User talk:Salimfadhley/Archives/2017/August

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Salimfadhley. 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. Malinaccier (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ingando

Hello Salimfadhley,

Thank you for commenting on the Ingando page. I appreciate a number of the issues you raise, but am unsure as to how to solve them:

• What sort of CE are you looking for? I don't think that there were any errors and the article didn't feel particularly stilted, but I am only one person and have my own idiosyncrasies in my use of English.
• Which paper in particular did you feel was potentially self-referenced? Mgbako wrote in a journal, so probably meets this criterion, but Purdeková could reasonably be said to have been self-published. The Refugee Studies Centre Working Papers Series is, I suppose, in something of a grey area. Thoughts?
• Is the citation of a Canadian government website an acceptable substitute? In particular, is this acceptable if it cites sources which are deemed unacceptable here?

I shall change the citations to the Canadian government website since you have marked out Rwandapedia as unacceptable so at worst I've just changed one impermissible thing to another, but it may be all right, and I shall remove the Purdeková

Thanks Docentation (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

DJ Dirty Harry

Hello Salimfadhley!

Thank you for reviewing the DJ Dirty Harry page. In response to your concern that the page needed more proof of notoriety, I have cited additional articles referencing this DJ from Rolling Stone, Grammy.com and Complex.com. I study entertainment and music particularly--in America, these are some of the biggest outlets a musician can be recognized on.

If the citations I've added are not enough upon reviewing my latest contributions, please let me know specifically how I can improve the article. Thank you.ProEmcee (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you for expanding the articole. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

CSD A7

WP:CSD#A7: "This criterion applies [...] not to articles about[...] or other creative works. " Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Battala Woodcut Prints

Hi Salimfadhley, would you have any objections if I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battala Woodcut Prints as keep after the listing period of a week expires, even though there is only one !vote by an uninvolved editor? It seems that your objections to the article have been addressed. It would be my first non-admin closure, so I'd like to tread cautiously here. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Salimfadhley/Archives/2017, 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)