Jump to content

User talk:SportingFlyer/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Simmeringer Had 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) 17:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Arizona placenames

SportingFlyer Reywas92 Pontificalibus Lightburst - I've gone through all of the "Place" places in Arizona and have a list ready for potential batch deletion. They're split into "No coverage" and "Superficial coverage" categories. Any thoughts, reviews and advice would be appreciated; would it be appropriate to do a single large batch or just start with the completely unverifiable ones? –dlthewave ☎ 19:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I would only batch nominate articles that are sourced only to the NGIS as that is how they'd be related enough to AfD, and I would make clear in the nomination the actions you've taken in a WP:BEFORE search in order to avoid the procedural keeps. Everything else can be nominated individually. SportingFlyer T·C 23:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
No one wants to comment on countless nominations, provide what you found with them but they don't need to be separate, maybe one batch with useless BEFORE results and one for those without – individual only for marginal cases, maybe Hortons and Paulsell, or a BOLD merge on that one. Reywas92Talk 03:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Britcar Endurance

I tentatively accepted 2019 Britcar Endurance Championship, though I share some of your concerns around sourcing. We'll see what New Page Reviewers have to say and whether or not the article survives AfD (if it gets to that). Bkissin (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Bkissin: Eesh. I'd like to see WP:THREE. I like well-referenced articles (who doesn't?), but in this case it makes it harder to determine whether notability exists as many of those sources seem primary, though I don't think it's non-notable. Thanks for letting me know. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

European Cricket League

Hi SportingFlyer - it took a while, and I tried my best. Draft:European Cricket League Your feedback is highly appreciated. Not sure about the sections ECL19 and ECL20. And: Aaargh - I just noticed this: European Cricket League Could we combine it? What to do now? Thanks a lot for your help! Löwenstein74 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Löwenstein74: Yep, feel free to improve the new mainspace article using text from your draft. See also 2019 European Cricket League - the tables and statistics for 2019 should be added to that article. You may want to copy that article before you do anything since it's a template, save it as a draft for the 2020 season, and then move it over (or ping me) when it's done and get it moved back to mainspace. Remember to bring over the references as well, and good luck! SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cheerio. Sporting Flyer! I did what you suggested and I like it very much! Thanks again - feel free to delete the draft! But there is another question: I have the Logo of the ECL tournament as svg - what license I need to add, so that it is not deleted automatically? Thanks for your help ...AGAIN! :-D Löwenstein74 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Löwenstein74: It'd be on fair use grounds, so you'd have to be very careful with the license, make clear it's fair use by using a non-free template, make sure it's low enough resolution, and state that the ECL owns the logo. Look at the licenses for other sports logos as an example, those are all fair use. If it gets deleted let me know and I'll look to see if it's a fixable issue - there's a chance it might not be. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Full pages newspapers on 1910 Pelicans article

Appreciate the info and the open mind on the subject, and without articles say starting at the bottom of a page and continuing at the top, it can be easier to just say 'here's the page', but is it possible to utilize the 'clipping' function of newspapers.com for those? That way even those without an account (such as myself currently) can see the article. Cake (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello SportingFlyer,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

GNIS essay

Hey, I'm drafting an essay on GNIS reliability that we can hopefully point people to instead of explaining the situation over and over. Edits and suggestions are welcome at User:Dlthewave/GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 19:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Tim Kabat

It looks like you attempted to nominate Tim Kabat for deletion, but didn't complete the nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kabat (2nd nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Hotel Adams 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) 03:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi SportingFlyer, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi SportingFlyer, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up

From WP:SALT - "This level of protection is useful for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated." In other words, when an article is at AFD for the first time, SALT suggestions are out of order.

While there was an AFD for Derek Chausin (police officer), shouldn't we regard it closure as questionable? The closer, for instance, claimed BLP1E justified speedy deletion, and speedy deleted that article after just one day.

This closure was speedily overturned at DRV.

The closer didn't even bother to try to defend their closure.

