User talk:PrussianOwl/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What are those moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, What are those, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:What are those has a new comment
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
for nominating a test that was pointlessly submitted to AFC for MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Jjjjjjdddddd.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm glad you asked. I would not at all mind becoming a new page reviewer, and tried for the permission around late January. They told me to come back in a month, and apply again, so this would be a good time to get the right. I would be happy to help the NPP backlog! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I second this. You should have this PERM. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hello Jjjjjjdddddd. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Dora the Explorer
Can you explain why my draft is redundant? The purpose of it is to build the film article so that when production begins myself or other editors don’t need to scramble for info to build the article then. That way we can make sure all info included is added in as it’s announced. You wanting to merge it nullifies having drafts if they’re just gonna be merged into main space. Rusted AutoParts 04:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Right, you're building that section in draftspace? That makes sense. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- The films article is going to look different than a brief stub section on the general Dora article. Not all information about the film will be put there as it’ll be on the films article. That’s why I’m building it in draft. Rusted AutoParts 04:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, good. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- The films article is going to look different than a brief stub section on the general Dora article. Not all information about the film will be put there as it’ll be on the films article. That’s why I’m building it in draft. Rusted AutoParts 04:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again
- Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost
- In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop
- In focus: Admin reports board under criticism
- Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide
- Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias
- Discussion report: The future of portals
- Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History
- Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March
- Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm
 | ||
 the meetup page for Art+Feminism. |
Wikipedia is one of the most wide-reaching repositories of shared knowledge, yet a 2011 survey found that less than 10% of its contributors identify as female, suggesting an alarming absence of voices. What and how information is shared is skewed by this gender disparity. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is organizing a quarterly series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn artists of color.
This Saturday afternoon's gathering will focus on creating, editing, updating, and expanding pages for womxn artists from Latin America and the Caribbean. The Edit-a-thon will feature a talk by Dan Paz, Lecturer in the UW School of Art + Art History + Design, an artist, and an educator who explores the labor of digital imaging production as a collaborative site where the intersections of the image-idea and lived experience are produced and contested. Through videos, photography, and sculptural projects that query the ability of documentary processes to be manipulated—to be multiplied and replicated, stopped and started, rewound and advanced—Dan works within the impossibilities of absolute replication to question the very ability of the image to truly represent. Everyone is welcome. Access to UW WiFi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. Please check the Facebook event page for updates. When: Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm |
 Jacob Lawrence Gallery, UW, Seattle |
AfC
Hi. I am curious to know why you approved this page: Maragathakkaadu. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because, although it is on the same topic as the first article,
it does not constituteI did not know it was a repost of something elseunder G4, according to context from the first AfD. I did not know that this user was blocked/banned. Further, it was already under the AfD process, so patrolling would be moot. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The user I'm warring with on I Still Like Bologna is a long-term wiki vandal sock of User:Jack Gaines. He comes around at least once a week to target me specifically, along with articles pertaining to Alan Jackson. Literally every edit from the account currently active is vandalism. Please help me revert his edits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh? I'll help you out then. Should I report? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Already been reported. It's 2 AM Eastern so most of the admins are probably asleep. Go poke a few people with mops and see if they can stop him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- IRC? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: Hey, problem solved! (for now). Does your watchlist look as bad as mine? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- AKA Alan Jackson vandal. I RBI on sight. Glad to see the laundry's done.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Already been reported. It's 2 AM Eastern so most of the admins are probably asleep. Go poke a few people with mops and see if they can stop him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
05:31:28, 10 May 2018 review of submission by Jenhawk777
- Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs)
I am not asking for a re-review yet, but I do want to try and fix this. This is my first article so I am still learning what's what here and I need help.
- I thought Wikipedia did include book reviews, so that's what I thought I was doing. Is a book review not appropriate for Wikipedia? (If not, I will just delete--and you can ignore the rest of this!)
- How do I make it less essay like? This is patterned after the book reviews I found. Is there another pattern for a book review that I should follow?
