Jump to content

User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Sulfurboy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Sulfurboy,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sulfurboy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Sulfurboy,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Sulfurboy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ephixa

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ephixa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Sulfurboy,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Shaping up Elimination

Hello Sulfurboy,

I appreciate your help in shaping up my article, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Elimination_of_infectious_diseases

You noted that large parts are unsourced. Do you mean the parts under the section Regional elimination established or under way Main article: Eradication of infectious diseases? Those were just pasted in from their main article in Eradication of infection diseases, where they are appropriately referenced. The references do not copy. From what I can tell from FAQs, only an editor can move a section. If that is the issue, please check the original, and consider moving the section to this more appropriate place.

The two things that made me realise that an Elimination page was necessary were:

1. 'Elimination' in this sense appears on the Elimination disambiguation page, but does not link to any page. 2. There was quite a lot of info about elimination in the eradication page (the part I suggest moving, and copied in)

I have referenced practically every sentence in the new part, and those that are not referenced are clearly logically implied by what comes before and common or referenced knowledge (e.g., latency of TB can be seen in the main TB article).

thanks for your advice,

CunningNance (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter G. Demers

Article link:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Pete_Demers

Hi there,

I am a professional author and see that my submission has been rejected for not having a "formal tone." I have decades of experience as a technical and feature writer. I do not agree with this assessment. This article concerns a person who has contributed to professional sports, specifically hockey, in a meaningful manner. His accomplishments merit his inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, the article's citations were questioned, despite my having cited multiple mainstream sources. The article does not use "peacock language" but does include the subject's accomplishments, as one would expect. I am appealing this rejection, or at minimum I would like clear direction. I see article after article on Wikipedia, and the article I submitted meets and exceeds the style, caliber, and content of those articles.

I also need explanation about why a picture I have full rights to continues to be deleted.

At present sadly I see no logical principles at work. The subject of this Wikipedia page, Peter Demers, has made contributions to the field of hockey and sports medicine that merit note. I would like to see this page successfully published. MarionPB (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Omid Farokhzad

Hey Sulfurboy,

I have added a few more reputable citations on this page do you think my corrections are enough for acceptance- If not what else do I need to add for this page acceptance? Omid_Cameron_Farokhzad Thank you for your time

Amir NAnasa 88 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Belated thank you

Hi Sulfurboy. Belated thank you for all your work requiring notability and referencing expectations for the article Paul Trynka. You made a 50K edit admin account accountable for their WP:BLP article creation. This shouldn't be an exception, this should be the rule. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Sulfurboy,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Sulfurboy,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

approval for Shree Saini wikipedia page

Sir, I have rewritten the page according to your suggestions and made the necessary corrections. Please Approve the page Shree Saini as soon as possible. Waiting for your reply. Thank you.Pranveer786 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Sulfurboy,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Sulfurboy,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 805 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown

Hello, Sulfurboy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cleyson LeRoy (C. L.) Brown".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ezra Bayda page

Hi! I have updated the Ezra Bayda page with new information. I did so previously but it was removed because there was no verifiable reference given. Would you be willing to check the citation to make sure it is the correct form?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ezra_Bayda

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ezra_Bayda#cite_ref-10

Mizeditor (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


No. All that was referenced was an e-mail address. That is not a source. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 04:20:39, 10 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahul sharma


I am new to the wikipedia. I am trying to get this page published and I am facing citation issues. I exactly want to the know the issue with the draft lerocque as I want to correct the same. Kindly guide me . You have mentioned about the footnotes and I have already provided the references as footnotes. So, i am confused , Kindly help with the same.


Mahul sharma (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not the footnotes, it is the lack of inline citations. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10 February 2020 for assistance on Champ Kelly submission by vandykecj12


I am new to the wikipedia. Can you please let me know what is causing my Draft:Champ Kelly page from being published. Thank you!

vandykecj12 (talk) 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The reasons why were provided on your draft. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I read through. I have articles from reputable newspaper websites and an organizational bio specifically about this person. I am new to wikipedia so maybe I am missing something. vandykecj12 (talk) 10 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.205.1 (talk)
The linked sources are either not reliable sources or the ones that are reliable only mention the subject in a routine manner. All of this will be abundantly clear to you when you review the links provided on your draft. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham (February 10) - We would like to understand your requirements for "notability", as third-party sources were cited.