So, I suggest we do not regard this article as having been previously deleted, and SALTing out of order. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Geo Swan: I stand by my argument. What you quoted is not a rule, it mentions a use case, and I'm not referring to the AfD which was overturned when I suggest salting it. I read that DRV earlier but did not get a chance to participate in the discussion, and when I went to participate, I intended to suggest a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I do my best to understand the positions of people who disagree with me. Sometimes I am wrong, and they are right, and I will acknowledge this if they make a convincing argument.
But, sorry, I honestly do not understand your reply. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Geo Swan: What are you struggling with? It's likely the topic would be recreated if redirected. In any case, I'm not going to agree with you on this, so no worries if you just want to leave things be. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    • OK
    1. SALT is part of WP:Protection policy. So, is it meaningful to differentiate between policies, and rules? Even if, for the sake of argument, there were a difference, we would still be expected to comply with policy, wouldn't we?
    2. I am unfamiliar with the term "use case". I won't guess at what you mean by this term. I did search WP:Protection policy, and did not see the term being used there.
    3. I am glad to see you agreed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) merited being overturned.
    4. So, I am still at a loss as to just why you think the topic should be salted.
    5. I don't know what you mean by "It's likely the topic would be recreated if redirected." Did you mean "It's UNlikely the topic would be recreated if redirected"? Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Geo Swan: No. At NPP, we often see articles created on articles that were previously redirected. There's no amount of WP:GNG that will make this person not qualify for WP:BLP1E, at least in the short term, and I think it's very possible there's going to be a fight over the redirect based on my own experience editing. Protecting the redirect will help that and will force a discussion if and when it's time for the page to have its own article. By "use case" I mean "an appropriate application of the rule," compared to "this is the rule and it should only be used in this instance." SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the protection of the redirect, during the AFD, is truly extraordinary. I was working on the article, and had made 6 of the 8 edits [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6] I needed to more fully flesh out its {{cite}}s, before starting in on adding new content - content that would have been off-topic at Killing of George Floyd. But it was placed under protection.
    • I still don't know what a "use case" is, and I still don't understand your distinction between policies and rules.
    • As for whether GNG should lift an individual from BLP1E status to standalone article status - the problem with your assertion is that what constitutes "one event" is, in practice, interpreted in way too elastic a manner. When George Bush and Tony Blair were in office a wise-guy suggested that the article on Tony Blair should be merged into the article on George Bush. Why? Because no one ever heard anything about him, except in how he reacted to a George Bush policy. It was funny, at the time, because American critics of George Bush called Blair "George Bush's lap dog" because he was such a compliant junior ally - who went along with everything Bush wanted.

      Okay, Chesley Sullenberger. The article on him was started hours after his remarkable landing. A surprising number of good faith contributors wanted to see it blanked, deleted, redirected, arguing he was just a BLP1E, who would be forgotten in a week. I know, it sounds bizarre, but they seemed sincere.

      You wrote "There's no amount of WP:GNG that will make this person not qualify for WP:BLP1E," So, do you mean "There's no amount of WP:RS coverage that will ever make any person known for a single event measure up to our criteria for a stand-alone article?" If you won't go that far, then what is different about Chauvin, that did not apply to Sully? Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Because there's a clear and proper place for him to be noted, which is on the article of the crime. Sullenburger didn't commit a crime. If you wish to discuss this further, ping me at the AfD, but again, you're not going to change my mind on this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sporting

Hi, really sorry to disturb you but i need your help in reviewing Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi the article was deleted without relist even after the discussion at DRV I further recreated the article at AFC but surprisingly nominated for speedy by the same nominator. Please kindly help review. Does it really lack enough independent reliable sources or SNG? Because those are the only information i could get others are blogspot posts and sources that are not in english.Also i notice some of the comments suddenly disappeared at DRV, It only stopped after the temp undeletion whereas there was comments after that if you see history --Olatunde Brain (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Brain7days: I'm sorry you're dealing with these issues. We typically look for reviews of publications of authors to determine whether an author is notable, and while the UK sources aren't fantastic, the Punch NG/Guardian/Vanguard/Sun/literary publication articles clearly show notability. I think there was a lack of understanding there from the delete voters. I've asked Sandstein what the solution here is, hopefully they will respond back soon with what to do. I also haven't really seen anything like this before and I am a regular at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Tolu ‘A Akinyemi

