by re-added the un-reviewed tag (and didn't leave any message on any talk page that I can see). Now the article is marked as un-reviewed since 09:30, 10 April 2016. I recognize that this might be a bot related issue, or maybe user Vinodtiwari2608 was been flagged as a bad actor? (Note, I see nothing on (talk) page). Why else would a bot come by after someone marked a page as read and then re-add the tag? Are there only certain users that are allowed to remove the tag? If this is the case, then I understand it. So I am a little confused what is going on. If this is a bot problem, i wanted to report. Last, I am also wondering if the process of re-adding the un-reviewed tag caused the page to get stuck in some sort of un-reviewed limbo (as normally the review process takes a few hours, and now it is much longer...Maybe it is on a lower page of un-reviewed, somewhat out of the cue) Just wanted to bring these issues to the patrol's attention and maybe you all can evaluate what the issue/issues are.
Thank you! 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs)
@JJMC89: From the timestamps on my watchlist it appears that AnomieBOT dated the template after Vinodtiwari2608 had removed it. Am I incorrect? Thank! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, but this is not the right place to post such a question. The purpose of this noticeboard is to provide "a means to request an informal review of a new page patroller by an uninvolved third party." Assuming that you have done WP:BEFORE, the best place to examine notability would be WP:AfD.- MrX00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Previously, marking a new page as patrolled didn't require any user rights. It was bundled in with the autoconfirmed package, which you automatically receive after 10 edits and 4 days on-site. There were watchlist notices about the RfCs linked above when they were ongoing and they were well-advertised, but perhaps you missed those. ~ Rob13Talk08:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I mostly expand articles, so Tagalog profanity is only the second article I've written. I don't see it clearly stated anywhere (maybe I am blind; if so, apologies), but is the the WP:NPP process applied to all editors, even extended confirmed editors? The first article I wrote, Ako'y may alaga, was patrolled rather quickly. If it is indeed applied to all editors, I'm quite happy to wait, but if it isn't, I'm afraid that the tag at the top of the page will stay there indefinitely because even after discussion at WT:PINOY no editor has removed it. Thank you for your time. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: yes, it applies to all editors that do not have the autopatrolled permission. That tag is there to alert other editors that the article is new; the actual patrol is tracked through metadata. Therefore, if you are pretty confident an article you created is suitable for mainspace, I don't see any issue with you removing the tag yourself while the article is in the patrol queue. In this case, I went ahead and patrolled the article. Thanks for your contributions! VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I see, that page (WP:AUTOPATROLLED) was what I was looking for, I just didn't know the right search terms. I doubt I need that permission right now thanks for answering my question and patrolling the article! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Question on reviewing already CSD-tagged new pages
Hi,
When I'm going through the new page feed I frequently see articles which have been marked for deletion (at any level - CSD, PROD, AfD) either by a reviewer or other editor but the page has not been marked as reviewed. Unless it's really serious (needs escalating to CSD if it's only on PROD or AfD) should I just automatically patrol them as when I add deletion templates through page curation it automatically reviews them? Just checking as it's a way to cut down on the backlog.
Thanks! DrStrausstalk19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is definitely a good idea to patrol AfD. For PROD and CSD I am not so sure: For example, if someone removes the PROD template without addressing the issues, the article is not returned to the unpatrolled state though it likely does not meet our requirements. CSD is no big deal, since they get deleted quickly anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss and Ymblanter: Let's just be sure that everyone understands what is technically meant by 'patrol' in this context: New articles are not indexed by search engines, partly to dissuade spammers, and partly to avoid hoax and attack pages and other junk escaping into the Internet. An article that is 'patrolled' has its NO_INDEX tag removed and is suitable for indexing by Google - even if it is tagged as requiring some minor work still to be done. Pages tagged for any form of deletion do not have their NO_INDEX tags removed but they are shown as 'patrolled' (a misnomer that crept in during the development, and I cannot be bothered to ask the devs to put it right). If the tags are removed then they become open to referencing by the search engines. These are all the reasons why New Page Patrol in any form should only be carried out by accredited New Page Reviewers. Instead every newbie is allowed to tag for deletion or bite new users. In my opinion, an unacceptable situation, but one which the community, especially those who have no experience with NPP and its backlogs, refuses to accept. At this stage, only WP:ACTRIAL is the workable solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
ACTRIAL
Hello everyone,
I suggested a restriction on page creation by non-autoconfirmed users here and it was discussed on one of Wikipedia's IRC channels. It looks as if there is a solid level of support for it, before filing an RfC to revive WP:ACTRIAL, it'd be a good idea to draft the proposal. Should we draft it here or elsewhere? Kudpung - I hope you don't mind me pinging you into this but as you were an initial supporter of the original WP:ACTRIAL I wanted to make sure you see this and can comment on it.
