User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/December

Your draft article, User:Thatgeeman/sandbox

Hello, TheSandDoctor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

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. TKK! bark with me! 23:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon

The article The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Rolling Stones: Havana Moon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TheSandDoctor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference

I would like to know how to add foot notes to my article? (XploJan(Musician) (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

@XploJan(Musician): Hi there, this is probably what you are looking for (and Help:Your first article)? Also, please review WP:COI, it is discouraged to write an article about yourself as it creates a conflict of interest. Wikipedia also has a guideline against writing promotional material. If you have reliable sources, why not request an article instead? If you have any questions, please do feel free to let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added footnotes can you review it? Will it be accepted now?(XploJan(Musician) (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

Hi again User:XploJan(Musician), please review WP:COI and read this page. Creating an article about yourself is strongly advised against/discouraged due to the conflict of interest that is caused. To answer your question directly though, that source is not enough to establish notability. There need to be citations confirming the date of birth and anything else within the draft that may be challenged were it to become an article. If you still want to write this after reading WP:COI, I would strongly recommend reading WP:REFB, Help:Your first article, WP:CITE, and WP:ILC. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Article:Juan_Carlos_Soto_Marin_(Luthier)

Dear TheSandDoctor, Thank very much for your review and feedback of article Draft:Juan Carlos Soto Marin (Luthier) I noticed you mentioned in your comments that the article lacked of footnotes. I believe there are footnotes in the "References" section. Please advise. Best Regards, Garitac (talk) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Garitac (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Garitac and sorry for the delay in my response (for some reason, I was not notified via email of this & came across your message by fluke). I have now added {{unreferenced section}} templates to sections of the draft. I declined it due to the fact that the majority of the information (including biography) did not contain any citations. In short, any information that could be challenged should be supported by citations. Everything in the biography section could raise concern without citation as there is no citation(s) there to verify the information. The same goes for the majority of the subsections within the "Projects y Afiliations" header. If the citations are elsewhere within the draft, then they can be duplicated/reused closer to it to "back up"/verify the information. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot problem

Hi, appears to be a probelm with this edit by BOT. It has created an |accessdate= with a * rather than a valid date. Keith D (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Further problem on this edit where it is loosing the |accessdate= information from original. Keith D (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keith D: Thank you for messaging me about this, I am always looking to improve the algorithm & squash any bugs that arise in the "real world" that don't in my testing environments (random pages from its list I copy to private Wiki & run its algorithm on to see what it wants to do - fixing issues as they arise). The accessdate being set as a * is a rather unusual problem that I have not seen before (thank you for bringing it to my attention!). As for the accessdate being removed, it is an issue with the REGEX algorithm that I am working with, however, I do not believe it to be the most major of issues (as explained in the BFRA), since Tweets cannot be edited once posted/tweeted. With that said, it is still an issue that I want to address as soon as possible. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keith D: Update: I figured out what probably caused the first issue and have addressed it locally (will test locally when I have the time). Now working on second. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keith D: Appear to have corrected the accessdate issue. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response. The second problem looks to be OK with your change to article I reverted. Keith D (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Keith D, any time. I'm glad to help when and where I can. The bot is currently going through a ~600 page run at the moment (have done a couple ~200 page runs & do not appear to have had any further issues after the latest patch I pushed to GitHub). During initial testing of the patch (that I thought was complete, so I applied it to the actual Wiki), it did blank a couple article sections (regex can be finicky, encountered a scenario I hadn't tested for - which is sadly to be expected to some extent as "real world" doesn't always work like in the test environment), but I was thankfully only doing 10 or 20 page runs at the time so the damage was minimal and was quickly reverted (resulted from a typo). After the unfortunate typo was addressed, the bot appears to be behaving itself now. (And i do apologize for the bot partially blanking a section of two or three different articles & that I wasn't able to revert sooner). If you do notice any more issues, please do let me know. I am spot checking random diffs (and checking any larger additions/removals due to bug during trial run as explained on bot userpage), but cannot check them all. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention! I am glad that I was able to resolve both issues relatively quickly.

If you want to assure yourself about the patch, please do feel free to check edits (TweetCiteBot contribs) or check the regex for yourself (paste article content into here & give it a minute - will highlight any matches. You want it to only highlight cite web templates with twitter URLs) or (alternatively) the source code can be found on GitHub (minus login & twitter API keys etc for obvious privacy/security reasons). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Last portion of URL not handled

This edit, in splitting out the URL into its various components, left a portion alone which now sits uncomfortably between the closing braces and the closing </ref> tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Hmm. It should have deleted that chunk. I will take a look at it later today when I have the time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It uses a slightly simpler algorithm for bare ref tweets, which apparently was not updated like the other one to handle that extra / and what followed it. New algorithm changes should also handle ? (php) parameters & trim them off. Copied the page version (before the bot edited it) to a private Wiki and ran it with the changes (it did it correctly this time). I will update the GitHub with the algorithm changes shortly (just gotta run for a bit). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Confirmed it now works on the article you linked (the new run). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Redrose64! I always try to help out where I can. Thank you for bringing that bug to my attention . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