I see you may have beefed up the sourcing a bit but almost all the sources currently present in the article were very much present in the time a clear consensus to delete the article at the AFD was established & as well as the DRV in which the deletion was upheld. So how is it really ready for mainspace? Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Celestina007: You've made an absolute mess of all of this. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. I've added an academic article which discusses the author along with a number of reviews. You've just removed two perfectly acceptable sources from the draft, one from the largest online website in Nigeria, the other you removed claiming it was about the other author even though a simple search shows Tolu A' Akinyemi authored the book. This has just been one giant screw-up after another: a bad AfD nom, an AfD where nobody actually reviewed any of the sources even though there are multiple reliable sources in the article, a DRV which ignored consensus even though of the three users who !voted endorse who didn't participate in the AfD, one of them was a keep/relist, the other said they would have !voted keep at the AfD but was commenting on the process. So now we have an article about a bestselling author that has always passed WP:GNG that can't get into mainspace, and I'm absolutely struggling to understand why. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, please see WP:CIVIL & ensure to remain calm & collected always. Oh well it’s bad you feel that way, I’m just an editor & not the ecommunity, if the AFD consensus was to delete & the DRV upheld that verdict that should tell you it isn’t the fault of any editor. Do you mean to say that all those who !voted a delete in AFD didn’t review the sources? Or those who participated at the DRV & endorsed the deletion didn’t either? That wouldn’t be plausible now would it? Furthermore, I’m not so sure who did the ref bombing with shabby UK sources, in any case that doesn’t make the subject of the article appear notable in any which way though. Celestina007 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: You're straight up trolling at this point. WP:AUTHOR requires multiple reviews in reliable sources. Those were already in the article you nominated for deletion. The article needed cleanup, but cleanup is completely different from notability. I have absolutely no idea why you continue to ignore the fact this passes WP:GNG with your "but the community" attitude both in your response above and here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Enthusiasm in CFD Discussion

SportingFlyer, I think you inadvertently iVoted twice on my CFD nomination here. I suspect that second vote was meant for one of the other nominations so I didn't just want to remove the duplicate. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @RevelationDirect: Cheers, I've moved the vote to its proper place above. I've been noticing that sometimes either the wrong discussion comes up when I click edit, or sometimes the entire page will open, and it's easier to miss these when the vote itself is cast relatively easily. I wouldn't chalk it up to enthusiasm! SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed the same thing, where you click on one section but it edits one away.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hotel Adams

On 11 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hotel Adams, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hotel Adams, Phoenix's first luxury hotel, burned to the ground in 1910, leaving the territorial governor homeless? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hotel Adams. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hotel Adams), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello SportingFlyer,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your contribution to the article Tolu Akinyemi Brain7days (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Common sense?

Regarding your comment here that Admins are also supposed to use common sense. Oh, you poor deluded child. That's not what they teach in cabal school. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hello SportingFlyer! I am currently drafting a list of editors willing to be pinged to the Teahouse to help out with questions which remain neglected because area-specific expertise is needed to answer them effectively. It is currently at User:Usedtobecool/Tea. You were recommended by NA1K for portal-related queries. I was wondering if you would be interested in being listed (for portals and/or any other listed areas). Being listed doesn't mean committing to answering all pings. The object is to have a large pool of editors, some of the most recently active of whom would be pinged at a time, with the hope that at least one editor would be able to respond during the brief window that a Teahouse post remains active. Please take a look when you find the time, and see if it is something that interests you or are able to help with. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

BLP1E

I didn't get a chance to reply to your last comment before the AFD closed.

WRT Sullenberger, after going through the firehose of hundreds of RS saying essentially the same thing about his heroic landing, on the morning after that event, I found half a dozen, or a dozen, references to his career PRIOR TO the landing. He had been a senior figure in the airline pilots organization. He had worked as a crash investigator. He had been an invited speaker at conferences on airline safety. He had written papers on airline safety. He had recently incorporated a consulting firm focussed on airline safety. My conclusion then was that if a well written article had been written about him, prior to the crash, people would recognize that he was, at least, on the cusp of measuring up to our notability criteria. I would have left a keep on that article.

So, no, I reject your claim he was, that he is, a BLP1E. Clearly, no one who is played by Tom Hanks is a BLP1E. But even before the movie he was not a BLP1E. Even before the landing he was not a BLP1E. Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Greenfield

You said your piece at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield, and consensus determined that Greenfield is sufficiently notable for an article. Please stop re-adding a merger template in what appears to be an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP yet another discussion on what has been firmly decided less than an hour ago. If you think ST47's close was improper, discuss that at the appropriate place, but don't try to start a separate discussion to throw away all of the discussion that just happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @GorillaWarfare: I did not participate in the discussion which gained consensus on WP:GNG because while I participated in the discussion as a whole, it was not the correct place to discuss content. The closing administrator clearly noted that AfD is an option, and just because an article passes WP:GNG does not mean we can have an article, as WP:NOT supercedes it. I picked what I believed to be a less controversial option to actually discuss the content. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If you really think the discussion and close were improper, you can start a discussion on that, and then the notability can be revisited if such a determination is made. But don't force people to have the same conversation all over again when it was just decided. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Where would you recommend having a discussion for an AN close regarding deletion? I figured the merge discussion was the correct course of action here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I would just do it at AN right alongside the discussion. Well, I wouldn't do it at all, but if you want to know where to do it that's what I'd suggest. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Cheers. I've decided against, especially since I've discovered there will be support for an AfD if she loses. Just a very frustrating experience on the whole. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of universities in Zambia revert