Best, DrStrausstalk19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
EDIT - it's been suggested that I mention this.
EDIT (AGAIN) - if you support this please can you help draft it here.
Support it, DrStrauss? I was the leading mischief-maker behind ACTRIAL. It was designed specifically by The Blade of the Northern Lights, Scottywong, and me by to address the very same situation we now have at NPP. Please read the mini poll WP:The future of NPP and AfCespecially the comment by BU Rob13, ,and you'll understand why ACCTRIAL can be implemented at any time, without a further RfC, and without the intervention of WMF devs. I continue to appeal to people to read the project and work as a team - please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
My 2¢: having read all the material Kudpung referenced, and discussions here and elsewhere I think there is consensus, at least among those of us who do NPP and are engaged at least somewhat on the meta part of this function to implement ACTRIAL in some form. Dr. Strauss' post at VP, while done before I would have liked to see it, does reveal that there would probably be community pushback from implementing a five-year old RfC. I think this needs more discussion and that whatever the next steps, it would be best after the coordinator election when we have a coordinating team and Kudpung isn't just de facto leading the charge himself. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni and Kudpung: as was mentioned at VP, if we can gain consensus, we can legitimately use the blacklist to create an almost identical effect as a Phabricator request. This means that the WMF wouldn't have to get involved unnecessarily. On the point of VP consensus, my interpretation of the messages there is that the consensus is quite clearly for the implementation of WP:ACTRIAL via the blacklist. It could be argued that it would be better to implement this while Kudpung is still coordinator as it makes the job easier for the two replacements coming in. Thanks, DrStrausstalk08:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
EDIT - it looks as if there is only one dissenting opinion there in contrast to all of the others. I cannot think of a better time to implement ACTRIAL than now. The backlog is steadily growing and despite the slight pushdown after the newsletter, it's growing again.
I think we're probably jumping the gun on launching an RfC without a team behind it giving full consideration to the impact it my have. Independent action doesn't always reap the best results and can even have an adverse effect. For one thing, in pure deference only to the few opposers, ACTRIAL asked for a 6-month trial instead of just going ahead with the original consensus. Mechanisms had been set up to control the effect of the trial against pre-trial statistics. This should all be taken into account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
DrStrauss perhaps you haven't read what has been on the top of my talk page in red for nearly a year! And 'If all the year were playing holidays; To sport would be as tedious as to work.' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The article Baltika 0 needs a review by an editor who can read the Russian sources. I suspect it wouldn't pass WP:GNG, but it's impossible to be certain without some Russian language ability. Schwede6604:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Mickael Pariente
This BLP appears to be a promo for an eKindle book author, and may involve a COI based on the edit history. The sources are in Hebrew so I'm unable to verify reliability of publishers, or if all of his work is self-published and he's using WP to market his books. None of the biographical material is cited. Perhaps a speedy is in order or is it best to recruit someone who can verify the sources? Atsme📞📧16:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: I removed some of the most egregious material but I think you are correct that there is some promotionalism/COI here. The sources do not look that good, maybe the videos have something. I have moved the article to draft space, set it up for AFC and notified the author [9]. Jbh Talk17:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
From what I could tell using GTransalte the material in the External links section were book reviews and a couple of blog type pages. The YouTube videos seem to be hosted in the subject's own channel so are copyvios. Maybe the subject is notable but the promotional tone, lack of referenced in the biographical section and the possibility of COI you mentioned makes me think AFC is the least WP:BITE way to go. Jbh Talk17:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
A very helpful person on IRC provided me with a list of the users with the most articles in the backlog. If Kudpung thinks this is a good idea I would suggest we filter in these users as it would be an effective way of slashing the backlog. The list is below.
Once a user has been completed, please put the done template next to them.
Help move iffy new cannabis/marijuana articles to Draft space this month?
April 20th is the primary holiday in cannabis/marijuana culture, so you may be seeing an uptick in cannabis articles this week. If they're not strong enough to stand yet, please consider moving them to Draft space and adding them to the Draft list for our collab so we can improve them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis/Redlinks. Thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey everyone! Sorry I'm super new to this so apologies in advance for any mistakes I might be making by posting here!