- It may seem promotional but I can't see what can be done about that because there simply are no negative peer-reviews of this book. It is universally admired. It is a significant book in feminist and early Christianity studies; it was paradigm altering at the time it was written, so I was surprised Wikipedia didn't have anything on it when I went looking. If I have to reference what the sources say and the sources all love it--what should I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, first, I think we've established that you're not just some random spammer (there are SO. MANY. SPAMMERS. HERE. SERIOUSLY...), so the possibly-promotional language issue can be ignored, or at least easily reworded. As for the book-review aspect, we, strictly speaking, aren't for reviews, but your page could be pretty easily converted to an article. Really, it's not a bad submission, but it needs to be changed a bit. I would be happy to help out on your page. It seems notable enough, so that shouldn't be a problem. In short, it just needs to be reformatted, and maybe reworded a bit, to be more article-like. Thanks, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh that is great! That is awesome, and really nice of you to be willing to help, so thank you! Not a spammer! Serious about trying to do good work for Wikipedia! If you can give me a direction to go, or a page to read, both--or anything really to give me a clue how to make those changes I would be genuinely grateful. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have moved discussion to the talk page there--that's what I'm supposed to do--right? Reformatted and reworded... ?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: That's fine, we can discuss there - Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have moved discussion to the talk page there--that's what I'm supposed to do--right? Reformatted and reworded... ?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
08:25:10, 10 May 2018 review of submission by Vanberloemmanuel
Hi, please you declined ma request to make this draft an article. the subject i'm writing the article about doesn't have any accomplishments i can refer to just a couple of reviews of his music. he is an upcoming artiste so can you please approve my article. if there's anything i need to add kindly tel me because this is the 2nd time am getting declined
Vanberloemmanuel (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanberloemmanuel:, the thing about this site is that everything has to be backed up by pre-existing sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original content, or original knowledge. This isn't the place to publicise an artist, upcoming as he may be, that hasn't already been in several reliable sources. However, if you can find works (webpages, etc.) written about him that are reliable (Google is your friend here), and add the sources to your page, then the article can be published. Best, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Request on 21:46:11, 12 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by IronDerBear414
What do you mean there's "no content here," it's literally a list. Since when do list articles need "content?" I spent days compiling sources, copying down the groups, and trying to find where all of them came from. There are hundreds of groups listed from most of the states, DC, and four other countries. What does it mean? How do I fix it? What do you recommend?
IronDerBear414 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, I get that it's a list. But, at the time when I declined, there wasn't anything in the list. At least, not that I could see. Since you've added all those groups, it will likely be suitable for mainspace. Best, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Kindness Is the New Rock and Roll
Sorry, I didn't know how to respond to your comment on "Kindness Is the New Rock and Roll", so I'll leave it here, if that's alright?
I thought that the page I created was relevant because it is the new album in "Peace"'s discography and therefore, I thought, would be a notable page to be created (as it has not been done as of yet) and not the WP:ROUTINE that you commented.
Is this not the case?
Thank-you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssdfrd3f5g5g (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's like this. Peace *is* a notable band, but there aren't any sources on your page to prove that particular album's notability. The album probably is notable, but we haven't added any sources that prove that fact. In the regular wiki pages, that page is a redirect to Peace's page. Still, I could probably add some more sources to your particular page to get it into article-space. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Thank-you for explaining, sorry, I'm new to this! If you had time to add some more sources, I'd really appreciate it, as they're one of my favourite bands!
Thanks again :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssdfrd3f5g5g (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I will add them, if not in a few minutes, than today, probably. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind, I'd say it already has enough. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I will add them, if not in a few minutes, than today, probably. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
- From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals
- Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
- Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics
- News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia
- Traffic report: We love our superheroes
- Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies
- Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues
- Humour: Play with your food
- Gallery: Wine not?
- From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
ACTRIAL:
- WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
- Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
- A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
- There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
- Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
- Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
- The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Stub articles for content not notable outside context of parent subject (Pete's Dragon (short story))
Hi there,
Thank you for your attempted improvement of Pete's Dragon (short story) by reviving the deleted content. However, I note that Geraldo Perez reverted the changes, and- with respect- I agree with his decision for two reasons.
Firstly, the story is not really notable in its own right, only in the context of the film it formed the basis of. (Put another way, if the original film had never been made, the story would not be notable). Similar to our guidelines for people, it therefore belongs in the context of the film article.
Secondly, the created article was a stub with almost negligible content and (more importantly) is likely to remain so- there's really not enough that *could* be said about it in its own right to warrant a separate article. The information that *was* there is better served in the context of the film article rather than being isolated in a pointlessly bitty stub.
(On top of this is the issue that the revived article didn't even cite any sources, so the information- which was contradicted by *cited* content in the film article- was of questionable value).