Dear Sulfurboy,

We have submitted an article ("Ruth Rachel Yvonne Anderson-Avraham" - Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham) several times for inclusion in Wikipedia which has been refused, on the most recent occasion because "notability" has been questioned, even though this author is cited in several name authority files of several world libraries such as the Library of Congress in the United States and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, as well as having work recorded in WorldCat.

Your justification for refusal of our submission claims that the work of this author cannot be cited by independent third-party sources. However, official name authority files are THE independent third-party source for authors (whether for written work or moving images/films).

Please help us to understand why the addition of this author to the Wikipedia database continues to be refused, and what we can do in order to overturn this refusal, as almost every single person with whom this author has ever worked on major projects in an authorship capacity currently belongs to the Wikipedia database, which clearly seems to confirm notability not only in the quality of work completed, but also by association.

Many thanks in advance for your time.

ArtHistoryHistoiredelart (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Posting external links does not qualify as properly sourcing an article. The one reference you do have is primary. I would advise reading the linked articles provided on the draftspace as these would have readily answered your questions. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Piers Bijvoet Actor Page

Hi Sulfurboy, thanks for looking at the Piers Bijvoet page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Piers_Bijvoet). The note you gave was: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

How many different articles/media outlets should a person be featured in before they would be considered "significant coverage"?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActingMovie (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no set number. It is a matter of quality more than quantity. Further I can tell you with just a cursory search, this person is not even remotely notable enough yet. I would consult WP:NACTOR to see what qualifies someone. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back...

Hey Sulfurboy! Welcome back and good job at hitting the AfC backlog hard. The backlog has been stupid for a long while not helped by two big hitters being blocked for being stupid. Just wanted to say your efforts have already been noticed and appreciated. You've already done the most reviews in the last week # and 8th already for the last month #, and a noticeable spike in the daily reviews. Hope life's treating you well, all the best KylieTastic (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks KylieTastic. Yeah the backlog is crazy! I feel like when I was last active anything over a month was crazy long. Well as a warm up I've been sorting through the easy ones, but hopefully that clears the slag for reviewers with specialized knowledge to come in. Glad to see you still around! Sulfurboy (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Neasa Hourigan

See also Neasa Hourigan, by different editors that did not go the AfC route. That one has sufficient ref to support a viable POL notability. I agree the draft didn't have suitable ref, but maybe its tagging should be updated so that nobody bothers continuing to try to work on it (rather than the mainspace one). DMacks (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Revised page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Nested_partitions

Hi, thank you for reviewing the draft page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Nested_partitions. I've revised "The method" section to distinguish it from the copyrighted content that you pointed out. The algorithm itself remains the same, as it is what the algorithm should be - it has been written in a succinct manner by the authors of this algorithm, and I'm not sure there is a better way to represent it. This is my first wiki page, and I greatly appreciate your guidance to make it happen! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvchen99 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we discuss the page you just declined?

Hi Sulferboy, you tagged my submission as a subject that's not notable, and while I realize it's subjective, the subject is very much notable. I'd love to talk with you about your decision to decline, perhaps I need to swap out sources to better prove my point, but I assure you it's a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.27.177 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Part Time Rangers

Hi there,

This is my first article and I was wondering if there was any specific information you require to approve it? I've added more references, but would love to know what else is required

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Part_Time_Rangers

Really appreciate what you do, I listened to a podcast with Jimmy Wales and was so impressed by what you do. You and your fellow moderators are internet superheroes :)

WilliamDeanePTR (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) William 12/02/20

Nearly all your sources are either primary, unreliable, or only mention the subject in routine coverage. Links for assistance and what is considered a credibly source have been provided on your talk page and on the draft's page itself. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:25:17, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Canada4life


Hi. Writing for clarification as to why my submission was rejected. I've been trying to get a page for this important Ontario energy sector union. While I understand that the references don't heavily feature the union in question, the Society of United Professionals, when I look at other labour unions that have Wikipedia pages some have zero references. I'm confused by what seems to be an inconsistent application of the rules as it pertains to labour unions. There is no dispute that it is a union of more than 8000 members that has existed since the 1940s and that is actively involved in the labour movement in Ontario. It came to my attention because other articles referred to the union (see: Bruce Power) with a red link.

Can you provide guidance? I believe that it is important to give labour unions wikipedia pages as they are important participants in the jobs market and in politics.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate any assistance. Canada4life (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because other pages exist doesn't really mean anything WP:WAX. The information provided on the draft page says it all, it doesn't matter whether this group is notable or not, what matters is whether the sources prove the group is notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy/Archive_12&oldid=941030889"