This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adam9007. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Before the article was speedy-deleted, I see that you removed my BLPPROD tag from Prem Bahadur B.K (Aparajit Prem) claiming that there were already sources in the article (you can't see the edit now, the page has been deleted). There were not any sources in the article when you removed the notice, only links to external social networks which do not verify any statements made in the article, and which generally should not be used as exclusive sources for biographies of living persons. Please do not remove WP:BLPPROD from an article unless a proper reliable source is added which verifies a statement made in the article. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
BLPPROD requires that the article has no sources (not no reliable sources, and that includes external links). An article that has links to the subject's social media is not eligible for BLPPROD. The reliable source requirement applies only to properly placed BLPPROD tags. Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That is not correct. The requirement is an external source which verifies any statement made in the article. Social media links do not meet the requirement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Just naming the subject is not sufficient to meet the sourcing requirement under the guideline, it's not enough to distinguish the subject from other individuals with the same name. The requirement (per WP:BLPPROD#Nominating) is that " the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography" (bold in original, underline added). The broken Facebook and stale Twitter links don't support anything in the bio, and while I suppose the subject's own website technically meets the requirement, it also made the article a copyright violation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This is drifting towards WP:CIR and your behaviour is drifting away from restrictions and towards blocks for disruptive editing. You DO NOT KNOW what you are doing, stop it and focus on content work instead. Nick (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: It also says Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject (my bold) Shall I take this to the community? Adam9007 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007Shall I take this to the community? - Adam, by and large the community does not trust your judgement as it pertains to deletion. BLPPROD is no different. Given everything that has happened, do you really think it's wise to continue this behavior? Have we not beaten this horse enough? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯21:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree the policy should not describe both sources supporting any statements made about the person and that name the subject. Those are clearly not the same thing, and it seems worthwhile to start a discussion to clarify that section. Whichever way the discussion goes, this won't be an issue in the future. Appable (talk | contributions) 21:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Appable! I have seen BLPPRODs declined because of links to social media. As for continuing my behaviour, I really don't see what it so hard to understand about To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form. There really isn't any judgement involved. In fact, I believe the reason the requirement is no sources at all is so that no judgement is necessary. Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you've completely missed the point. We have had essentially a year long discussion over your behavior with regard to deletion tagging (or rather the removal of them.) Your interpretation of deletion related consensus is not trusted, that is the point. Whether you are right in this instance or not doesn't matter much. And yes, judgement is involved. That same judgement which got you a topic ban. BLPPROD is meant to support the spirit of BLP, which means that a claim needs to be supported. You're reading it way too literally, a name appearing on social media is not sufficient. Please stop for the love of everyone's sanity. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Topic ban? What topic ban? I'm voluntarily refraining form A7 tag removals. They're not quite the same thing. Adam9007 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
What about this said only A7? And yet here you are, removing an A7 tag. Like usual, this conversation has been a waste of time. It's fairly obvious nothing short of an actual enforced sanction will prevent your disruption. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯21:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious? That is still removal of the tag. 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
So my perfectly innocent redirection of the page is now a crime just because it happened to have an A7 tag on it? Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there's a difference (the discussions above centered around the drive-by CSD detagging). I suppose the question is, for example, if Adam removed a CSD tag, added several references to notable news covering the subject, and so on - would that still be a problem? In other words, is the issue any sort of CSD detagging, or is it specifically when it's removing a tag without making article improvements? Appable (talk | contributions) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
What about "don't remove speedies" in the voluntary topic ban you agreed to did you not understand? Did the redirect remove the speedy? Yes. It's obvious now this needs to be made official and cover all areas of deletion tag removal. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There's world of difference between removing a speedy tag from a page, and turning the page into something else entirely. Now you're the one taking things too literally. Adam9007 (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence in prior talk page discussions that BLPPROD has been a serious issue for this user. It's come up (which is to be expected if you're removing deletion tags), but nobody has ever said, or even insinuated, that Adam needs to stop removing BLPPRODs altogether. Also, I do question whether the problem people have brought up above were truly about CSD detagging altogether, or just removing the tag without making any improvements. I don't see any problem with removing the tag with the intention of improving the article (either redirecting, adding reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines, etc). Adam has not done any drive-by removals since then, as far as I can tell. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Appable Adam was told unequivocally to stop removing speedy deletion tags. Period. There was no other condition other than to stop removing them, voluntarily or it would become involuntary. Not sure how that can better be explained.CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯22:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
*Adam, thank you for starting the conversation that led to the wording of BLPPROD being clarified. I'm sorry you had to go through all this drama to get it clarified for everyone. FWIW, I interpreted your statement above that Chrissymad linked to as being avoiding CSD altogether as well, and I think Toddst1 and Timothyjosephwood likely did as too, since the alternative that had been discussed was proposing an indefinite topic ban from CSD broadly construed. Typically voluntary restrictions tend to match imposed ones. Since text is a horrible method of communication, I just want to make it clear that I'm not mad at all, I just thought I should clarify what I thought you were saying since you responded to a question I asked. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The 2 wordings of BLPPROD were close, but not identical; it could be argued that simply naming the subject supports its existence, a statement implicitly made just by our having an article on him/her. As for CSD, it's as Appable says: the discussions were more about the drive-by removals. Besides, having to wait until a page is deleted, and only then re-create it as a redirect seems overly bureaucratic. Adam9007 (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was thanking you for starting the conversation that clarified that :)The issue regarding redirecting is that you have a very broad view of how redirects and CSD should be applied, and this view has been consistently rejected at AfD. A game is one thing, but if this was a BLP I would be very concerned, because I believe that there is no consensus as to what INVALIDBIO means, and the way to resolve that is through AfD, not through unilateral action by one user. Re: the other discussions, I thought it was clear that the discussions were about CSD in general. MelanieN was also involved with the discussions last time, so I'd be interested to see what her interpretation of the last discussion was. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm pretty emotionally done with the whole issue, which is exactly why there was an extensively discussed draft of an AN thread last time on my talk when this came up. I, in a very personal way, would really like it if you would just stop removing templates all together, so we can both go back to building an encyclopedia, and not bickering over bureaucracy.