I notice that you're an inclusionist, but this really has less to do with inclusionism or deletionism and more to do with whether the information in question should be part of a separate article. In cases like this, a separate article isn't warranted, which is why it was deleted.
Hope this helps.
Ubcule (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right, I didn't restore that, I just reviewed it. That's the state it came to me in, in the new pages feed. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Urban Studies Foundation
Hello Jjjjjjdddddd. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Urban Studies Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: if the journal is notable, the charity is at least significant enough to avoid speedy deletion. Consider merging per WP:ATD-M instead. Thank you. SoWhy 11:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
new article
Hi! I am still just waiting of Early Christian women, but I am actually here to ask about something else. I can see you are incredibly bust and please feel free to say you simply don't have time, but I have been working on Biblical criticism and think it's a good article, but since I don't really know what qualifies an article as a GA, I wanted to ask if you would be willing to look it over and assess it--maybe save me some more embarrassment... I perfectly understand if you can't, but I was really impressed with your skill and your kindness so I just thought I'd ask! Thank you either way! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I am not that busy and would be happy to help! I don't really work with GA's that much so I wouldn't know off the top of my head, though. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
ISTJ
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to ISTJ. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Don't template the regulars. I'm not a spammer. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies if that template could be interpreted to read that way. I chose to use the template because you are relatively inexperienced (unless you have multiple accounts) and wanted to avoid any misunderstandings.
- Do you understand the problem with the additions of the links? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, an IP added a few more, I think, after the ones I left. I guess they may have been indiscriminate/WP:LINKFARM. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- The poor (self-published, self-serving) sources and external links have always been a problem in the Myers-Briggs-related articles. I'll try to get around to cleaning it all up if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know that link spam was a problem in MBTI-related articles, but I'm not really surprised. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- The poor (self-published, self-serving) sources and external links have always been a problem in the Myers-Briggs-related articles. I'll try to get around to cleaning it all up if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, an IP added a few more, I think, after the ones I left. I guess they may have been indiscriminate/WP:LINKFARM. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello PrussianOwl, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar:
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
. - Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 June 2018
- Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?
- Op-ed: What do admins do?
- News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania
- In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress
- Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page
- Featured content: New promotions
- Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed
- Traffic report: Endgame
- Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa
- Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry
- Humour: Television plot lines
- Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors
- From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing
Nomination of 2017 Southern Europe heat wave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Southern Europe heat wave 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/2017 Southern Europe heat wave until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. — JFG talk 07:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello PrussianOwl, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2018
- From the editor: If only if
- Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality
- Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose
- Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes
- Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else
- Technology report: New bots, new prefs
- Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons
- Humour: It's all the same
- Essay: Wikipedia does not need you
Concern regarding Draft:Rainier Avenue
Hello, Jjjjjjdddddd. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rainier Avenue, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Seattle Wiknic 2018
| |
|
 |
Your draft article, Draft:Rainier Avenue
Hello, Jjjjjjdddddd. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rainier Avenue".
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. JMHamo (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2018
- From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia
- News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend
- In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles
- Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
- Special report: Wikimania 2018
- Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits
- Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work
- Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies
- Humour: Signpost editor censors herself
- From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words
Userspace drafts
Generally, it's considered bad manners to move another user's userspace page to the main namespace without asking for permission. The draft you moved was far from complete (with most of its history section still being researched) and should not have been touched. SounderBruce 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ohh, sorry. I thought it looked like a good start to an article. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello PrussianOwl, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
- Project news
- The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
- As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
- There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.
- Other
- A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.
- Moving to Draft and Page Mover
- Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
- If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
- Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
- The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
- The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
|---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 October 2018
- From the editor: Is this the new normal?
- News and notes: European copyright law moves forward
- In the media: Knowledge under fire
- Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom
- Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile
- Gallery: A pat on the back
- Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?
- Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle
- Essay: Expressing thanks
Your draft article, Draft:What are those
Hello, PrussianOwl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "What are those".
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
|
Hello PrussianOwl, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
- Project updates
- ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
- There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
- New scripts
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely
- News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks
- In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias
- Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform
- Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring
- Technology report: Bots galore!
- Special report: NPP needs you
- Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six
- In focus: Alexa
- Gallery: Out of this world!
- Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion
- Humour: Talk page humour
- Opinion: Strickland incident
- From the archives: The Gardner Interview
Ooops
I was a few days early on this. Thanks for catching. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Eh, it's not that, it's just I want to see if I can salvage this article. PrussianOwl (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see that there's much there to salvage. Seems like a run of the mill lawyer. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I guess. I don't know. PrussianOwl (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see that there's much there to salvage. Seems like a run of the mill lawyer. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello PrussianOwl,
- Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
- Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
- If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
- We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
- With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, PrussianOwl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 December 2018
- From the editor: Time for a truce
- Special report: The Christmas wishlist
- Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee
- Arbitration report: A long break ends
- Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight
- Gallery: Intersections
- From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis
Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM
|
|
If you are in the Seattle area, please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM. If you cannot attend in person, you may join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://zoom.us/j/2207426850. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W
The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well. Cascadia Wikimedians User Group is a recognized 501c3 non-profit organization in the US. EIN # 47-3513818 Our mail address is Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, 520 Kirkland Way, PO Box 2905, Kirkland, WA 98083. |
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello PrussianOwl,
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
- Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
- Less good news, and an appeal for some help
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
- Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
- Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2018
- From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- News and notes: Some wishes do come true
- In the media: Political hijinks
- Discussion report: A new record low for RfA
- WikiProject report: Articlegenesis
- Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case
- Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents
- Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone
- Blog: News from the WMF
- Humour: I believe in Bigfoot
- Essay: Requests for medication
- From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again
Hello PrussianOwl,
I was just looking through the draft namespace and happened across your edit here, which added {{unreferenced}}. Could you please avoid adding that and similar templates (ie underlinked, unlinked, orphan) to drafts? They are non-applicable within the draft namespace. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 2.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks! --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @TheSandDoctor:, I get why {{Orphan}} doesn't apply to draft space, but could you explain the problem with adding {{unreferenced}}? Thanks - PrussianOwl (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
  |
Tuesday evening, January 15, 2019, 6-9pm at Wayward Coffeehouse, 6417 Roosevelt Way NE #104, Seattle WA 98115 Wikipedia Day celebrates the anniversary of the founding of Wikipedia. This year in Seattle, Cascadia Wikimedians' celebration of Wikipedia Day will focus on a different closely related project: Wikimedia Commons, which (among other things) functions as the media repository for Wikipedia. When you see a photo or map in Wikipedia, or hear an audio clip, etc., it usually is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and "transcluded" into Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a mix of users' own works and curated third-party content, either public domain or free-licensed. Our event is a hands-on workshop in curating third-party content, mostly early 20th-century photos of Seattle and other West Coast locations. Currently, Wikimedia Commons has two intersecting sets of older photos, one from the Asahel Curtis Photo Company and the other a more general set of Seattle images. At this meetup, we will celebrate the 18th anniversary of Wikipedia by further curating these images by the creation and addition of categories, adding ImageNotes where useful, linking other versions of the same photo, enhancing the descriptions, and identifying and correcting errors. User:Jmabel has already categorized over 1000 images and corrected several hundred wrong dates, misidentified buildings, and etc., but there is much more to be done. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle#Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos. |
Question on Ramon Rivas Draft
Thank you for your earlier input on January 4th. I really want to make a good article. I have one question concerning references. The subject of my page has put out his own album, but I cannot get a good source aside from ones like spotify and other such sales sites. I think it is important enough to include, but I am at a loss as to where else to look so I can properly source the reference. Any suggestion would definitely be welcome. Thanks in advance. (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Wanderingfreeman: Well, off the top of my head Google books/Google news/Google should provide sources. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
- Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
.jpeg) |
Women’s History Wikithon
|
.jpg) |
 |
| FREE. Please register in advance. Includes museum admission and snacks; please bring a sack lunch plus a laptop. Scholars and interested citizens are invited to come together for an afternoon of collaboration to create or improve Wikipedia pages related to Washington State’s suffrage history. Learn from seasoned “Wikipedians” how to edit wiki pages, and work in small groups with women’s history experts. Honor Women’s History Month by updating our reference materials to reflect the dedicated work of Washington’s women suffragists. Bring a brown bag lunch, we’ll provide snacks. Hosted by Washington State Historical Society. Women's Suffrage Centennial Program, Washington State Historical Society -> Events & Programs | |||
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
G5 redirect
Hi. I've seen you remove a few of my speedy deletion tags on redirects. While I agree that they redirects are reasonable, I tagged them per WP:BMB. I hope you'll take that into account. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Right, that makes sense, but I believe editors in good standing like us can retain good but ban-defiant edits. PrussianOwl (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I know, I can see that. PrussianOwl (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Heya, Not entirely sure where to respond so I have posted same response in various places.