While I could really give a crap if you "improve" the list, doing so by adding unreliable primary references that are not independent from the schools is not going to help. The same goes for government education authority websites like www.hea.org.zm. As they are not independent either. Generally, the same notability standards apply to items in lists then they do to everything in Wikipedia. Also, the first explanatory sentence "This is a list of registered universities in Zambia" doesn't need to be referenced. As it's a clear, un-refutable statement of fact about the list. Just like "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" in WP:N doesn't need to be sited. Especially four times. If they are websites that are useful to the subject, but not being used as a refence for a specific thing, just add them to the external link section where they belong and will actually be useful. That's the whole point in it. Also, a list shouldn't be primary external links. It should be more blue links then anything. Otherwise, it's just a directory. So, there can still problem even if the entries are reliable sourced. While personally I'm fine with some entries being only externally linked, I don't think it is fine if there's only like two blue links out of like 40 entries and the rest are red, or externally linked. I don't feel like getting in an edit war over it either or having all the work I've done cleaning up the lists reverted just because you don't feel like following standards. Hopefully your reasonable about things so neither of those happen. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Other

  • @Adamant1: I checked with the school project before making any edits. The list is fine. I do plan to look at other lists where you've removed valid list items under the guise of improvement. Please do not interact with me on my talk page any further. If you wish to discuss an article's content, I am happy to engage you on the talk page of that particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, don't take me commenting on your talk page as a slight or anything. It's merely an attempt to work things out in a civil manor before they needlessly escalate. If your going to "look over" the other lists I edited, which seems like WP:WIKIHOUNDING, then this is a personal problem between us and not something to do with any particular article. As such, I assume a persons talk page is the correct place to discuss it. That said, if you rather have the discussion on my talk page instead for whatever reason I'd be fine with that. Hopefully either is OK, because I'm not talking about "lists of schools in African" on the talk page of List of universities in Zambia. As that's not what it's for. That aside, do you have a link to the school project discussion that you say you had? The last time I checked, Wikiproject's are not authoritative on anything and they can't over rule long standing, consensus based policies like WP:NOTDIR, WP:RS, or WP:LISTN. I don't think you saying "I talked to a Wikiproject" is a good rebuttal to me bringing them up either. Ultimately, your the one reverting my edits and doing other things related to them. Not a Wikiproject. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you willing to have the discussion on my talk page then? If so, I can copy and paste it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2002 Brisbane Broncos season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corey Parker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Good faith" reverts

There's nothing in "good faith" about saying your going to review someone edits which is clear hounding and reverting a bunch of them. Plus, if there was any good intent behind your actions then you would have discussed it when I tried to so exactly this kind of thing wouldn't happen. The guidelines are pretty clear there's two cases where the speedy delete can removed. If the article isn't promotional or the person improves the article. Neither of which apply, but the articles you removed the speedy delete from were clearly promotional and after removing it you just moved on and didn't improve anything. I have zero problem with you removing a speedy delete that I added here and there because the article can be improved. That's clearly not what your doing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton newspaper

You mentioned that you'd done an on-line search of the Hamilton newspaper archives. Could you provide a link to that database? Thanks, Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Cbl62: I just went to the Hamilton Spectator and typed "Willie Thornton" into the search box, then I typed in "Tiger-Cats" and sorted in reverse to see how far back the online archive went. Surprised there wasn't a mention and you may have more luck with a different search. It's not foolproof but when I'm trying to save or research say African articles typically the newspaper websites themselves do a better job of finding results than the major search engines. I think he pretty clearly fails WP:GNG, but meeting a sports SNG while failing GNG is a time-honoured argument - perhaps you'll have better luck than I did? SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice turn of phrase

I like your recent "not-youth-sportsy enough" comment. I may borrow it at some point. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Emmet House Site

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. That article was really puzzling me, but I never made the leap to realising that the sources were talking about two different buildings. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

