User talk:Kj cheetham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Benjamin Danielson

Hello! Thank you so much for reviewing and editing my article! I have two quick questions for you (this is my first time creating an article and want to double-check): First, why are "Dr." honorifics removed in Wikipedia articles? Part of my course's goal is to spread information about Uncommon Leaders (underrepresented folks in science/biology) and we would love to include "Dr." honorifics when possible to give our Uncommon Leaders due credit. Second, do you happen to know why my external links do not abide by Wikipedia rules? Thank you SO much in advance! - ACapper (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ACapper, thank you for your message! "Uncommon Leaders" is certainly a noble area to focus on. I personally spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia looking at biographies of women scientists, which no doubt has some overlap! The "Dr" honorifics were removed in order to comply with our Manual of Style, as mentioned in the edit summary for that change. Using the title once is usually okay, but it should not be repeated throughout the article in most cases, as per MOS:DOCTOR. Regarding external links, that article is littered with external links in the body of the article, which goes against point 2 of WP:ELPOINTS. At most the article should have only one or two in the final section, as per WP:EL. Don't forget this is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional piece. I hope that helps? Do feel free to let me know if there is anything else I can help with, and keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is so helpful, thank you so much! I went back and edited to remove the external links (and moved them to a separate section at the end of the page), added more categories, and made it so that the article is no longer an orphan. Would you be able to take another look if you have a moment and see if these changes satisfied the requirements? Thank you for your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACapper (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ACapper, looks okay to me, so I've removed the tags (and an one extra external link!). One thing to note though is also be careful not to wikilink to another article too often, as per MOS:DUPLINK. Just glancing at it, I can see multiple wikilinks to Seattle Children's for instance. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

I appreciate your insight into bibliographic formats. I think you might have added "External Links" tags to several of the pages I manage for cognitive archaeologists. I have deleted some of the external links and removed the tag, only to find the tag reapplied. Rather than continuing the loop (I have deleted links and the tag several times now), could you kindly state here what is wrong with the external links so I can fix them. Thanks! Hazegrae (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hazegrae, thanks for your message. I definitely added some "External links" tags, but I can't remember if I added one to the same page twice. In any case, please take a look at WP:EL and WP:ELNO and other parts of that page. As noted on the tag itself, "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references." Basically, the number of external links should be kept to a minimum, and if you want to cite sources such as journal articles it is better to have them as a proper citation in the text where appropriate. I hope that helps. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't find which article I added the same tag multiple times. Also, I've not checked carefully, but do make sure you do not over rely on primary sources (i.e. those written by the subject) as references, as per WP:PSTS, which is especially important for bios of living people, as per WP:BLPRS. Do keep up the good work creating articles though ! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with Heidi Crebo-Rediker Bio Page

Hello there. Would you mind reviewing/editing the page for Heidi Crebo-Rediker? She is currently a colleague of mine, so I do bring some Wikipedia:CoI, but there remains a factual error and half of the citations currently on her page are from partisan sources like Revolving Door and American Prospect. Another colleague (User:66.44.56.186) and I (User:98.26.34.63) have attempted to correct factual errors and add more information about her professional history, but as good faith as those edits may be, we do carry bias. I want to avoid an edit war with KidAd while honoring Wikipedia's standards of notability and neutrality.

The remaining factual error is that she was not a co-founder of International Capital Strategies. She is, however, the current CEO.

Thank you. --Dkingsmill (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dkingsmill, thanks for your message. Your best option is to avoid editing that article at all, and to propose changes via the talk page using Template:Request edit, which will summon an uninvolved editor. I have added a note about connected contributors to the talk page already, and have corrected the factual error you mentioned, but I've not reviewed the rest of the page. I hope this helps at least! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of minor edits

Thanks for the note you left about what is considered a minor edit. I'm still relatively new at this and figuring things out (like how to use the "talk" pages). I'll make sure I handle this correctly in the future. Just wondering whether there is any way to remove a historical minor edit flag? Or do we just leave what's done stay done?

Thanks again for your help and review of the article. Btipper (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Btipper, thanks for your message. Just leave the historical ones, it's just something to bear in mind for the future. Do let me know if there is anything I can do to help or you get stuck with anything though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Eleri Cousins

Hi there, RE: User talk:Zakhx150#I have unreviewed a page you curated 2, I'm not sure what's going on here. I'm auto-patrolled, so had I also accidentally clicked on the 'reviewed' tab so it looked like I reviewed my own new page? Any issues with the page specifically? Slightly baffled, but welcoming oversight. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zakhx150, I admit I'm not sure what happened there, it wasn't intentional! As you are auto-patrolled, it should have been the case it was automatically marked as reviewed by you. Sorry for any confusion, I'd only meant to add a short description myself. It looks okay to me, so I've marked it as reviewed again. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I'll blame the gremlins in the system. Thanks for the clarification and all your good work. Ta. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Lucy Mensing

Hi, thanks for your welcome greetings and your hints. Best, Qftandsft (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qftandsft. Happy to help. Let me know if you need help with anything in the future. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks you for welcoming me to this wonderful platforms, I noticed the article I created Johfrim Art and Design Studio, is yet to be patroll. Looked forward to a positive outcome. Thank you Bernice2019 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bernice2019, thank you for your message. That article looks okay, I've just done a couple of minor adjustments to it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Kj cheethamThank you for the positive feedback and acknowledgement by reviewing it but noticed is not yet patroll so it will be live on Google Search.Thanks in advance. Bernice2019 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bernice2019, it is patrolled looking at the log - you may need to refresh your browser cache perhaps? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Kj cheetham I have seen you have done it, guess is a technical issues why it hasn't come live on Google yet, cos I have use different browsers and gagget to check. Bernice2019 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bernice2019, Google's indexing is not instant after an article is patrolled. I don't know how long it takes, but you might just need to wait until tomorrow. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Seen now.thank you Bernice2019 (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kj cheetham I just noticed a page similar to mine is just been created on article space Kakofoni Group Gallery , is it possible for it to be redirect or merge to Johfrim Art and Design Studio?Bernice2019 (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bernice2019, I don't really deal with merges/duplicated articles, but I suggest you speak to Theroadislong, who is the editor that approved that second article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

I got carried away. Such important work. I should have left the article to you as it`s not my thing. Could you check the article on Leonore Tiefer for me? I was up to Bibliography. You`ll probably know a book that is relevant. Thank you for calling a halt. Of course, no connection with the person. I will go back to my specialty, Canadian art.Joan arden murray (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joan arden murray, not to worry, it's very easy to drift into a more promotional style of writing rather than a completely neutral encylopedia style! I've seen other people even drift into using Wikipedia as more of a WP:SOAPBOX before. I'll try and read through Leonore Tiefer myself and make some tweaks this week. Keep up the good work though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I made a few last minute corrections but I`m leaving the article to you. I will watch with interest at what you do!Joan arden murray (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Joan arden murray, For interest, one of the things I check is https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Leonore_Tiefer&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 as it's important to not just use phrases from potentially copyrighted sources as per WP:PARAPHRASE. I also try to remove praising adjectives as per WP:PUFFERY. Ideally would also check for not drawing conclusions by combining multiple sources as per WP:SYNTH and the wider WP:NOR. But in practice I'm doing this in my spare time so it'll just be a fairly quick run-through to remove the more obvious WP:PUFFERY by me! Please do free feel to have a go editing further yourself too, especially on the paraphrasing side. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Goodness! What a wonderful tool. I will keep it at hand from now on. My excellent Wikipedia teacher, W.carter in Sweden, never told me but I will save the tool and use it now. Do you happen to know how to get all the references on a subject through cloud? A Wikipedia person told me once and I didn`t realize how handy that would be. Thank you for this!Joan arden murray (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this?:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I've been using Wikipedia on and off for about a decade and I'm still learning! -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits. I've just gone through that article and done a little bit more trimming. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Louis-Pierre Comeau for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis-Pierre Comeau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis-Pierre Comeau until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Jane Setter

I would be most grateful if you would suggest how the article on Jane Setter can be improved so that the BLP tag can be removed. RoachPeter (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi RoachPeter. Just glancing at Jane Setter it probably just needs a reference for the Education section, even if it's to a source already used. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Please, why have you added the BLP tag to my WP page just now? RoachPeter (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Peter Roach (phonetician) article has a similar issue - 3 sections have no references. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now RoachPeter (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks...

Sorry that I don't always remember to add in the Wikiprojects on the talk pages! Thanks for this, and all your help on the articles I am working on. Cheers. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. :) I just tend to keep an eye on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult and the articles with no talk pages appear in red, so it's easy for me to see. Thank you for creating so many articles! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Constance T. Fischer article

Hi Kj cheetham, thanks for reviewing my draft! I recently joined the Women scientists project, let me know if there are any other ways I can help out! Thanks, Coolcactus04 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Coolcactus04, thanks for your message, and welcome to the project! I'd say just keep up the good work and add to things as you come across them. Let me know if you ever get stuck with something though, and hopefully I can at least point you in the right direction. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up behind me lol. I had no idea I was formatting incorrectly, and I think (?) I learned how to use the Google Scholar template properly. I'm trying to look at what you've fixed, but let me know if there is anything else I'm missing! Coolcactus04 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Coolcactus04, you seem to be getting the hang of things. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of London Underground Driving Motor 3701 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article London Underground Driving Motor 3701 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Note this nomnination also covers:

• London Underground Driving Motor 3209
• London Underground Driving Motor 3690
• London Underground Driving Motor 3706
• London Underground Driving Motor 3370

Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Kj cheetham,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Miriam Fritsch

Hello, Kj cheetham. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Miriam Fritsch, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

stubs, or not?

As you have seen, I am poking around in the stubs and expanding on some of them. How do you decide what is and what is not a stub? For example, I agree that Barbara Baker (molecular biologist) provides enough detail to not be stub. However, Farinaz Koushanfar says little about what she does, though it has details on her education and awards. I am happy to remove the stub marker more often (as I have seen you have removed it from a few pages I was working on), I am just looking for some guidance on the metric you use. Cheers. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi DaffodilOcean. I'd say both of those were borderline stub/start class. The official stub guidance is at WP:STUB, with further guidance on classifications at WP:QUALITY, though individual wikiprojects may also have their own assessment criteria. An article that is no longer a stub can still be quite incomplete. The other thing I take into account is some machine learning from ORES. For those two articles, that gives Barbara Baker (molecular biologist) as "Start (53.4%)", and Farinaz Koushanfar as "Start (76.1%)", i.e. more confidence that the latter is "Start".

Personally, I try to ignore things like lists of papers, etc. when considering the length of an article. I tend to only "up-rate" (not sure what the word is) an article if ORES is over 50% in agreement, and my own judgement agrees. In the end, it's a judgement call though. I definitely do sometimes make mistakes too. :) I certainly wouldn't object to Barbara Baker (molecular biologist) being "start" rather than "stub" in it's current state. Sometimes it's also a case of just being WP:BOLD.

Hope that helps? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I also remove stub tags on the main article if a wikiproject has already rated it as "start" or above, or even change the wikiproject ratings myself if need be. Philipp Kircher is one of the last articles I added a stub tag to, as very short, not even an infobox, beyond publications, not split into sections, as it's only a few sentances. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is more complicated than I realized. I was thinking of the 'stub' tags on the main page, not the ratings on the talk page. For example a page can be rated as a stub as you did for Philipp Kircher, but not have a {{stub}} on the bottom of the article. This makes sense. I will keep adding to the pages, remove the {{stub}} tag from the main page if I think it is warranted, but leave it to you to do the ratings on the talk pages. Thanks for your help, and for coming around after the edits I make. It's fun to watch what happens after I am done with a set of edits. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Even stub sorting (WP:STUBSORT) is another complexity I don't get into myself! Lots of people write essays on stubs too, like WP:CL-RULE. I've seen lots of arguments before about why are the article stub tags and the project stub ratings not in sync. Really it's just a bit of a mess and needs literally never ending tidying. I just do what little bits I can and hope for the best. :) Keep up the good work though! If you ever want to get more into wikiproject rating, I can point you in the direction of some tools to help automate it a bit. I've even got it set up so different wikiproject ratings make the article title a different colour so I have some indication without even having to look at the talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not quite ready to getting into rating pages...though I will keep the thought in mind. Cheers. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Miriam Fritsch

Hello, Kj cheetham. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Miriam Fritsch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

the page of Salah Barmada

Hello, May I know why you think Salah Barmada the prominent syrian writer and senior civil servant is not notable? thanks

Hi Lasouhq. Please see WP:BIO. It is not enough to just have references that prove a person existed, and of their works, there also needs to be independant sources, such as reviews of their work, or other people writing about them. This is also outlined on your talk page. Please also do not mark edits as WP:MINOR which are not minor. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kj cheetham thanks for sharing the guidlines, but i didnt create the page of Salah Barmada. And he s notable according to the guidliness you shared. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasouhq (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lasouhq. Once further independant reliable sources have been added, the tag can be removed. Doesn't matter who originally created the article, as it was you who removed the maintenance tags from it without sufficiently addressing them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I need your help, please. I am trying to understand why User:MrsSnoozyTurtle thinks Salah Barmada is not notable, but she is not replying. I read the guidelines and requirements and I think he fits the descriptions of nobility . thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasouhq (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The most WP:BASIC requirement for notability is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salah_Barmada&oldid=1054745575 - sources 7-15 are not independant, as they are his translations. Source 4 is independant, but is not significant coverage. Sources 1,2,3,4,5 are in Arabic and I don't have access to, so can't comment on, and I suspect is the same for many other English-speaking editors. Hence the article being tagged with "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies." is not unfair. My suggestion is to just leave that tag in place, and let a completely different editor remove it in due course. For the other tag, you've said you have no connection to the subject, which I personally have no reason to doubt. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Alice Thompson (musician)

Hello, Kj cheetham. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alice Thompson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century

I don't really understand what you mean with "citations from reliable, independent sources". What is more reliable than a citation of the source itself and more independent from my point of view than a citation out of a prominent review? - As long as I don't understand that, I have no chance to improve the text in a way you approve. --Cethegus (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just so we don't cross wires, I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Transformation_of_the_World:_A_Global_History_of_the_Nineteenth_Century&oldid=1041318710 and draftified it as it didn't appear in a condition suitable for mainspace and only had a single source, and had been untouched since August, so was obviously not being actively worked on. A large portion had previously been removed by Susmuffin. You are welcome to do further work on it and restore it to mainspace. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You may look at the draft now: Draft:The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century. If Jürgen Osterhammel's work is thought to be not relevant. You may destroy it again. I won't protest any more. --Cethegus (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no inherent objections with it being moved back to mainspace now it has content again, but it still seems to contain a large quantity of WP:QUOTES, which is why it was originally trimmed. I didn't destroy the article, I'd only moved it to a draft area. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		For reviewing more than 500 articles during the backlog drive.