You said: Lacks reliable sources, unfocused and hard to understand, reads almost like a news story. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding:
- Sources: There is a an External Link at the bottom to the judgment as posted online by the Chinese Court. If a court judgment is insufficient then I don't know what is... BTW google translate does a sufficient job on the Chinese. Also, the sixth tone, whose article is linekd, is a news publication which seems to me to be of a good journalistic standard. Also, caixin, which is like the chinese equivalent of the financial times, is linked.
- Unfocused: This is relating to an actual case and it has 2 main points. 1) Relates to the injunction and the injunction being lifted. 2) It was considered important in China because of the particular brands involved. While you may not have necessarily heard of them, you can think of them as like McVities (UK) or Twinkies (USA- Perhaps a posh twinkie).
- Like a news story: I certainly wasn't aiming for advert. Here is an article about a UK case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothew_v_Bristol_%26_West_Building_Society I would say that the writing styles are similar. I outlined the dispute in terms of legal field, i gave some basic background infor re beligerents, i decribed the legal criteria and how the court applied the law. Because of translation issues i have not quoted from judgment but there are external links to it.
I think that whilst the writing style may not be to everyones taste, there is a lack of information on wikipedia re Chinese law compared with the US and UK. Considering the size and economic power of China this is a significant gap in the knowledge contained on wikipedia. Hence even if I am not the best writer/contributor, the knowledge will be of use to someone.
If the article is approved in general I will update, but at this time I am concerned that my efforts will disappear at the stroke of a button. Mithdol (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I only nominated for deletion because I thought it was undersourced and I couldn't really understand it that well. You've made some strong arguments and you have a valid point about deletion in general. I retract my deletion proposal. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Hi! I've put a response to your merger proposal on the Boat building tools talk page. Arrivisto (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll go read it, thanks! PrussianOwl (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Multiple guidelines for inclusion met; article rejected.
With reference to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Ferret
There is direct coverage of the subject from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, Billboard Magazine, The Colbert Report, The Philadelphia Inquirer and others. This would seem to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet general notability guidelines.
Further, as this is a music article, according to the guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) it would appear to meet Criteria 1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself
The subject also meets Criteria 5 as documented in the links to Discogs.
The subject meets Criteria 7 as being "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city," specifically the goth scene in Philadelphia, as documented in a number of the links.
The subject meets Criteria 12, "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Direct links to the subject's appearances on CNN, Fox News, The Colbert Report were provided with the article.
Could you please give some guidance as to why you believe general notability has not been met and why the four criteria cited for music articles have not been met? Thank you.
69.249.19.36 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- When I looked at the sources, I saw that half of them were Discogs, which is considered a dubious-at-best source, and because of the nature of the site, not grounds for notability. Discogs can help an article but being on Discogs is not grounds for notability. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source either, but being of Fox News may just make that video reliable. AllMusic, like Discogs, if just an entry, doesn't count much towards notability because it catalogs all music. Likewise a Facebook event, even if it's for a notable event, is not in and of itself a reliable source or proof of notability. However, the mentions in CNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc., added to the book source, and the local papers, push this article into notable territory. In the future, however, I would steer clear of YouTube and Facebook if you can help it. As for the content itself, the content seems to show notability, even though it's not a clear-cut case. I would submit again. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. What happens next? Do you approve the article now or do I click "Resubmit" and wait another two months? Also, with reference to Discogs, what is considered to be the preferred source of demonstrating that Criteria 5 for music entries has been met? I will update the submission accordingly. Thank you. 69.249.19.36 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I could just move it into mainspace directly. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate that. 69.249.19.36 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello PrussianOwl,
- News
- The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
- Discussions of interest
- Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
- {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
- A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
- There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
- Reminders
- NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
- NPP Tools Report
- Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
- copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
- The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
G6 deletions
Hi! Please see Poland–South Korea relations, Hungary–Vietnam relations – over to you! I'll histmerge the previous versions once your drafts are in place – please chase me up if you don't see that happen. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I noticed, thanks! PrussianOwl (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Turkey–Vietnam relations has been accepted
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
PrussianOwl (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Closing of old merge discussion
Could you close the merge discussion at Talk:LKL Finals#Merge Discussion? It has been there since April 2018 but nobody seem to care. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Me? I mean, maybe I could, but I don't know much about the subject. I'll consider it. PrussianOwl (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just looked who was the last person to edit at WP:MERGE page and thought I would ask you, but if you do not want to do it then it is not a big deal. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ohh, well I'm sure I could close the discussion. I'm impartial on that issue after all. PrussianOwl (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Sabbatino: Alright, I'll close the discussion, sorry it took me as long as it did. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just looked who was the last person to edit at WP:MERGE page and thought I would ask you, but if you do not want to do it then it is not a big deal. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur37
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PM
| | |
| the meetup page for Art+Feminism. |
Wikipedia’s gender trouble is well-documented. In a 2011 survey, the Wikimedia Foundation found that less than 10% of its contributors were women. While the reasons for the gender gap are up for debate, the practical effect of this disparity is not: content is skewed by the lack of representation from women.