Question, what are the notability guidelines for college football coaches. I assumed since Liberty is a top 25 school their Defensive coordinator would meet this but if not please explain them. Brosenow (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NRU nominations at WP:AfD

Thank you for making these nominations, and of course it's none of my business, but can you slow down a bit since it's hard to keep up with all of them? Bearian (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SportingFlyer, just thought i'd let you know that some of the articles still have minimal participation. These include Lorenzo Maria Bruno, Moni Tongaʻuiha, Nick Feakes, Jojo Tikoisuva, Mo Katz, Jake Turnbull, Michael Reid, Dylan Taikato-Simpson. It'd be great if you could look at some of these to try and create greater consensus. Also, if these are closed as 'No consensus' do you think I should re-list them or just add ref improve and verifiability tags to the pages? Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players from Shkodër

I think you might have been better off nominating this for CfD AFTER the NYC/LA discussion had been completed. That way we might have landed in a place where demonstrably defining cases of the intersection of specific athlete and city would stay but taking it down to every little city would not - we would have a line. With this absurdly small Shkodër category not being merged (no consensus with about 3 participants), we are going to see every little burg category now. The user who created Shkodër is already on a tear creating new categories in this structure. I generally agree with you about these categories, but it feels like now the floodgates are open on them. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Waikiki Biltmore Hotel

Hi, I notice your DYK hook was promoted to prep, but it should not have been with all those bare URLs, per Rule D3. Additionally, your subscription to Newspapers.com encourages you to clip the news articles so other readers can view them. I clipped and formatted footnote 1 to show you how it's done. Please let me know if you can take care of the URLs and the news clippings in the next day or so, or if I should return your nomination to the noms page until these matters are taken care of. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @Yoninah: Hi, I'm not sure I understand, as the article didn't have a single bare url at the time of submitting to DYK. There were a couple that were missing the publication name and one was missing the date as well, but my understanding is that those aren't "bare," but if this is what you mean I can fix those easily. However, I will unfortunately not be making the clippings from newspapers.com. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the remaining citations. SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of marginal seats in the 2015 Canadian federal election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of marginal seats in the 2015 Canadian federal election 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/List of marginal seats in the 2015 Canadian federal election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season

Hallo, you participated in this discussion in its early stages. Therefore, I would take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season again. In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation and please feel free to delete this message from your page, if you so wish. Thanks again and kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello SportingFlyer,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Waikiki Biltmore Hotel

On 12 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Waikiki Biltmore Hotel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Waikiki Biltmore, which opened in 1955, was the first high-rise hotel built in Waikiki? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Waikiki Biltmore Hotel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Waikiki Biltmore Hotel), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments of interest

There are comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor not communicating that maybe of interest to you. Otr500 (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

This is wishing you a merry Christmas to you and yours and a prosperous new year ahead. Celestina007 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Safari Hotel

On 30 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Safari Hotel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Scottsdale, Arizona, repealed its ban on dancing so that the Safari Hotel could open a nightclub? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Safari Hotel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Safari Hotel), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

SportingFlyer,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 06:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

New message from Stifle

Hello, SportingFlyer. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

check

My edits with link on kuala lumpur team page, registered user kept vandalism by reverting league update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.139.21 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Page move discussion: Dean Smith

There is a discussion ongoing regarding whether Dean Smith should to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Talk:Dean Smith#Is this the primary topic?, you might want to participate in the move discussion, which is taking place here. Domeditrix (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sportspeople from X

As far as I am aware, no, there was no RFC. GiantSnowman 17:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not voting

Regarding this edit: just some feedback, which as unsolicited advice you can of course freely ignore, especially if you're already aware of what I'm saying. I found your use of "I also thought I was just !voting here" and not wanting to be drawn into a long argument to be a bit at odds. Typically when editors weigh in with an opinion instead of voting, they acknowledge the possibility (though not inevitability) of a conversation ensuing. I do agree that there isn't always more to say in a discussion and sometimes editors unnecessarily try to extend conversation further. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Isaacl: Thanks for the feedback. I'm very aware that a vote can open up a thread. Sometimes, especially when there's a lot of participation, you want to be able to give your opinion and move on. For me, this was one of those cases, considering most of the opposition just doesn't like the proposal, which is very hard to argue against. SportingFlyer T·C 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with your larger point; I'm just saying I think using the "not-vote" term didn't help with making it. By saying you were not voting, you emphasized the fact that you were expressing a comment and entering into discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you now have 2 !votes at the Xanadu DRV.

