User talk:ThePromenader/Archive 2 2017 September

Hey there

Thank you for your "thank" - I don't usually get thanked for a rollback. I was wondering why you felt the RfC was ineffective? It is listed at Centralized Discussions and appears to be technically sound. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've never opened an RfC before that one, and I was yelled at for my 'bad formatting' on another I had opened soon after... I had assumed that the first was worse, so removed it, without realising that there were policies about tag removal. I should have read up first, it was my error, and you fixed it, so thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha. Actually I thought you were removing the tag from the other RfC on the page. Still, nothing wrong with your RfC, technically. You may want to rephrase it to give commenters a better choice. If you want to drop the RfC you can withdraw it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Even after reading the instructions, I had initially thought that an RfC was a request for more input (to the conversation) from outside-the-conversation contributors, but it seems more a 'call to vote' than anything, at least as far as I can see; I'll try to formulate the next request along those lines. Thanks again! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is, in theory. But not to worry, you will get responses. Give it time. Good luck. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Just letting you know that I've approved your request for rollback. Make sure you familiarize yourself with the guidelines for rollbacking at WP:ROLL. bibliomaniac15 23:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and will do. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer

Hello ThePromenader. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 13:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll have a look at the backlog page right away. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sex characteristics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex characteristics. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Page mover granted

Hello, ThePromenader. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 23:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Hello ThePromenader,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks!-- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, I'm rather new to reviewing (and I did not see a 'type' option in the interface). I'll be sure to make that distinction next time, thanks. TP ✎ ✓ 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello ThePromenader, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Paris

Hello, and I wanted to thank you for all the amazing work you've done here on the Paris pages and sharing the history and presence of Paris with the world. It is a city like no other, and your choice to live there, experience the city and add your feelings and experiences to it, and then to present it to others, indicates a truly sharing and enthusiastic soul. Of course nobody can know how much you've added to the English Wikipedia, each of us can only "know" what we've done here and can't even guess how much of a cultural impact we've made. You've made a lot. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wish I could present my feelings, etc., about Paris, but that would be pure WP:ESSAY WP:OR ; )

The choice of articles I edit/create may reflect that, though, so thank you so very much for your very kind words, they mean more than you know. Thank you ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Anti-soapbox notice board idea

@Rhododendrites and SMcCandlish: I'm pinging you because you both seem to share my concerns and be more experienced than in 'Wiki-bureaucracy'. I'd like to put together a proposal, but not only do I seem to have a problem putting one together in a coherent, neutral way, but I haven't a clue where to propose such a thing (where it would be noticed). I'd ask one of you to do it outright, but that doesn't seem... right.

I'm not a huge contributor here, but enough to see that it's not hard to figure out that an organised group can overcome WP:V (and rules in general) on any page, the strangely-overlooked widespread in-your-face'dness WP:GAMEing of it all (that works) can be quite maddening to witness, and that does contaminate anything I write about the matter, so perhaps one of you would be better suited to put a proposition together, or at least advise me to that end. Thanks if you can. TP ✎ ✓ 08:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPPOL is probably the right venue (with a link to it from WP:VPPRO). I agree that focusing it on something specific, rather than WP:NOT in general, is the way to go, since NOT is a big catch-all of unrelated things, some of which are not very serious and some of which are of vital importance. That said, I'm not certain this is all about SOAPBOX (which itself is derived in part from NPOV). There are usually COI aspects (which may or may not involved PAID), and TAGTEAM, and GAMING, and "slow EDITWAR", and various other things (e.g., sometimes propaganda). I'm not sure we have a name for this combination. It's unfortunate that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ACTIVISM go to essays. We might be stuck with "soapboxing", but how do we distinguish organized soapboxing from individual tendentiousness?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it is 'bits of everything' is probably the reason it persists... and admin concerned with one 'aspect' of a conflict tends (in my experience) to overlook (or treat with less importance) the rest, especially the actual content if it is beyond their expertise. And detecting behaviour patterns (soapboxers must imparitavely 'flock' together to overcome any pesky WP:V promoters) is way beyond the scope of a 'here and now' behavioural issue or complaint. 'Concerted soapboxing' is what it is, but I'm sure we can come up with a better name for it. TP ✎ ✓ 10:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Concur re: location, but realistically I don't see a proposal for a noticeboard being successful. SOAPBOX is, as SMcCandlsih said, more or less subordinate to the idea of NPOV, which already has a noticeboard. A big challenge here is that this sort of behavior is particularly difficult to (a) identify (especially for someone who isn't already deeply involved -- it can easily just look like a clear consensus), (b) document (are you reporting individual users for POV-pushing? multiple users for tagteaming? alleging off-wiki coordination? how could you prevent the report from turning into the very discussions it seeks to address, when the same people start to flood the noticeboard?), (c) get under control. It's more straightforward to address a single person's POV-pushing. In the times I've seen this, aside from when they've been sock armies, it's a small number of people doing the "civil pov push," with an apparently decent grasp on wikipolicy (or at least wikijargon), then a bunch of other people -- often new users -- who jump on board with what the others said. By the time a new participant looks at it, it has cascaded to the point that it's easy to take for granted the repeated arguments and false conclusions. The newer users that are clearly NOTHERE can go to ANI, but will be replaced by others (and maybe someone will say, as in recent events, that someone who does not edit enwiki who pops up just to !vote in a CfD should not be treated as an SPA if they contribute to another Wikipedia)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

But all you describe is exactly what I (not-so-intensive contributor) have seen all-too-often, so there must be administrators (and contributors alike) aware of this trend. I came across the WP:CPUSH essay last night, and that, too, describes it pretty much to a tee... the main aspects working against Wikipedia identifying and dealing with such behaviour is its often overzealous adherence to 'assume good faith' (thus taking often false assertions at face value and not even considering any WP:GAME aspects) and its short attention span.

I think it's enough to get attention focused in one key spot for something (task force, notice board, whatever) to counter this being created... that might be enough to start a snowball rolling.

Stupid question: and if this were an admin-only thing (a place where administrators could report signs of orchestrated game-pushing for further investigation), does that sort of 'admin-only' noticeboard exist, or does everything 'have' to be front-end? TP ✎ ✓ 08:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)