Let’s change that. To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is continuing a series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn and gender non-binary artists of color. Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided. All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required! Everyone is welcome. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants. Please create a Wikipedia account before the event. RSVP through this Facebook event link. When: Saturday, Apr. 6, 2019, 1–5 PM |
Hamilton has a tropical climate
In the "Climate data for Hamilton, Bermuda (L.F. Wade International Airport) 1981–2010, extremes 1949–2010" table, the "coldest" month (February) has a mean temperature of 18.0°C which is the very limit between tropical and subtropical climates in Köppen climate classification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köppen_climate_classification). In Rivas-Martinez classification, when the hottest 4-month period is the rainiest of the year which is the case in Hamilton, then if a) the mean annual temperature is superior to 21°C (22.3°C in Hamilton) and b) the mean monthly average high temperature of the coldest month is superior to 18°C (20.4°C = average high of February, the coldest month in Hamilton) and c) the Thermicity Index, It is superior to 470 (=10*(22.3+15.4+20.4) = 581 in Hamilton, 22.3 = mean annual temperature, 15.4 is the average low of February, 20.4 is the average high of February) then the climate is tropical.
It = (T + m + M) * 10 with T the mean annual temperature, m the average low of the coldest month and M the average high of the coldest month.
So in both classifications, Hamilton is tropical.
Had the February mean been equal to 17.9°C, the climate would have been subtropical in Köppen classification (but still tropical in Rivas-Martinez classification). Carlo Colussi (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. PrussianOwl (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
- News and notes: An Action Packed April
- In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?
- Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
- Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art
- Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde
- Technology report: A new special page, and other news
- Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns
- News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?
- Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
- From the archives: Portals revisited
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello PrussianOwl,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
- From the editors: Picture that
- News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections
- In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball
- Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead
- Technology report: Lots of Bots
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey
- Essay: Paid editing
- From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
Your draft article, Draft:2017 Southern Europe heat wave
Hello, PrussianOwl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2017 Southern Europe heat wave".
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. CptViraj (Talk) 15:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello PrussianOwl,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
- Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising
- In the media: The disinformation age
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters
- Technology report: Actors and Bots
- Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?
- Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia
- From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal
- Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes
Your draft article, Draft:9 + 10 = 21
Hello, PrussianOwl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "9 + 10 = 21".
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. CptViraj (📧) 07:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Article edit
Hi PrussianOwl, I noticed that you left a message in my talk page. I'm sorry for not explaining my edit in the Japan page. In the Japan page, there was one sentence that said this:
It is also the world's fourth-largest exporter and fourth-largest importer.
I changed that to this:
It is also the world's fourth-largest exporter and importer.
It was just a small edit removing the unnecessary repeat of "fourth-largest". I think my edit was correct, I just forgot to write an explanation. The Account 1 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ohh, sorry I came down as hard as I did, I thought you were just removing stuff at random. Please add your edit back, if you want. Apologies, and happy editing - PrussianOwl (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
- In the media: Politics starts getting rough
- Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
- Arbitration report: A month of reintegration
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?
- News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way
- Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect
- Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract
- Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things
Seattle Wiknic 2019
| |
|
|
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
- News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings
- In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff
- Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users
- Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes
- News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
".io game" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect .io game. Since you had some involvement with the .io game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello PrussianOwl,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |