Jump to content

User talk:Pichpich/Archive-2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BLP PROD on Erasma Arellano

[edit]

I've undone your placement of a WP:BLPROD on Erasma Arellano. The article had a reference - it may not have been an inline link, but it had a section marked "Reference" that list the title, publishing year, and publisher for a book. If you have checked that book and found that it has no reference to the subject of the article, let me know and I'll restore the PROD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

[edit]
many thanks -- by any chance could you review https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Farhat_Square? Higt (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calthemite category for creation

[edit]

Hi PichPich

I am trying to understand how Wikipedia works and am puzzled why you had tagged the request to create a category for "calthemites" as "Tag for speedy deletion" - link to the deletion message is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Newcaves#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category%3ACalthemites

I can't understand why "Calthemites" are in the category of "Speleothems" as the only similarity is the shapes and forms which are created. Calthemites are derived from degrading concrete on manmade structures (outside caves), Speleothems are derived from Limestone or dolomite (natural rock in natural caves).

I haven't had any feedback regarding reasoning for the deletion, and it would really help me learn from your decision.

Instead of this request being deleted, would it better to change the category of "Speleothems" to "Speleothems and Calthemites" to at least allow "Concrete Degradation" to be included as a searchable item linked in the subgroups?

Much appreciate your thoughts and possible solution. Regards Newcaves Newcaves (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newcaves. The deletion of the category you'd created was technical since it was empty and only included a paragraph of explanation that duplicated the info in the article Calthemite. But you have a point. Placing that article in Category:Speleothems is indeed a mistake. However, I don't think Category:Speleothems and calthemites is the solution. For now, I've removed Calthemite from Category:Speleothems and placed it in the category Category:Concrete. Do you think this makes sense? Best, Pichpich (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PichPich

This subject has certainly raised a few eyebrows. I have had a number of conflicting views from various editors on how this should be handled. Its is not an easy subject, however one thing which has come from all this is that most people have not been aware of why calthemites grow so much faster than speleothems. I have been aware of multiple instances where railway tunnels and mine tunnels have fast growing calthemites in them and it is due to industrial waste lime on the surface being leached through the rock strata into the tunnels. Then there is the issue where calthemites are not speleothems despite have many similar aspects, but also many differences (chemistry, growth rates, location etc etc. So putting calthemites into concrete category doesn't quite fit the overall situation, nor does putting calthemites in speleothem category. Another reviewer has come up with a compromise which probably best fits the situation at present and that is to have calthemites as a subgroup of both "Concrete" and "speleothems". Its probably not perfect but at least people can use these two groups to cross reference and searches. I am in favour of leaving calthemites in both categories at this stage. I am assuming that calthemites has stayed in both categories. Thanks so much for your wisdom and patients on this matter. Regards Newcaves Newcaves (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DZAY Alay Radyo

[edit]

Thought I'd inform you that the user you reported appears to be a sock of long-term abuser Betrand101. Bert's modus operandi is to come up with made-up or hoax radio stations in the Philippines, as stated in his LTA case page. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the info. Pichpich (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

[edit]
Hello Pichpich,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a lovely kitten:

[edit]

Dear Pichpich, thank you for reviewing and accepting my first article. Although I am a month late, please take this kitten as a token of my appreciation.

Brensalsa (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

[edit]
Hello Pichpich,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my bracket edit?

[edit]

here -

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bracket&action=history

other punctuation gives an example. It's ridiculous not to mention a single one until far, far down the page. Come on. Please set back. thank you.

There's already an infobox on the side that lists all brackets so I don't feel that the change is necessary. Best, Pichpich (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article

[edit]

Dear Pichpich,

I understand that there is a problem with my article that you are requesting for deletion. May you please address the problem to me so I can fix it.