Hi, I think you have two different bolded !votes at this DRV: [[7]]. Could you clarify where you are on this? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Improved article

Hi, I tried to improve that poorly written article on politician Johny Messo, but that occurred sometime after your vote in the discussion on the proposed deletion. Could you please take one more look at the present state of the article? Sorabino (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, maybe you already saw that discussion on deletion proposal for article Johny Messo was closed today, in favor of the deletion proposal. Such outcome was somewhat surprising to me, since there was no clear consensus for deletion: two votes were in favor of keep, one (yours) was for complete deletion, and one was optional - for deletion or selective merger. Maybe I am mistaking, but such structure of votes would imply at least relisting, but not total deletion. How would you close that discussion, in terms of immediate deleting or relisting? Sorabino (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand that you voted for the delete option, but still I wanted to hear your opinion too, before any further steps, if any. I hope that review process wont be needed, because I asked the closer to reconsider relisting the discussion just for another weak, since there is no harm in that, and things might get clearer. Sorabino (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

Deletions at Heavy Woollen District

Why have you unilaterally deleted all the content I added to this? Including the archived link for the Dewsbury Reporter 'paper? And without acknowledgement in the edit summary?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I get that with the cat who will not keep off the laptop!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Stubs

Please take care not to add "stub" tag to an article which already has a specific stub tag. It just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 14:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Missed that, apologies, haven't done NPP for awhile. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting CU

I saw you opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins and were unsure about requesting CU. It is most definitely not a well defined criteria.

On the low end, you need to have enough evidence to justify "credible concerns of bad-faith editing or sock-puppetry". Checkusers have to be able to justify that every check they make meets that criteria. If there's not enough evidence, a clerk will refuse to to endorse the check and/or a CU will refuse to run it.

On the high end, sometimes the socking is so obvious, a clerk or CU feels confident they can issue a block without having to bother with the check. If you see cases where people are talking about ducks, that's what's going on. See WP:DUCK.

It's not critical that you get this right. If you request CU without enough evidence, it just won't get endorsed. As long as you're not disruptively requesting it in cases where it's obviously not appropriate, it's no big deal. On the other end, if you don't request it, a clerk may decide to request it on their own initiative. That happens quite a bit. In short, it's not a big deal either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chicago Storm (soccer)
added a link pointing to Major Indoor Soccer League
David Vaudreuil
added a link pointing to Chicago Storm
MISL team-by-team history
added a link pointing to Chicago Storm
Major Indoor Soccer League (2008–2014)
added a link pointing to Chicago Storm
Xtreme Soccer League
added a link pointing to Chicago Storm

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chicago Storm (soccer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Major Indoor Soccer League.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

DRV on the contentious cricketer closes

Hey, not sure if you saw my most recent comment on Ymblanter's page, but I guess Mohammad Ilyas has to be taken to DRV if the close is to be overturned (I haven't heard back from Swarm on Kant Singh yet, but I'm crossing my fingers he recognizes what the issue was and reconsiders without DRV). Do you want to initiate Ilyas' DRV? I've never started one, but would be willing if it's worth it. I do think the precedent to delete in the last 7 similar AfDs is pretty compelling. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, great, I'll be there to support overturning. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
So bizarre... https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Swarm#Kant_Singh_close I think it's just about time to demand that sentence be removed from NSPORT and replaced with something that isn't utterly confusing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Will you bee opening DRVs for Kant Singh and Aftab as well? JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: I wasn't planning to. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Olympic Park Stadium

Hey, I'm sorry, I think I have been unduly peevish or outraged or whatever, at ongoing RFD. It was probably not appropriate for me to take umbrage at the RFD opening, I think i was just surprised and somehow let it bother me. But in fact it seems there's been some useful discussion there. I hope you haven't minded my tone; please don't take offense. And any which way it turns out, it's fine by me. Thank you for your many contributions in Wikipedia, including sometimes opening RFDs... :) --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Doncram: No worries, I assumed there were multiple Olympic Park Stadiums but after not finding any others and not seeing any discussion for the move, I would have BRD'd the move if I knew how to do so. It's hopefully clearly not personal at all! SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Too right! I was devo before, Mickey mouse now. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazhar-ul-Islam

Hi. I hope you are well. You are invited to participate at this AFD discussion as you are active in these type of discussions. If there are more participants, then it will be easier to get clear consensus. Hope, you will participate. Thanks and Have a nice day. — A.A Prinon  Conversation 11:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review the draft submission