For record, here is the updated bare URLs algorithm (same instructions apply as in parent section). It has now also been updated on GitHub. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot Dates formatting

I have seen TweetCiteBot add {{cite tweet}} to a few articles that include {{use mdy dates}} and it uses dmy formatted dates. Any way to honour that template if it's on the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Hi there, I will look into this. It shouldn't be that difficult to add as it wouldn't require that significant of a change(s). Could you please link to one of those articles so I can run bot over it for tests (to see if I do manage to fix issue before deploying on here, I take article content & copy to a private local Wiki to make sure it works properly in as real an environment as I can create without actually running on Wikipedia)? The "real world" is the best testing ground, but if not, I could always just make a fake scenario for it (it just might not be as good).

To clarify, you want it changed so that: if the bot finds {{use mdy dates}}, then follow that template, if not then do what it is already doing, correct? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye. That is correct. DMY dates are perfectly acceptable unless an article has already declared otherwise. An article where this happened was Eleventyseven. Granted, the formatting script had to be run to correct other dates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And the same case on San Antonio Scorpions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links & for confirming the changes that you want to have made! I can't work on it right now, but I will definitely start working on it within the next day or so, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Fixed It appears to be fixed now. I have re-run it on both the articles you linked (after restoring version right before bot edited - bot edit & your fix to edit were only two reverted, I hope you don't mind). Eleventyseven second run, San Antonio Scorpions second run. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That was just what the doctor ordered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Haha, I see what you did there with that name pun (I LOVE puns). Anyways, glad I could help & I hope you don't mind my restoring of the edit before the initial bot edit (therefore also reverting your correction to the initial bot edit) in order to ensure that it could do it on its own. Hopefully not too many other pages were affected, but I will not know unless others bring forward more. At least you brought that suggestion forward (thank you for doing that!), allowing for the bot to be improved. Your suggested improvement was fairly easy to implement overall and took less time than I had anticipated to solve (why I was able to do it all tonight). If you notice anything else that should be improved, please do let me know. In the above couple of sections (and on bot user page) there is a link to the GitHub (which has indeed now been updated with your suggested change). Thanks again for your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

TweetCiteBot error on Frankie Kazarian

Hello there, just to give you a heads-up that TweetCiteBot made this edit to Frankie Kazarian on 9 December, converting a Twitter link to a citation and deleting a chunk of the article (including an entire section and a couple of photos) at the same time. I've reverted the bot, as suggested in the edit summary it left. 79.65.125.244 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@79.65.125.244: Thank you for bringing this to my attention and for reverting as requested in the edit summary. I will look into this as soon as possible, but that will unfortunately most likely be next week and have no plans to run the bot between now and then (unless limited page-specific runs to test fixes). I will keep you updated, consider this on my to-do list. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue was that the {{cite web}} template citing the tweet was incomplete when the bot ran the page, so it apparently ran until it came across closing curly brackets ('}'). As to why it did not stop is still a mystery that I will have to look into later as it should have stopped the moment it reached the closing ref tag regardless of the incomplete template. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Rolling Stones at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Do I need references?

Hello, I would like to ask: Is that possible to omit totally the "References" part for a Wiki page? After reading the rules for citing references and evaluating my rejected reference list, I found out that the only one Youtube video in that list considerably covers my Wiki content. However, the video was published in 2015, the producer has already deleted it on the main website. The only available version is on Youtube, but citing sources from there is not favorable.

Nguyen Dang Kieu Dong (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Nguyen Dang Kieu Dong, references are needed in any article. Please review Help:Your first article, WP:CITE, WP:REFB, and WP:RS (if you haven't already). Also, just so you know, YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. They. may be used to back up information if notability has been established (ie how many views X trailer got on YouTube or if it was uploaded to YouTube first, the timestamp etc). If you have any questions or would like me to expand on a point above, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

On top of that, please read WP:YTREF, that pertains directly to using YouTube videos as references. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your bot.