Thanks. PenguinPublishers (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book quite simply does not pass the general notability criterion. It is a self-published book by a non-notable teenager and it doesn't stand a chance as a Wikipedia article. Pichpich (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selected Songs 1999–2005, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Crash. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 2027 Summer Youth Olympics, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vision China Times

[edit]

Hi there

I noticed Vision China Times was redirected to Kanzhongguo. I have reverted this because Vision China Times is a separate legal entity in Australia on its own. Vision Times in Australia is not the same as Vision Times in kanzhongguo which is the US, hence I have deleted that phrase to reduce confusion. The references in relation to it being an independent newspaper in Australia is only relevant to the Vision China Times in Australia. The chief editors are also different people so it would be incorrect to direct it to the kanzhongguo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyzhangAU (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanavara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanfloo

[edit]

Hi! I just noticed that you undid my edit to Fernanfloo, without any explanation. I removed the redirect to the list, because Fernanfloo is a YouTube personality. The reason I did this is because people who want to know about the personality Feranfloo want to learn about the person, not the list of the top 100 YouTubers. Please let me know your take. Jamesjpk (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there currently is no content at Fernanfloo so at least the redirect provides some information however minimal. Pichpich (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Binodoxys communis, Pichpich.

Unfortunately Reb1981 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

good job with improving.

To reply, leave a comment on Reb1981's talk page.

Reb1981 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jalachhayam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nuance and Awesome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simoliophiidae

[edit]

You may have been blocked from editing if you keep vandalizing. Fourthigs (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

[edit]
Hello Pichpich,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 806 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fierra fly

[edit]

The plot is about to thickenDlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? Pichpich (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I've just found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Smooth! Pichpich (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of EternalRocks worm

[edit]

The article EternalRocks worm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Isolated incident that was only covered to a minor degree, and failed to cause significant damage. Shouldn't be merged with Wannacry, the media incorrectly connected the two.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ZarosFlok (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep/delete article Silu Wang

[edit]

Hi Pichpich, Thanks for reviewing article Silu Wang on 2 June 2017. I created the original article but it was quickly deleted before I even had a chance to add references etc. An other user recreated the article but again is being considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silu_Wang.

In music world, there are so many rising starts, it is not fair to say they are not notable simply because they are young and early in their career. Yes I am a new wiki user, but as long as what I said can be verified, it doesn't make me less trustworthy. It is sad to see that a genuine talented young pianist can't have a wikipedia article even with many references from legitimate sources.

I am a new wikipedia user and since I created the original page, I am not sure if my vote counts. If you agree with me and believe that she deserves a wiki article, or even if you don't , please help to vote here.

Since a lot of reference sources are in Chinese, if you need any help in translation, please feel free to contact me (Google translate is good but I am better :D )

Best regards --Michaeljwei (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Mallhopp, Pichpich.

Unfortunately Mabalu has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Unreviewing so that if the creator tries removing deletion notice again a reviewer should catch it.

To reply, leave a comment on Mabalu's talk page.

Mabalu (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bulletin cover (Belgium).jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bulletin cover (Belgium).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Pichpich, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Pichpich, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • 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) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Costa Rican classical musicians

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Costa Rican classical musicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Baylee Almon

[edit]

Hello Pichpich,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Baylee Almon for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

DrStrauss talk 16:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Pichpich, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • 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) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Notability of Hammerax

[edit]

Hi Pichpich. I notice that you created were involved in editing the page for Hammerax, which I've tagged as potentially failing to meet guidelines for notability. I've also started a discussion on the article's talk page - please feel free to add your contribution there. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Pichpich, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

[edit]

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

For being one of the top 50 reviewers of the last 12 months. Thank you very much for your reviewing! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oooooooooooooh, shiny barnstar! Thanks! Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F.A. die on Nov 23

[edit]

can you please stop to undo my edits on the François Aquin page? Thank you. C Siegfried (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever edited that article and the article history both here and on Wikidata appears to confirm that. Maybe you've got the wrong person. Pichpich (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn cleanup

[edit]

Hey, what's the rationale for this edit? Removing the unfilled parameters and hidden comments is fine, but wondering about the rest. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a very interesting edit... I'm removing some of the infobox parameters that are unused and unlikely to be relevant for that particular article. Also I used templates for the dates of birth/death in the infobox so that the age at the date of death is displayed automatically. In short, a very boring edit! Pichpich (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so why remove parameters that are used? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? If so it was an accident but from what I see in the diff, I only removed unused parameters although some contained hidden text that defines the parameter. (if you see what I mean). In any case, feel free to revert whichever deletion you disagree with. Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Pichpich. 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)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Pichpich, 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) [reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

[edit]
Hello Pichpich, 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 1st and run until January 29th. 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) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pichpich/Archive-2017&oldid=1079146861"