I have submitted the Draft:See Khwae City F.C. and Draft:Udon United F.C., the Thai football clubs that competing in the Thai League 3. I need your help to review and accept them.
Thank you for your kindness. Gunkiet (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of Jadon Wagner

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Jadon Wagner, which you proposed for deletion. I have added a few sources to the article, and I believe the subject is on the edge of meeting GNG. AfD may be a good route here. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry

Hi SportingFlyer, sorry for saying this was a sexist nomination - I don't want you to feel attacked and I having read your responses I now accept that the nom was made for valid reasons. Of course, the overrepresentation of women's soccer articles at AfD remains an open question in terms of WP:BIAS, and notoriously there remains a bigot/incel vibe hanging over a certain small, militant section of WP:FOOTBALL. But neither of these things are anything to do with you. I don't think I'm allowed to edit the AfD since it was cut off in its prime? Otherwise I would strike the offending section. Thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Bring back Daz Sampson: I appreciate the apology. I understand the concern whenever there's a women's soccer article at AfD, but as far as I can (still) tell this one didn't have any WP:SIGCOV, just the fact the teams played three finals against each other in quick succession. (Interestingly, the USA-Norway rivalry, which I think would pass WP:GNG, has no article.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gilbert Beech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashley Williams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

re Jackie Reid

The links you described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Reid (baseball), I can't access them even tho I have an account on newspapers.com thru Wikipedia, you must have a higher-level paid account I guess, maybe you could put putting some of that material into the article on your to-do list, if you like. Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, SportingFlyer. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Buildings and structures demolished in 1699

A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures demolished in 1699 indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Buildings and structures demolished in 1698

A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures demolished in 1698 indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Jon Perzely Article

Hi, I have read through your reasoning for not approving the article written by Jon Perzely that I submitted, and see why you choose to not approve it. This is my first ever Wikipedia article and I am a university student who is very passionate and aspire to get into this field of business, and want to write about other big agents in the industry to gain more knowledge and familiarity with their lives and careers. I attempted to base the article on Jon of that of other NFL agents who have Wikipedia pages such as David Mulugheta, Drew Rosenhaus, and Leigh Steinberg, using similar types of sources as well as formatting. While I understand your reasoning for not approving based on the quality of sources, I was wondering if you have any advice or more detailed suggestion for what I can do to rewrite this article and improve its chances of getting improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattroot24 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Mattroot24: Sure. There were a couple issues with that article. First, I felt like it was written promotionally. This doesn't necessarily mean that you're trying to advertise his services, but that it's not necessarily written from a neutral point of view. The second and bigger issue is that he does not appear notable. Our concept of notability is based on the concept of, "have other people written about this person?" The problem with the sources in the article is that few of them cover Perzley significantly. For instance, this article only works to show that Perzley represents a player - it doesn't tell us anything significant about Perzley. This is the best article and the type of coverage I would look for when evaluating the notability of a draft, but there's only one article like it. For instance, the Inked piece is probably the second best one and it's an interview, which we don't count (they're generally not considered secondary sources.) Also make sure that the sources you use are reliable - someone's WordPress blog won't count, but a major newspaper article or magazine would be great. I think your first step is finding other articles like that - preferably as many as you can - since if you can't, the article may get deleted if you move it to mainspace. Hope that helps. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate the feedback and will work to first make sure it reads from a neutral standpoint. I will also make sure to look into better sources, now that I have a better understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattroot24 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

1970s Topps

Hello, I am writing you because I wasn’t getting feedback by another individual who nominated some articles for deletion however you participated in the discussion. Unfortunately I was unavailable for the discussion. I would have preferred an improvement tag be used instead of a delete tag since it only gives you seven days to reply. I don’t have the luxury of getting here much anymore so projects went unimproved. You did state that it violated several features of WP:NOT. I have reviewed WP:NOT and can identify one possible area which can be easily remedied. Also in an attempt at good faith I have to say that statements like ‘Pure cruft and I like sports cards’ don’t come off so pleasant. I can easily say that depending of perspective and frame of reference Wikipedia is 50 to 100% cruft and the vast majority of editors contribute content they like. As for Topps, the company and it’s products are mentioned in all forms of media, fiction and non-fiction, film, television, academic journal, law journal, and Wall Street journal. I would have liked to bring some of the more encyclopedic content to those articles. Libro0 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Libro0: Hi, I'm just curious what sort of feedback you're after? It's been a couple months since that discussion took place, but if I remember correctly, the article was basically just a card directory, and was a very obvious candidate for deletion. I don't think anyone would have any issue if you can show that particular set somehow passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, the feedback you just gave is all I could ask for. A simple response was sufficient and you’ve earned my respect for it. It’s one thing to cite policy, the nominator however made a very specific statement which made his argument erroneous. I certainly would like to have the content here. Fortunately their are numerous others wikis now that there weren’t years ago that might be more suitable to host the articles. Libro0 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Libro0: I myself don't see any problem with emailing you the content, but I'm not able to do that - sorry to make you ask elsewhere again, but you could ask either the deleting admin Malcolmxl5, or inquire on WP:REFUND. I would try asking Malcolmxl5 first and then going to refund only if they don't respond after a couple days. SportingFlyer T·C 09:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. I’ll follow up on this. Libro0 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Candidate notability