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For re-reviewing at least 25 articles during the backlog drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 539 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, glad I could help! -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Emma Shuttleworth

Thanks for your edit please join in the AfD discussion especially if you think this WiR and STEM article needs Keep. Kaybeesquared (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Will do! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Barbara H. Stuart article

Hi Kj cheetham! Hope you're doing well, Happy New Year! I came across the Barbara H. Stuart page on the cleanup list on WP:WOMENSCI. I began making some edits and then realized that it doesn't seem like this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article - they seem like an ordinary professor. I just wanted to get your insight before I added a deletion tag. Thanks! Coolcactus04 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Coolcactus04, happy new year to you too! I've only had a very quick look, but according to her Google Scholar page, she has over 10k citations, which is probably a pass of WP:NPROF. Might also pass WP:NAUTHOR from her books, but I haven't made any attempt to look for reviews, etc. of them. The article has quite poor sourcing as it currently is though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense, I didn't think of it in terms of the numbers. Will definitely keep that in mind moving forward, thanks! Coolcactus04 (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Lex Fridman

I noticed you worked on a draft of Lex Fridman - the article has now been created but could use with some support. If you have the time. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CaffeinAddict, I've only had a quick look, but I would recommend trimming the list of publications in journals as a start. For bio articles where the notability arises of being a scientist under WP:NPROF I tend to recommend 5-10 articles, but in this case the articles matter even less as any indication comes more from something like WP:GNG, as I don't believe it passes WP:NPROF. It might be worth taking a look at WP:NYOUTUBE, but that's not really my area. In general though, I'd recommend moving articles from draftspace to mainspace when publishing, rather than copy/pasting, so as to preserve the history. The number of declines at Draft:Lex_Fridman will only raise questions. It might be that his podcast his more notability than the person himself, but I don't know. More independant sources which give significant coverage of Lex Fridman would be helpful if they exist. Hope that helps at least a bit! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks. 2022alighasemi (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 2022alighasemi, much appreciated! -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Review Req

Hi Cheetham,

Can you review this page? it's in the draft for few months Draft:Emily_Austin_(journalist)--Static Hash (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Static Hash, sorry, I'm not an WP:AFC reviewer, and as part of my WP:NPP work I tend to mostly just look at scientists/engineers. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Review Request Gail Carpenter

A few years ago you rated the Gail Carpenter article as a stub. I recently added some more material and references. I see it at at least C but maybe ready for the B rating. Can you please review that article once again? Thanks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jrcrin001, thank you for your message. I'd say it's a solid C at the moment personally. I've just done a bit of tidying up to it, but the "Academic acknowledgements" needs some more work, and I've not looked at the sourcing of the article overall, which is probably the other area that would also need improvement before I'd be looking at classing it as a "B". I'd also be looking for more details on the subject's life, not just her work. More seriously though, you need to make sure you use your own words, as parts of it seem to be copied from copyrighted sources potentially, take a look at https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Gail_Carpenter&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 for the analysis. Also for interest, you don't need to use br HTML tags for a new line on Wikipedia. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories

Sorry for removing the catimprove template on Linda M. Morra, I'm not really certain how many cats an article needs before it's considered the normal or acceptable amount. Does that template get an article placed on a list somewhere where the category gnomes dwell? Thanks for your edits to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on it, but I tend to aim for 5 or more for biographical articles. They get added to the list at Category:Articles needing additional categories with that template. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

	Alexandian award
	Thanks for your efforts to categorise and assess so many articles. I hereby grant you the completely made up award that has an artist's impression of the library of Alexandria in it, because that seems like the sort of thing a librarian would appreciate. I hope you do. CT55555 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi CT55555. Thank you for that, that's very kind of you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!!! MsMisinformation (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Another thank you (since I managed to post it first to myself): Hello KJ cheetham--thank you for that clarification. I was thinking that my edit was an explication of the entry, hence my understanding of it as minor. I will keep this in mind. Appreciatively yours Zamboni54 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zamboni54, thanks for your message. I saw your first reply on your talk page too. I normally watch someone's talk page for 7 days after leaving a message in an effort not to miss things. Do feel free to ask if anything else I can help with in the future though. Keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank-you for your welcome message. I had forgotten about signing off with tildes, the reminder is appreciated, thank you. I hope you have an incredibly awesome first of May beautiful day.

MsMisinformation (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC) MsMisinformation.

Hi MsMisinformation, thank you for message, and I hope you have a great 1st May too! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for removal of content

Hi Kj cheetham
You've been so helpful before, and I wasn't sure where to direct a request I've received by e-mail. In the page/entry about the British musician and composer, Nick Phoenix, his management has contacted me on behalf of the artist himself, with a sincere wish/request that we edit details in his 'personal life' tab. In 2015 Nick lost his son to a driver, fleeing the police in a stolen car. Phoenix don't mind we mention his son at all. After all his album 'Vanquished' (Two Steps From Hell) was dedicated to his dead son. But, he finds the description too graphical and hurtful. What to do here? Can I accommodate such a wish? Do we need to state the son (Jack) was decapitated in the accident? What is WP's policies about this?
Please advise :) Cheers, Kmilling (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kmilling, I've just been WP:BOLD and removed a few words about it. Given the article is about Nick rather than his son, it doesn't need much detail. If people visiting the article want more detail they can go look at the source which is referenced. I hope this will be okay. Could remove another few words if need be, but I'd be inclined to say his son should be mentioned, given it impacted his work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Kj cheetham, I'll send a reply to Nick Phoenix' people, asking them to give the entry in question another look now. Thank you so much for your help. It gives me great comfort and confidence to know, that there's always someone like you I, as a contributor, can ask :) Have a wonderful day, Kmilling (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad I could help Kmilling, have a wonderful day yourself too! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops

I think we managed to move-conflict at Lembke. DanCherek (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

DanCherek Just noticed that, confused me what was happening! Shall I just back off and leave you to fix it? Think we did a 360 degree swap. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. Gimme a sec... DanCherek (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't want to just go ahead and do it myself in case we did exactly the same again. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got everything. Thanks!! DanCherek (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome - help!

.. trying to edit profile, but actionable clicks greyed out.

Text blinker shows in profile edit page, for me user:jasonbrown1965 ?

Signed in, but typing into text box does nothing, just a slow blinking cursor, staying exactly where it already is lol

Yes, logged in haha

Tried a few times but no luck so far - my wiki handle looks kinda stink with no profile

Tried private tab (no plugins)

Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jasonbrown1965, thanks for your message! Did you manage to get it sorted out in the end, as it looks like you've since edited User:Jasonbrown1965. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - kinda, i think?

Must have been more of a connectivity issue.