I love your TweetCiteBot and this beautiful edit it made. I love it! Thank you for making the Dreamkix page look just a little bit better. Your bot did what I was too lazy to do four years ago. Dogman15 (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dogman15: You're welcome! Just going to be working on addressing some issues with it shortly. Glad it and improved the page :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Article declined

Hi, my article was declined for not citing properly. (Raoul Poliakin) I am wondering if the citation itself was unacceptable or if I am not citing properly? Any help is appreciated. 50.200.217.254 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@50.200.217.254: My apologies. I should have been more specific in the declination. I declined as the citations were not around the information that they specifically supported, rather they were bunched at the end of the draft. As to why I didn't leave that as an explanation, I am not sure. With that said, the draft could still use some more references. I went ahead and added {{citation needed}} templates to the draft in order to help point you in the right direction. If you have any questions, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

02:22:39, 16 December 2017 review of submission by EnderNightLord

• EnderNightLord (talk · contribs)
  • User:EnderNightLord/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@EnderNightLord: What are you requesting? Would be happy to help, but the request is blank --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot removing archives

Hi there. I came across your Twitter cite bot on Batman: Arkham with this edit, and while it mainly worked correctly, the bot removed archive parameters for a couple of the citations that had them. The archive cite parameters are part of {{cite tweet}} so if they exist, the bot shouldn't be touching them. I've reverted the bot edit for now so the archives do not get lost. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Favre1fan93. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. That is most unusual as the bot has previously respected accessdate in all of the runs that I have seen after I corrected for it a few days ago. I will look into this issue as soon as possible and shall keep you updated. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I just want to clarify, that I'm talking about the parameters archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl being completely removed by the bot if they are currently present using a non cite tweet template, not an issue accessdate (which I see is a separate discussion above). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Oh, okay. In that case the bot is not set up to recognize those. I will add that as soon as possible (I don't have plans to run the bot again for a while anyways - except limited page-specific runs to test fixes as they arise - due to a busy real-life schedule this week). I will have this fixed by next week at the latest and shall keep you updated, okay? Thanks for the clarification. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, no problem and no rush. I'm on wiki sporadically at the moment, so if you have any updates, I may not see them right away, but I have your talk page on my watch to follow the discussion. Pings also are fine too.

@Favre1fan93: Not sure how it fits on your watch, but okay (sorry, couldn't resist a good pun). Anyways, thanks. I am sporadically on this week as well due to finals. Will be more active next week though (probably an exponential curve as semester will be over), I just get the notifications to my phone via email so try to hop on when I see them/get the chance to respond in as timely a manner as possible. Will keep you updated. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: So sorry for the delay in fixing this, real life commitments unfortunately delayed the update. The good news is that I have made it far easier to maintain. Here is the edit. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries! I totally understand. Yeah that edit looks good to me, in terms of what I was concerned about. Though it still appears that the bots date formatting does not follow that used by the article it runs on (ie, in the edit you linked, the dates went DMY, when the article uses MDY format. Really it appears it added a whole new "date" parameter.). So you might still want to look into that. But that's not much concern to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Hmm, you're right, I thought that I had already fixed that issue. I will work on it as soon as possible, shouldn't take too much time, I just don't have the time at this very moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Wrote up the skeleton code (minus algorithm)/design doc for the check. Have to head to a lecture now. Will see about finishing it later. Hope to have tested (on private-wiki, using old copy of Batman: Arkham from before bot ran + random pages from the queue), live tested, & pushed by the end of the week. Can't believe I hadn't fixed that yet. Seriously, I thought I had done something about respecting date formats a while ago. Oh well, more programming for me! I LOVE programming, so not an issue --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:  Fixed (diff) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Bot has since been entirely written in Python. Issues previously raised have all been addressed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Adityavagarwal! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Errors in IABot edits

Not sure who's the best person to notify about this, but this edit of yours from August using IABot introduced a bunch of erroneous archive links (search in the page for "dailymail" to see what I mean). Just wanted to bring this to your attention (especially if the bug hasn't been fixed yet). Wikiacc (¶) 17:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Wikiacc! Sorry about that error. I never noticed it at the time, but you are right, that is a strange error. Unfortunately, I am not the bot operator nor maintainer. According to this page Cyberpower678 is the bot op. Sorry that I can't help further, but I do not have source access nor am familiar with the inner workings of the bot. Cyberpower would probably be the best one to ask. Thank you for fixing the errors though, I was just going to that page to fix it & discovered that you had already done so. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017!!


Hi TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Same to you Davey2010! I have sure learned a lot since I joined Wikipedia back on the 8th of January 2016. It helps fill my spare time....and simultaneously takes away from my spare time. Either way, I love it! . Happy holidays! Don't mind me while I go out & play in the snow in GTA Online. Them jets don't fly themselves! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:John Nkemngong Nkengasong’s Biography

Dear Editor, I found your comments on my article John Nkemngong Nkengasong and was worried about how to give it proper update. Can you please assist me with a clear example on how to go about my corrections for references or footnotes?

I will be very grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusi David Toh (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kusi David Toh: Sorry for the delay in my response, I have added {{cn}} templates throughout the draft in some of the spots where citations should be present. Please review WP:REFB and Help:Your first article. If you have any questions or would like me to explain something in more detail, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

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.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)