I was wondering if are interested in looking at my attempt to describe when a candidate might be notable. I am open to feedback with the hope that we can have some clarity before US campaigns begin in earnest later this fall for the 2022 elections --Enos733 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Enos733: It's a really good start! I'm concerned with the "may be notable" part though as The candidate in a country with a bicameral legislature is running for a position in the most prestigious chamber (e.g. U.S. Senate) and has independent polling showing the candidate tied or ahead in the polls within four months of the election or multiple political prognosticators suggest the election is a "toss up" or leans toward the candidate. or The candidate represents a historical first (for the nation), such as being the first LGBT person winning a party's nomination. is clearly U.S.-orientated. Maybe that's the point? I think it's worth mentioning the ten-year test - in determining whether an article on a candidate is promotional, the question will be if they will be notable in ten years, for the campaign, if they lose. I'm not sure several of the ones we kept last time round in the US cycle were, but that's consensus for you... SportingFlyer T·C 08:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Thee first section here is a response to the discussion of Teresa Greenfield. This type of candidate is where the community struggles the most, as multiple candidates that fit that profile are often kept by the community. I am not sure how to describe the existing consensus on this type of higher profile candidate and am open to better ideas. The historical first section exists in WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@Enos733: Greenfield really seems like an outlier to me - there's nothing to say she does pass the WP:10YT test. I'd actually remove most of the "might" be notables entirely - I'm not sure what examples they necessarily portray. The candidate defeated an incumbent in a party primary for a national office. might be fine, but I think The candidate defeated an incumbent in a party primary for a national office where the candidate is virtually certain to be elected in the general election. might read better. I'd also trim the last sentence to read something more like The candidate's campaign is substantially covered in academic writings, documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I might also add The candidate has received sustained significant coverage for being a perennial candidate. as these are sometimes kept as well. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Good points. I don't see Greenfield as a complete outlier, though. Every US cycle, there seems to be at least one candidate that the community keeps because because the candidate is running in a competitive race. --Enos733 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking a break

FWIW when I took a break from AFDs, DRV, and all things deletion, my enjoyment of the rest of the site increased dramatically; I'd recommend it to anyone. Anyway, enjoy the break! Levivich 17:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello SportingFlyer:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello SportingFlyer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates

A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FC Cincinnati current roster

Template:FC Cincinnati current roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

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

(t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Fire

I'd appreciate if you'd retract the "kill it with fire" part of your oppose. I understand and respect you holding a different opinion than I do but it is unnecessary and hurtful to use that kind of language. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello SportingFlyer,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 851 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

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

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

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

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello SportingFlyer,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13818 articles, as of 04:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

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

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

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

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello SportingFlyer,

Backlog status

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

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

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, SportingFlyer,

A sockpuppet created a fake SPI case today that named you and an admin as suspected sockpuppets which made me realize that it's been a long time since I saw you on the project. I see by your Contributions that you have been gone since April and so I just wanted to check in and see if you were okay. Hopefully, you are just busy with off-line life. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi SportingFlyer,

Invitation

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2019

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

For over 100 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election § Requested move 13 September 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election § Requested move 13 September 2022. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

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

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:14TeamBracket-MLS

Template:14TeamBracket-MLS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello SportingFlyer,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Nomination of Peters Corner, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peters Corner, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peters Corner, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello SportingFlyer,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Yevhen Cheberko

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yevhen Cheberko, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Yevhen Cheberko

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yevhen Cheberko, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello SportingFlyer,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SportingFlyer/Archive_3&oldid=1175537522"