Thanks for the check up! Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Overly Detailed

Hi, I had written the article on Jessica Hua and I am currently new to this. Can you expand on what is too detailed in my article? Is it the research section which each topic she studies or the outreach section with past outreach? I just took out some info on the grants section. I can condense those areas but I just want to make sure it was those sections you may have been thinking of as having too many details. Thanks! Rose2720 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose2720 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rose2720, thanks for your message. In my opinion it's quite a few sections that are overly detailed. For instance, Jessica_Hua#Teaching isn't really enyclopedic material - not many would be interested in individual university modules outside of the university, that's just run of the mill. It could be cut down to a single sentance saying she currently teaches courses on biology and ecology. A lot of what is covered regarding references 12 to 15 could be cut down, as it's just material from her website. Do you have secondary sources to back-up that material being included in that level of detail? I'd personally cut all the questions that are quoted from the website. Hope this helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Rose2720 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Main thing to remember is Wikipedia is an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA with an international audience rather than a university webpage. Any problems though, let me know! Keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kj cheetham, am I able to remove the flag at this point or is there more I should do to condense the sections? Please let me know. And thank you for all the help. Rose2720 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rose2720, I'm happy for you to remove it, the article is better than it was. The article does probably still need some more WP:SECONDARY (i.e. not published by Jessica Hua or places she works) sources to help show notability, but that's a different issue. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate the feedback. Rose2720 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Kj cheetham,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 819 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Catharina Klein

I am just curious: Who exactly rated the article? Best regards, Schnurrikowski (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Schnurrikowski. I did. Do you disagree with the rating? -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work" Further work is required here? What kind of work? Best regards, Schnurrikowski (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

One very minor thing would be to just use the WP:SURNAME. If you want to take the article to Good Article status I suggest taking a look at WP:GAN and requesting a proper review, which is not something I do. "B" is the highest rating I personally tend to give articles. Hope that helps. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Best regards, Schnurrikowski (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Martin Barnes (Engineer)

Dear Kj cheetham, thank you for looking at the article on Martin Barnes (Engineer). Please review the history of this article: its unedited over-reliance on the APM article which you have high highlighted has already been raised as an issue and resolved. Can you please remove the {{copypaste}} tag? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi BobKilcoyne. It may be better than it used to be, but I'm not convinced the issue is completely resolved based on https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Martin_Barnes_(Engineer)&url=https://www.apm.org.uk/news/a-tribute-to-apm-founder-dr-martin-barnes-cbe/. There are some direct quotes, but outside of them there is still some direct copying/paraphrasing. As a compromise I've changed the tag to a paraphrasing one. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Amanda Bradford

Hi Kj cheetham, thank you for editing the article on Amanda Bradford. You said that there was too many references to ResearchGate, however, I don't think that there was any in there. Megvdb4 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Megvdb4

Hi Megvdb4, glancing at the current version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Bradford&oldid=1089836671), references 8,9,10,11,20,22,31,32 are all links to ResearchGate. That could be resolved by simplying taking out the url parameter though. The DOI link is sufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve

Hello -Kj cheetham

I replied to your query regarding WP: CommonName on a page moving request. Sathyamangalam Wildlife Sanctuary page to Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve. Same was published to the best of my understanding. When i checked again to see if you had any other query. I notice that my reply is missing on the page. How do I go about it?

Thanks in advance.

22mukil (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi 22mukil, thanks for your message. Your message was removed from that page because I've already done the move to Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve. I hope that's okay. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

An Articles Needed Page?

Hi. I was wondering if there is some sort of page where all the red links of Wikipedia appear. Like a page that collects data about all the red links and how many times the said red links have been linked in other pages? Or may be some other page that lists the most needed articles on Wikipedia?

Hi HRShami, I think what you want is WP:WANTED, though there's also pages like Special:WantedPages and WP:REQUEST. Some WikiProjects also have lists of red links on more specific topics. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go through these.HRShami (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Contesting technical move requests

Hi, Kj cheetham! I would like to remind you to please move any technical move requests that you are disputing in WP:RM/TR from the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section to the "Contested technical requests" section, as instructed in the page notice. I've already moved two requests that you have contested for you. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mellohi, thank you for your message. Apologies, I hadn't meant to contest them immediately and was only asking questions, and planned to move them to contested if nothing happened within a couple of days. However I had forgotten to ping the request, something I admit I've forgotten more than once now! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirection request

Hello. Can I ask you to create the page Solway Investment Group as a redirection to Solway Group?

I am not able to create it myself and do not know where to ask. Thanks in advance and best wishes,

Syni - Daca - Dicy - Oups (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

Hi Syni - Daca - Dicy - Oups - done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.!

Greetings.!

Thank you so much for your valuable time in reviewing and editing some of the articles that I have recently created.! It adds a great value.! Thanks & regards, Thirukannan (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thirukannan, thank you for your message, glad I could help! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Encanto

To answer your question (since that talk page discussion has been closed), wbm1058 previously helped out with a botched page move attempt, so it made sense to just ping them instead of posting at WP:RM/T. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you be able to assess some articles for me?

I notice you've been doing a lot of article assessments recently, and I have a few articles that haven't been assessed for a while. Would you be interested in doing that?

• Exotic and Unusual Fishes of North America - Television documentary series
• Daniel Madzimbamuto - Zimbabwean / Rhodesian activist
• Trilby, or the Fairy of Argyll - 19th century French novella
• Tina Machado - businesswoman and beauty pageant winner
• Fredrick Brennan - computer developer with brittle bone disease; it was marked in 2014, but it's grown several fold since then
• Inna Derusova - Ukrainian military medic. This one has been assessed, but at two different ratings, /
• 7 Wonders Museum - creationist museum. This one has also been assessed at two different ratings, /

Thank you. While I know that assessments may not be of earthshaking importance to readers, they are an encouragement for me to write better articles! --GRuban (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, thanks for your message. I don't normally assess television series, but I've taken a look at a few of the others and revised some of the ratings. I hope this helps! Keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Kj cheetham,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11202 articles, as of 22:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheongpyeong Dam

Hi, I noticed you tagged the article I created with {{one source}}. It's true, the article (sv.wiki) I used for the translation had some sources, unfortunately they were broken links to NASA website about the climate of the zone around the dam.--Carnby (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Carnby, thanks for your message. Hopefully someone else will notice the tag and find some further sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hill End Colliery fire

Hi Kj cheetham,

Thanks for your message regarding the review of this article. I have split the the article into sections, as suggested.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi TrimmerinWiki, thanks for letting me know. I've now removed the tag. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Reshma Kewalramani

Hi Kj Cheetham. I recently posted an edit request on Talk:Reshma Kewalramani, the CEO of Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Since you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists, I thought you might be interested in helping out with that request, which is just a simple update to Kewalramani's "Boards and awards" section. Thanks so much. JohnDatVertex (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi JohnDatVertex, I admit sometimes I think including just being included in various lists of people by other organisations is almost a bit of WP:PROMO rather than an actual award, but I'd done your request. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Orit Peleg

Please check this out - I think the notability tag should be removed. Talk:Orit Peleg#Notability ProfessorCuprous (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi ProfessorCuprous, I'll take a look. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Ejiama

Hi Kj Cheetham, Thanks for the review on the page. I have added more categories. Let me know if there's anymore suggestion you would like me to update otherwise, I think the notability tag should be removed. Happy to keep learning as I move forward. Kind Regards Oceanview1590 (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oceanview1590 thanks for your message. I've taken off the tag about categories on Sarah Ejiama, but I also removed the journal category as the subject isn't a journal. I still feel there is an issue of MOS:OVERLINK, as words like "research" don't warrant a wikilink. Words like "melanoma" do warrant a wikilink, but only once, not every time it occurs. Regard notability, can you point me to the WP:THREE most important independant sources that cover the subject? As I don't think the subject is a pass of WP:NPROF, but might be notable under WP:GNG. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Rather than Category:University of Manchester, perhaps Category:People associated with the University of Manchester is more appropriate? Similar with other universities. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have fixed the issue of MOS:OVERLINK, I only linked 'research' once and unlinked the rest. I also unlinked the word 'Melanoma'. The WP:THREE for the subject are: https://abstracts.ncri.org.uk/abstract/ultraviolet-radiation-accelerates-braf-driven-melanomagenesis-by-targeting-tp53-3/

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/paradox-breaking-raf-inhibitors-that-also-target-src-are-effectiv/persons/

https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v511y2014i7510d10.1038_nature13298.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714100342.htm

As you will observe above, I shared 4 instead. The subject passes WP:NPROF notability. I will appreciate if you could kindly remove the notability tag. I have also removed the removed the category: University of Manchester and will replace it subsequently with the Cat as advised above.