I was excited to create articles and contribute and was thinking of what I could write and realized that there were a lot of famous tech people in Silicon Valley that didn't have pages (whereas most sports and music celebrities seemed to have very extensive pages). I created one page and tried to make it as detailed and referenced as I could! (would love any feedback on this)
Someone approved it but I don't think they gave any good comments or did it correctly so I put the needs review back on the page as I wanted good feedback for my first page! How do I request a review of this? I created the stub of my second page and was going to fill it out but I wanted to make sure I was doing it right! Also I read through as much of the documentation as I could find - it was honestly a bit confusing and I'm seeing a couple different methods of page review - the header at the top of the new pages seems to say that any user can just comment on the page and approve it by removing the header, but the new page patrol seems to say that only the specified set of 500 super users can approve pages? Would love any clarification here.
Thanks again for the patience - would love any feedback you have and some help reviewing the page. Thanks again for the help!
Thanks! Also should I check this page for responses or will I be directly messaged? Happy to make any edits I need to - just trying to learn! Feel free to message me any improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraht723 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Saraht723: I reviewed Cameron Ring as I am a patroller. As a regular editor I also removed the banner template. (These are two separate processes.) I noticed that Ring is probably not notable as half the coverage mentioning him is about a murderer whom claimed to be a co-founder of a company Ring actually co-founded (which you left out). If you are at all connected to those subjects, then you would have a conflict of interest. If so, please be sure to state that unambiguously now. Chris Troutman (talk)03:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks for the feedback! Again apologies because it is my first time. To be totally clear: 1. I DO know these people. 2. I WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT hired or paid to do create these articles. 3. I genuinely wanted to contribute to Wikipedia (as I've been using it for many years) and it seemed like this was the way I could best concretely help with my expertise. I read through the conflict of interest and it seemed that as long as I wrote the truth and proved it with references that was a valid process for Wikipedia. As for the cameron ring page, I didn't add that many references yet because I had done a bunch of edits to the previous page and wanted to make sure I was doing it right before I spent a lot of time adding to this one. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in terms of the murderer and claimed cofounder - just did a google search for it and nothing is coming up as far as I can tell. Its a fairly common name - are we talking about the right person? Also especially compared to a LOT of the other people I have seen on Wikipedia he is definitely way more notable. Also just to clarify - I am not Cameron, he did not ask me to write this, and he actually has no idea I started an article about him. Again apologies because its my first time and I'm just trying to put forward a genuine effort (again to reiterate I'm NOT being paid to do these)! and thanks again for the help @@Chris troutman: Also how do I keep it the context of my reply to you and still have line breaks? Haha wish there was a visual editor here! Thanks again!
@Saraht723: I doubt your honesty. The only reason I can imagine that you (a new editor) would post here is because you know you want both of those articles indexed so they show up in search engine results. They both read promotionally. Your claim that you don't know what I'm "talking about in terms of the murderer and claimed cofounder" is evidence of your incompetence or your illiteracy. I didn't use any special tools, just google. If it were up to me I'd have the WMF investigate you, as I'm pretty sure you are a paid editor or at least a fool lacking objectivity. You have what you wanted. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia then try your hand at countervandalism or join a WikiProject to clean up articles. Prove me wrong. Chris Troutman (talk)02:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Okay well I'm a little frustrated at the accusations and insults here but assume that you've had to deal with a lot of fake people who were paid to do stuff. Excited to take you up on your requests to help clean up wikipedia. Can you please point me in the right direction to start? Also PLEASE link me to any articles you see about Cameron Ring being a murder or a fake cofounder of Plaxo. Here are the searches for: "Cameron Ring", "Cameron Ring Plaxo", "Cameron Ring Murderer". I don't see any results pop up at all. Would be completely shocked if that was even remotely true. And I genuinely DO want to contribute, so awaiting your advice. Thanks!
Hi, I hope someone can help me. I've been trying to patrol those tagged for deletion, and that is one of the filter options. However, you need to also tick 'unreviewed pages' to set the filter, and then it comes up with both. How can I look at just pages tagged for deletion and unpatrolled?
I also wondered if there is a way (or a way could be made) to search by category or keyword? That would really help me isolate pages where I have some expertise in the area. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This is incredibly helpful! It might be nice if this was more widely-advertised or (dare I dream) incorporated into the NewPagesFeed filtering tools. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Done