Kind Regards Oceanview1590 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Those two words were just examples, that applies to all the other wikilinks too - should only be one wikilink per word in the main text typically as per MOS:LINKONCE. The cat change also applies to the other universities too. For the sources, the first 3 you gave are papers where the subject is a co-author, and hence not independant. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714100342.htm is more indepedant, but doesn't talk about Sarah Ejiama at all. So I'm still not convinced about the notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Noted as regards the links. will update again as required. Thanks. I appreciate your concern regarding the subject. The subject as clearly stated in the article is a 'Research Assistant' that does most of the research works like a paralegal in a law firm if am to use this analogy. Most of the articles the subject contributed are worked they carried out within the Molecular Oncology team lab for their Director - Richard Marais which needs to be recognised. As regards the independent source - Sciencedaily above, the subject Sarah Ejiama is also one of the authors of that paper if you scroll down. From scientific perspective, you don't just have your name added to a paper publication if you haven't contributed to a reasonable amount. If you search some of the publications, you will also see - Richard Marais also a co-author together with the subject. Also the subject worked with Makoto Furutani-Seiki as one of his students. I hope this helps to clarify things for you. Cheers Oceanview1590 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm aware of how paper publishing works, given I have an academic background myself. However to show notability on Wikipedia there is a need for significant coverage independant of the subject, as per WP:GNG, though WP:NPROF is an alternative route to showing notability, through large numbers of citations, being head of a major journal or university, being a named chair, etc. Working with Makoto Furutani-Seiki doesn't count for noability, as it's not WP:INHERITED. If there aren't more independant sources I'll probably take it to WP:AFD to get a wider concensus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Let's not go that route for now as this is all about having a clear understanding of all the areas covered. I appreciate that you have an academic background and also I haven't mentioned that working with Makoto Furautani-Seiki makes subject notable or not notable. The subject has clearly co-authored couple of papers involving Cancer and Melanoma; and definitely this should be recognised as a form of contribution towards notability judging all the reliable sources that published their work. Also from my understanding I have managed to research a lot of publications to support the article and also researching for more. Maybe am missing something here, I didn't realise that being co-authored in different articles doesn't make up as contribution in the area of science? Definitely the amount of work carried out by the subject has helped informed work in this field of science regardless if this subject has a standalone paper by herself?

Finally, I used the advisors above as an analogy but not to justify that the notability has to be inherited or transferred. Thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have another look tomorrow, but any papers written by the subject don't count for notability at all. What counts is other people referring to them. This isn't about contributions to science, it's about the impact their contributions had. Journals that publish the subject's work may be reliable, but articles by the subject or their institution about them are not independant. Simply getting citations is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for academics, hence there is a need for things like significant review articles of their work, or large numbers of citations that go beyond what would be expected by their peers, otherwise I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. You said "Definitely the amount of work carried out by the subject has helped informed work in this field" - do you have independant sources to support that statement? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I did a bit of more research on the subject and most of the work are still co-authored which you did mentioned that's not amounting to notability and I would agree that it's WP:TOOSOON Even this publication with others - https://abstracts.ncri.org.uk/abstract/pan-raf-inhibitor-active-in-melanomas-that-are-resistant-to-braf-or-braf-mek-inhibitor-combinations-4/ I found mentioned their work but it looks like this justification won't support the much wider argument of reasons why the page should be deleted, so I am happy for you to take the page down as its a learning curve for me. Thank you! Oceanview1590 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That link is just for a poster, which definitely doesn't count for notablity - I'd expect literally any research student to make posters from time to time. As mentioned before, need other people writing about her to show impact (i.e. seconary sources). Absolutely anything she's involved with writing herself is likely a WP:PRIMARY source. The AFD discussion typically is left to run for 7 days before it's closed and the article potentially deleted, in any case anyone else comes up with a compelling argument to keep it, which in this case I doubt. I'm glad it's a learning experience though! Do always feel free to get in touch if anything I can help with in the future. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Ashcraft notability tag

Thank you for the edits to the Thomas Ashcraft page! Regarding the notability tag, Ashcraft's work documenting atmospheric "sprites" (aka transient luminous events) is unusual, and has been the subject of independent articles in the New York Times <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/science/on-the-hunt-for-a-sprite-on-a-midsummers-night.html>, WIRED <https://www.wired.com/2013/07/transient-luminous-events/>, and the Santa Fe New Mexican, which is the paper of record for Santa Fe NM <https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/citizen-scientist-driven-by-the-need-to-discover/article_ef9e2a1c-07eb-11eb-895e-532df1d8b495.html>. He is a citizen scientist contributor to NASA <https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/people/488/thomas-ashcraft/> and his images have been featured on NASA's "Astronomy Picture of the Day" blog <https://apod.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search>. It's true Ashcraft's h-index isn't high-- I wasn't looking at the NPROF guidelines for notability (just the regular WP:Notability page).

Regarding orphan status, I would like to address this issue by linking to the Thomas Ashcraft page from the existing WP Sprite LIghtning page <Sprite (lightning)>, and post images from Ashcraft's observatory as a contribution to the sprite page. If I obtained Ashcraft's permission to share the image(s) as CCO on wikipedia, would this be ok? Would I need to document the permission? Any advice you have on how to obtain permission for image posting without violating any WP rules would be much appreciated.

Thank you for deleting the section of the bio/education that was not sourced properly. Sorry about that.

Thank you -- Jendo JendoCalryssian (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi JendoCalryssian, thank you for your message! To clarify though, I think I all did was add the orphan tag, it was Justlettersandnumbers who did the other edits you're referring to. If you can link to Thomas Ashcraft from Sprite (lightning) appropriately then go for it. I don't really deal much with images I'm afraid, but I recommend taking a look at WP:UPIMAGE. Hope that helps!

Looking at the sources you just mentioned: the first 2 I don't seem to have access to, but contribution to the NASA website wouldn't count towards notability as they are then a WP:PRIMARY source. https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/citizen-scientist-driven-by-the-need-to-discover/article_ef9e2a1c-07eb-11eb-895e-532df1d8b495.html looks good for contributing to WP:GNG though, so might be notable under that - I'll leave to someone else to assess though. It's probably worth you asking Justlettersandnumbers on their talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah-- you're right! Sorry for the confusion on my part. I'll reply to Justlettersandnumbers about the non-orphan edits. Thank you for the link to WP:UPIMAGE. I'll check it out and hit up the teahouse for any further clarification. JendoCalryssian (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Fiona Maddocks

Kj cheetham, demoting to C class is rather pointless; I essentially used all information available on the eb on Maddocks in the article, so I have no idea where your unexplained rationale came from. In addition, it took me ~30 seconds to add more categories; thus, if you're going to add tags in the future, please consider whether they are actually helpful ones, are if they are ones you can address yourself. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed that page as part of WP:NPP and I was not familar enough with the relavent categories to add them myself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Bazzi

I have tried to significantly improved Draft:Ahmad Bazzi. Could you please be kind enough to have a look at it and let me know if it is ready for publishing or not? Thank you. Jaritensi (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jaritensi, thank you for your message. Firstly, given someone had put a {{Undisclosed paid}} on that article previously, can you confirm if you have any connections to Ahmad Bazzi at all? In any case, which clause of WP:NPROF would you say is most relavent to show notability? As his citation count is very low, publishing papers or acting as a reviewer for journals/conferences don't show notability, and neither does publishing patents or being nominated for a "best paper" award. What are the best WP:THREE independant sources that talk about Ahmad Bazzi? It sounds to me like he's still a post-doc who finished their PhD 5 years ago, which would be much much WP:TOOSOON usually. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP Drive award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This award is given to Kj cheetham for 506 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. .Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, glad I could help out! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Authority Control

I see you fixing up articles that I started, thanks. Am I doing something wrong with the Authority Control template? CT55555 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi CT55555, for Tima Kurdi at least I just moved it slightly lower down on the page to better comply with MOS:SO so it wasn't in the References section. Can't remember which other articles I've edited recently, but the reasoning is probably similar, or the template was just missing on a bio article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

please do not tamper

i have undone your corrections because it needs to be as clean as published by me, contact me before making any changes Phwriter20 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Phwriter20 thank you for your message. Please note that you do not WP:OWN any articles on Wikipedia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

but i just published this article not up to an hour, so i will make changes when necessary Phwriter20 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That was part of New Page Patrol. In any case, looking a bit closer, it probably needs more work before it is published to mainspace. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Kj cheetham,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hello sir, I've created two articles, Sruthy Sithara, who is the title winner of Miss Trans Global and Heidi Saadiya, she is the first transgender journalist from Kerala. Both of them are notable and passes WP:GNG. Could you please go through the article? Thank you Imperfect Boy (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit late to come here after twice ignoring advice to leave these in draft space. Deb (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Imperfect Boy, I can't see the articles as they have since been deleted, so can't comment on them, but Deb is an experienced editor who deleted them as per WP:SPEEDY under criteria WP:A7. I trust their judgement that they mustn't have been notable enough for Wikipedia. If you're not familar with how Wikipedia defines notabilty I suggested looking at WP:N. In the future you might want to submit articles to WP:AFC rather than moving them direcly into mainspace. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But you assessed Sruthy sithara Last day. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I look at a lot of articles and don't remember that one in particular. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kj cheetham

Thank you for creating Agnes Fogo.

User:Ovinus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Likely pass of WP:NPROF#C7 through presidency at International Society of Nephrology, and arguably through WP:NPROF#C1a (high citation counts in Google Scholar, although most papers have many co-authors)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ovinus}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ovinus (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Thank you for your comments! I was also thinking probably C5 given the named professorship. Hopefully some secondary sources are able to be found in due course. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hehe. WP:NPROF is one of those interesting notability guidelines that is seemingly only understood by a few AfD regulars, and one which many people forget supplements the GNG. Glad that you're keeping it in mind; I always hate AfDing earnestly made articles on academics. Talk:David M. Nisson is a recent example. Ovinus (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also glad you're aware of it. :) David M. Nisson looks like a nice article, just unfortunately probably not for Wikipedia unless someone finds some additional sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Astra

Sorry, I had already done the move before you raised a query about the disambiguator at WP:RM/TR. I did consider "spaceflight company", but realised that's not unique on Astra as there's also SES Astra. I didn't think of just "American company" so maybe that could be an option if you think it's better. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru No worries. It's not something I feel strongly about. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Help!

Hi please help me in Kianoush Nikkhah Kouchaksaraei article. Please safe This article Because Its important Person. Thanks Rastinrah (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Rastinrah, thank you for your message. I'm not really sure how they are WP:NOTABLE without digging into it, especially when I can't read Persian/Turkish sources without machine translation. You may wish to ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. The key thing is having significant WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE sources, i.e. not those written by the subject. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am completely confident in writing this article. He is a very famous and important person. The article is definitely not in vain.

Persian name: کیانوش نیکخواه Rastinrah (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan A. Krane

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out with this article on Jonathan A. Krane that you reviewed a few months ago, someone moved it to the draft space, Draft:Jonathan A. Krane, and I am having a hard time moving it out! I feel like its notable and has some good significant reliable independent sources, but i could be wrong? Let me know what you think, Thank you. Seigerman (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Seigerman, thank you for your message. I suspect I originally viewed that as part of WP:NPP, so it was more to check what state the article was in rather than a proper review of notability. I'm assuming you have no connection and hence no WP:COI to the subject? Looking at the sources on the current version:

1. clearly primary, doesn't count for notability

2. primary

3. interview, so mostly primary

4. behind a paywall, so I can't read it - but I'm guessing it's more about the company than the person?

5. not independant

6. just a quote? not significant coverage

7. not significant coverage

8. primary

9. little bit of coverage, but primarily quotes

10. about KraneShares, not the person

11. behind a paywall, again can't read it - but again guessing it's more about Krane Funds Advisors than the person?

12. this is independant, but mostly about the company, not the person

13. primary (the subject is a host)

14. primary (the subject is a speaker)

15. primary (the subject wrote it)

I've not gone looking for sources as per a WP:BEFORE, but based on the article as in I'm struggling to see how they meet WP:GNG given the lack of significant independant sources. Which WP:THREE independant sources would you say give the most significant coverage of the person? It sounds like KraneShares (which I've not reviewed) might be more notable than Jonathan Krane as an individual. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop these nonesensing

First of all you just stop editing my suggestions editing in Ambedkar Makkal iyakam stop this nonsense if you are don't stop it then your ID will I request you to block your ID I have the copyrights of Ambedkar Makkal Iyakkam so just stop this nonsensing. SanjayMurugesan2221 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have copyrights of Ambedkar Makkal Iyakkam then that's a clear case of conflict of interest (WP:COI) and you probably shouldn't be editing that page at all beyond requesting edits on the talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award

		The New Page Reviewer Bronze Award
		For over 1,000 article reviews during 2021. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• MPGuy2824 Thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Page move

Hi @Kj cheetham, the request was removed, but I wanted to say that you're right about Fata Morgana being written with two capital letters. If you're still fine with that, please move the page per WP:BROADCONCEPT. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi PhotographyEdits, given it was cleared from the technical move requests page by an admin, I'd say it should go through a full WP:RM process as per WP:PCM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Newbery Sturrock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Robertson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Moran people

Ah, sorry I reverted the wrong edits! Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chaipau, not to worry, easily fixed. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Kj cheetham,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

New Article

Please Sir, I created an article, on Draft: Aniebiet Inyang Ntui, who is the Most Read Researcher in Nigeria, the article is notable and passes under WP:NPROF. Could you please go through the article again, you earlier dropped a comment on it? Thank you

ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi ElontheWikiEditor, thank you for your message. I'm not an AFC reviewer, so I'll leave it to someone else to process, but just glancing at it I'm not sure how notable they actually are. Which criteria of WP:NPROF do you think is most appropriate? The only comment I'd left on the article was because I was unsure myself about "Fellow of International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions". -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think she qualifies under WP:NPROF critera 3 Fellow of of the Selwyn College (<100 Fellows) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Also as the most read researcher in Nigeria.

Cheers! ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it's sufficient, but will see what the AFC reviewers say. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2020

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2020. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, thank you, glad I could help out! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Biography pages

Hello! I am magnolia321 and I have recently been working on making and editing biographical pages on wikipedia. I am doing this in conjunction with an organization called HGAPS. This organization is dedicated to making evidence-based psychological information free and accessible to all. The current biographical pages our team is working on are all leading researchers in psychology. We specifically chose to create pages on women and minority psychologists. I have recently noticed the pages we have created have drawn the attention of experienced editors, and you were someone that stood out to us. Your critiques were very helpful in understanding what we needed to improve to make the page of better quality and to meet wiki standards. Based on your recent activity on the pages, we were hoping to propose a collaboration with you. We want to add more biographies of psychological leaders in the future, specifically those of minority backgrounds. With your help to guide us, we can keep the pages to wiki standards. We would love to hear your thoughts about this collaboration!

Thank you again for the feedback on our pages :)) Magnolia321 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia321 thank you for your message and for reaching out for me! I am very interested in biographical articles - though I don't write a lot of content myself for them, I have looked over 1000s. I am also especially interested in women and minority academics without sacrificing our WP:NOTABILITY standards. I'd be very happy to offer any advice/consultation on any articles you want to create. I am a new page patroller (WP:NPP), but not really involved with the optional articles for creation creation process (WP:AFC).

I had a look at some of your recent edits, and Anna Van Meter caught my eye. I wanted to flag that given they are president of HGAPS you technically have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) with them, so I've added a connected contributor tag to that article's talk page and would recommend you propose any edits using the {{request edit}} template in the future. Any future articles you create where there is a potential COI would need to be declared and should go through the AFC process so an unvolved editor can review them, rather than moving them to mainspace directly yourself.

In terms of other general suggestions just to bear in mind off the top of my head:

• Avoid too many links in the External Links section as per WP:ELNO
• Avoid too many selected publications (I generally say absolute max of 10, but even that's pushing it at times) to avoid it being an WP:EXAMPLEFARM
• Consider use of the {{doi}} template rather than just a straight URL
• Be careful to not rely solely on WP:PRIMARY sources as references (though effectively can do it notability is through WP:NPROF), as per WP:PSTS
• Remember that early career awards don't really count towards notability
• {{Infobox academic}} is better than {{Infobox person}} for biographies you're interested in I think
• Avoid too much WP:PARAPHRASING or even copying phrases from copyrighted courses, content needs to be in your own words if not a direct quote, e.g. for Andres De Los Reyes comparing it existing sources there is too much similar text, as can be seen at https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Andres_De_Los_Reyes&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1

I'm happy to discuss further. I am only a volunteer so aren't interested in any kind of formal collaboration, but always happy to help informally. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Kj cheetham!

Totally understand where you are coming from with the WP:COI and will see what our group thinks of that. We would love any help, formal or informal, as we progress with this project. Many on our team have little wiki experience and I, myself, am relatively new to wiki but I am among those that know the most in our group (Hence why you see me on pretty much all the pages).

I can relay this current information to our team (which is very helpful thank you!) and see what are some upcoming projects we have to keep you updated. I also plan on implementing a completion mechanism to the pages to let editors know our current stance with the page. How helpful would you find this?

Thank you for the offer to help and valuable feedback! Magnolia321 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia321, COI is something that's very important to be aware of, and WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI is perhaps an easier to follow guide for some people with less experience. Unfortunately Wikipedia does have a lot of policies and guidelines and essays, etc. for how things work behind the scenes. It's taken me years to get to grips with some things and I'm still learning. I'm always happy to answer any questions I can though, or at least point people in the right direction. I'm not sure what you mean by a "completion mechanism"? I'm also assuming everyone editing has their own separate accounts, as WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs aren't allowed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again Kj cheetham!

Yes, we absolutely have separate accounts. Besides wiki guidelines, it would be a lot of work to keep up with multiple people on one account. When I say 'we' at any point, it is because I am speaking on behalf of others in my group HGAPS as I don't want to exclude them (As in saying I did this or that when it was the work of a lot of different and valuable people on our team). As I wish to gain more experience on the wiki platform, I would appreciate any kind of help, especially on wiki guidelines, as we move forward with our plans for more pages in the future. Any way we can give more content on wiki that is within the present policies but also sharing the important voices of women and minorities for free accessibility is our goal. I will share the WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI with the team now to see what we can do about our current pages and what planning we can do moving forward. Magnolia321 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I posted without even addressing another thing in your reply, so sorry!

When I say 'completion mechanism,' I mean templates that give the current status of completion on the page. For instance, something that says "this page is a work in progress" or "this page is currently {some percentage} completed." I apologize for the confusion and hope that is a better explanation! Magnolia321 (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia321 I'm not sure such a mechanism would be overly helpful to be honest. There is already the concept of draftspace, articles can be tagged as being worked on if need be (e.g. Template:In use), and WikiProjects already have a rating scales (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality scale). Wikipedia is a work is progress as policy, and will always be WP:IMPERFECT. For creating new articles, if there is potential COI, WP:AFC is the route to go, rather than moving directly into mainspace yourselves. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sundrum Castle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sundrum Castle 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hog Farm. This is my first ever GA submission, so I may need a bit of extra guidance when it comes to responding to your review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've left a series of start comments. Hog Farm _Talk 02:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you ready for me to go back through, or are you still waiting for resolution on the ScotsClans source? Hog Farm _Talk 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm I'll have another look at it later today (in around 12 hours maybe), then I think it's good for you to go through it again. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm I've made some further tweaks. Please review again when you get the chance. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Queens Plate

A contested technical move request on which you commented is now at Talk:Queens Plate. - Station1 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sundrum Castle

The article Sundrum Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sundrum Castle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations KJ! Great job on that one. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

CollectiveSolidarity, Hog Farm thank you both! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page Move

You incorrectly declined the request of moving the list/article to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champions. You were in the wrong for doing so. If you looked at the history of the list/article, you would know someone moved it to the wrong name. That's something I didn't know until after I made the request and the page was moved. Yes, someone else moved the page back to the correct name. Next time, do a little digging before rejecting a request. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr. C.C., thank you for your message. Please be assured as that part of my role as I page mover I rountinely check pages (feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves if so inclined). However I absolutely stand by my declining it as a technical request. As explained at both [1] and [2] the fact there was discussion on the talk page meant it wouldn't be processed as a technical request as per WP:PCM. Indeed it should have been just a technical request for the little amount of effort required, and I would have processed it if that was the case. It is your “covering your bases” that slowed things. There is WP:NORUSH. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing anywhere on the technical requests page that says starting a discussion would do as you said. If that's an actual thing, it should be noted on the page which it isn't. Therefore, you were in the wrong. If the page wasn't incorrectly moved, as I found out later, I would have never needed to make a request at all. But I digress. It's over and done with. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to believe I'm wrong if you'd like. Thank you for your time. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Kj cheetham, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

And, would you have any interest in adminship? I'd have to take a closer look at your contributions before nominating, but thought I would ask first. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Arbitrarily0, thank you for the right, it's appreciated. Regarding adminship, it is something I've considered. Any feedback would be very welcome, and feel free to email me off-wiki if more appropriate. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Great. I wouldn't have any feedback on top of what was already given, except that, don't feel like you need to wait until you're a perfect candidate. At some point you just need to take the plunge. It was great to see that the general thrust of that poll was that other editors trust and respect you, which is the most important part. Let me know if you ever want a nomination from me, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrarily0 Thank you for the comments. One of my personal targets is 3 GAs of articles I've significantly contributed to, and given I've already got one and another nominated I think I'm on the right track. Maybe I'll take the plunge around the end of the 2022. Will certainly be in touch with you again. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Maybole Castle

On 13 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maybole Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the legend of John Faa, styled King of the Gypsies, the Countess of Cassilis was imprisoned for life in Maybole Castle (pictured) by her husband after he killed Faa for attempting to elope with her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maybole Castle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Maybole Castle), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66, thank you for progressing it! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My pleasure. Schwede66 14:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,697 views (724.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, thank you for letting me know, that's amazing! Much higher than I expected, especially for my first DYK submission. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Authority control

Dear Kj cheetham, Grandmaster Editor. I see you are adding missing{{Authority Control}}templates. I am used to seeing them always separated by an empty line before and an empty line after, e.g. William the Conqueror, a recent FA. This seems to be a habitual good practice. You seem to omit the empty line after and sometimes even the empty line before as in Sundrum Castle. I have not seen much about it in a Wikipedia guidelines. MOS:LAYOUT indicates the position of {{Authority Control}} among the end-matters of the article. Perhaps the habit of separating it by empty lines comes from there where it is mentioned at the same level as content sections, which indeed must be separated by empty line. Besides, not all Wikipedia articles need a {{Authority control}}. What do you think? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Johannes Schade, thank you for your message. To be honest I don’t pay a lot of attention to the whitespace in the source around that template when they don’t affect what is shown on the article. I’d generally remove instances of two blank lines together though, as that does create article white space as per MOS:OVERSECTION. I personally tend to make sure there is at least a blank line between the final section and the templates just above the categories, if only to aid future editors by making it a bit easier to follow, and sometimes group together authority control with navigation templates, etc.

I primarily only add {{Authority Control}} to biographical articles, and have only very recently added some to castle articles, but I’m not convinced it’s worth it for the latter. At least not for ones I’ve looked at. If there is nothing to display from Wikidata the template remains dormant so doesn't really do any harm.

Hope that helps.-Kj cheetham (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Kj cheetham. Thanks for your honest remarks and the work you do. I spend most of my time in Wikipedia looking at code using "source editing", trying to improve Wikipedia. I find that a consistent use of whitespace enhances readability when working in this way and makes me more efficient. However, your point of view seems to be prevalent in Wikipedia. Are you all using the WP:Visual Editor? Probably this is a lost cause and I must just cope with the annoying variations in the appearance of the code. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Johannes Schade, I don't use WP:Visual Editor at all, and like you spend most of my Wikipedia using source editing. After looking at 1000s of articles I've long since given up trying to keep appearance of code consistent, especially when there isn't really a proper code style guide and how the article looks to readers is more important in the end. There's likely also an element of laziness/efficiency on my part at not adding blank lines at times. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Image cropping in infoboxes

Dear Kj cheetham, Grandmaster Editor, sorry to bother you again. Thanks for your recent attention to the article Donough O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond where you deleted {{CSS image crop}} that I used to zoom in on the face of the biographical subject in the image appearing in the infobox. You cited WP:IBI (thanks for this link) and I read up. I seem to have never carefully read this important guideline, which is part of the MOS. It seems at first view indeed to forbid anything but a straight assignment: |image=filename. In the past I have created separate images for such crops ("zoom-ins") to allow me to use this simple syntax, but then I thought that I should not clutter up Wikimedia Commons with such crops. Looking more closely at what WP:IBI says, it seems to forbid only to use thumbnails (e.g. [[File:wiki.png|thumb|Wikipedia logo]]) and says "simply supplying the file name will work". It does not consider the case of cropping and does not forbid the use of templates to crop an image. What do you think? How would you have done it? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Johannes Schade, thank you for your message. No need to call me Grandmaster Editor, that's just a silly WP:SERVICE award. :) I'm just a volunteer. The problem from my point of view is how you used CSS to crop it resulted in the image being in a frame, and not using the caption property of the infobox itself. Images are definitely not my area of expertise, but I'd recommend taking a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CropTool as a potential tool to aid cropping, and I wouldn't worry adding the odd cropped image to Wikimedia. The cropped image may be useful somewhere else potentially too after all. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss Talk: end discussion

Dear friend,

As you've edited the above page, would you be able to close the discussion about moving the page? No consensus was arrived at – certainly a majority was opposed. Here is the link. Thank you, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liz_Truss#Move_article_from_%22Liz_Truss%22_to_%22Elizabeth_Truss%22

Billsmith60 Thank you for your message. Now done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Vector 2022 RfC

Do you think we should slow down with our replies to the opposing volunteers' comments? Do I read your comment correctly? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF) Personally, yes. Especially when a lot of the replies are repeating about the research. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I understand. We'll back off. We don't take part in most RfCs, so we're learning what to do. Also, we'd like to explain why the skin is what it is now, because we fear people may ignore the documentation, have little context, etc. (which is a human thing). That's our perspective. But then, there's this comment, and we're thinking, ok, we'll slow down today. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker from WP:BLUDGEON comes to mind for me. There's already explanation at the top of your RFC page, and a new addition of FAQs at the bottom too. From my point of view the whole RFC wasn't set up as neutral as it could have been, which can make some people more defensive too. Even the link I originally found was to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022)/More about Vector (2022) via a banner rather than the RFC itself, and I had to explore a bit to find where to put comments. Repeatedly asking "have you read the research?" comes over a bit patronising potentially too. Hope my views help a bit at least. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natalie Portman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natalie Portman 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for agreeing to take a look at this. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I had done a majority of the work and expansion of Portman's article, but was not consulted or credited for this review. Why? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Krimuk2.0, thank you for your message. That was my first ever GAN nomination and I'm still learning about the process. I'd raised it at Talk:Natalie_Portman/Archive_5#Good_article_status? in an attempt to follow WP:GAN/I#N1. I had skimmed over the recent contributions and hadn't realised you were a significant contributor at the time. In hindsight I should have looked at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Natalie_Portman and pinged you. It looks like you had edited the article after I posted the talk page message though. I'm very sorry, I did not intend to take credit away from you. I will raise this with the GAN reviewer too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Thanks. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I've also started a DYK on this article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Leiden

Hi Kj_cheetham. This is a gentle appeal to have a look at my recent edit request at Talk:Jeffrey_Leiden#Odyssey_Therapeutics_and_market_value_increase. Thanks for your help. JohnDatVertex (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

JohnDatVertex, will add to my todo list. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

JohnDatVertex, I'll process this request this time, but in the future please bare in mind there is currently a backlog of over 200 requests like this (CAT:COIREQ), so I'm not comfortable jumping the queue too many times for a single article. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. JohnDatVertex (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natalie Portman

The article Natalie Portman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Natalie Portman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes

ScottishFinnishRadish

Staxringold

Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes

GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)