If it helps, there have been about a thousand articles created by a user while they had autopatrolled rights which they probably shouldn't have had. Basically all of them need stub sorting, expand templates, general cleanup, as well as obvious redirects. I've spent most of the day staring at them and I've made it exactly to number 81. You know, if you want to start at number 500 and work your way down, we can probably wrap it up in a few days. And... well... it needs done. TimothyJosephWood01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
That reminds me of a similar situation with another user: I was going through their pages adding stub tags and WikiProject templates. It took ages, and I still didn't get it all done. Maybe tomorrow when I have more time (it's nearly 3 in the morning here and I sleep too late as it is). Adam9007 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to lob my 2c into the discussion, I saw the deleted article and I would have deleted it per CSD A7. In general, you should avoid simply undoing deletion tags unless you can make a very good argument to why they absolutely do not meet the criteria. I'm not talking about semantics, I'm talking about clearly showing that that particular tag would be blatantly wrong. For example, yesterday on Russian Film Week, I declined an A7 nomination, but made a point of leaving a couple of potential sources on the talk page. This gave the creator enough time to beef the article up into an acceptable stub. I couldn't say hand on heart whether the article is clear of AfD at this point, but it's definitely not a speedy.
The reason I think people are getting upset with you here is that you're arguing the toss over BLPPROD, but missing the elephant in the room in that the article requires a lot of work to get it up to the bare minimum standard of an acceptable Wikipedia article, and for some reason CAT:CSD is hugely backlogged with an absolute ton of rubbish in it. So, just think about the bigger picture and what's best for the article, and avoid just undoing deletion tags as some sort of moral crusade. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Focus on what you're good at
Adam,
Once again I'm going to encourage you to focus on writing articles and not to engage in asserting your judgement on quasi-administrative issues. The latter just doesn't suit you and you're now subject to sanctions as a result. You could do so much good here in other areas. Toddst1 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, the funny thing is, I was just about to post a note here saying what a pleasure it has been lately to follow your page. You have seemed so much happier, relaxed and enjoying Wikipedia, getting positive feedback. No more criticism, no more frustration thermometers, no more "about to retire" messages. It seemed you had really found your niche in the good work you were doing creating and reviewing articles. But then it all turned stressful again, and why? Because you are still reviewing articles that others have tagged for deletion, and removing the tags. That really does seem to be an activity that turns out badly, for you and for Wikipedia, and I join with the others here in urging you not to do it any more. I'd really like to see your user pages, and you, always stay as sunny and pleasant as they were during the period when you stopped removing tags. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: These days, when I see I have a message, or receive an email telling me I have one, I'm actually half-scared to look at it. I actually half-dread the prospect of receiving messages here, due to drama such as this. It's utterly terrific, and I'm never in a gay mood at times like this (by the way, I actually do still have the "frustration thermometer"; it's been moved to my user page). Of course, sometimes it's WikiLove or something similar, and I'm pleasantly surprised when it is. But more often than not, it's stress. And I'm just no good at dealing with it. I do sometimes wonder why I keep doing stuff that causes it, and the only reason I can come up with is that I believe it shouldn't, even though it does (I know: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is insanity...).
@Toddst1: I'm not sure I'm as good at content creation as I'm made out to be. Take my most recent improved page, Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos. There are parts of it that, although I know are true, are also near impossible to reliably source (yes, I've tried). The sad thing is, that will probably be the main thing that will prevent it from being GA. Some of the sources I've used in, say, Dungeon Keeper aren't exactly easy to come by. I reckon I've just been lucky so far, but what do I know? It's not always as simple as just writing prose around some sources: sometimes actually finding them is the most difficult part! But I suppose, once I do have them, the situation changes somewhat... Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, Adam, you're a smart guy. I think it is clear to you, as it is to everybody, what activity of yours it is that results in stress-producing feedback from others. Even if you "believe it shouldn't", it does. So the best way to eliminate that stress is to stop that activity. Specifically: stop removing ANY deletion tags, of ANY kind, from ANY articles. Just accept the fact that from now on it will be up to other people, not you, to deal with improper deletion tags. Remember, a tag doesn't mean the article will be automatically deleted; it means an administrator will judge whether it should be deleted or not. Just trust the system, and move on to less stress-producing activities. And soon you will be GLAD to see that you have a message. Really. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently got completely stuck on getting Marylebone Station to GA status because I was missing key book sources I did not have, but through a combination of creative Google Books searching, inter-library loans and sheer persistence, I did it. I'd still improved the article anyhow. Just remember that GA is a means to an end, not the end itself. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The problem with this one is that I strongly suspect the only reliable sourcing will be in some obscure Japanese books and/or magazines. I haven't a clue where to begin looking . Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:And soon you will be GLAD to see that you have a message Unless it's vandalism (e.g. someone posting something like pornography on this page (I think that might have happened before)). Then I, of course, will not be glad . Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Zee money articles
I see you've started to pick up where I left off yesterday. I'll mosey on down to number 500, which looks like it's Peruvian civil war of 1834. Try to keep be mindful of where you leave off, and if you don't make it up to number 499, and wind up losing interest in it, drop me a note so I can come back to it. The user got autopatrolled in January of last year, so it's right around 1,000 to 1,100 that need checked overall. TimothyJosephWood16:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Starting from ninety-something, I'm on 150. This kind of reminds me of the FreeCell project where players were handed number ranges to solve (in an attempt to solve all (at the time) 32000). Maybe we should do something similar with situations like this? Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I had an unfortunate orgy of wasted time at the doctor this morning, but personally I've slowed down quite a bit as I've gone on, because I've slowly discovered more things to routinely add. For example, I've come across ambiguous proper nouns, and so I've started going into the foreign language article to try to wikilink into another foreign language article, in order to bounce back in the en.wiki to find the right wikilink.
I also had a god awful time with Commons Helper where I didn't realize Google translate was actually translating the name of the file on the non eng wiki. But BTW, if you come across a BLP BDP where they died before 1923, and there's an image on the other language wiki, you can use that tool to transfer the image onto commons, and it even correctly applies the appropriate language Template:Now Commons tag on the other wiki. But yeah, make sure you have translate.google set to show original, because it will anglicize proper nouns. TimothyJosephWood00:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, it's basically retroactive page patrolling, except, basically everything seems to be notable, but just badly done. I'm actually going out of town this weekend with my family, so if you have time to spend on it and you overtake me, just drop me a note, and I'll start again from the bottom and work my way up until we meet. TimothyJosephWood01:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
HomeSail Page deletion
An edit has been made on HomeSail stating that it appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.
I will definitely try to write the importance of HomeSail this time. Is it possible if you can restore my page ?
I've protected your talk page. Sure, the vandal user has been blocked, but that doesn't prevent them from coming back under another ID. Nobody should have to put up with this kind of (fill in expletive of your choice). --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The information that "some reviews were more positive" is just random and distracts from the main consensus. That's why I deleted it. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
distracts from the main consensus I thought we are supposed to summarise all points of view? Some reviewers were more positive. Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Literally every game, movie, TV show, etc. will have its hailers and detractors. The overwhelming consensus for Dungeon Keeper is that its structure completely ruined the gameplay. I'm fine with mentioning more the positive reviews in the section on the reception, but it would be misleading to mention it in the main description at the top of the article. 24.18.128.102 (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body. If it's a significant part of the body, or a section thereof, it should go in the lead to comply with MOS:LEAD. Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose it would be like mentioning criticism in the original Dungeon Keeper article's lead? Because there isn't much (at least in comparison to the praise). Adam9007 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I seem to get these messages a lot about being involved in editing a page I know nothing about.....
I tend to stick to Aviation edits as that is my specialty. Sorry if you had a page that was edited but it was not me who was doing it.
Just a note, in case you'd like it: It's possible to use {{Age|year|month|day}} (or {{Years ago|year}} if not wanting to provide a complete birthdate). Enjoy, —PaleoNeonate - 10:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Thanks! The first time I saw something like this was after several standard vandalism edits, then a genuine and sincere-looking message implying that he was going to shoot himself! It's probably at least partially why I take these sorts of assertions seriously if I have any doubt whatsoever. Adam9007 (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And you are absolutely right to do so. My first situation came right after I passed RfA and I was slightly freaking out trying to remember everything that needed to be done. Speaking of which Oshwah is right. This needs to be reported even though it is all but certainly a waste of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Yeah, WP:999 (that's a guideline? I thought it was only an essay?) says we must take these things seriously. Curiously, it also says: Avoid the use of high-traffic noticeboards when reporting., which would seem to imply that posting at ANI is out of the question, even though I have done so before. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Eh. In general I'd take a deep breath before telling someone to ignore a guideline. But with IAR in mind, if I saw a threat of harm that I suspected might be serious, (and I was not an Admin) I'd probably be more concerned with getting someone's attention fast than worrying about privacy. A lot of times it's fairly easy to locate an admin who is online just by looking at the recent edits on the drama boards. But if push came to shove, I'd do whatever was needed to raise the alarm. If you are ever going to get dinged for ignoring a guideline, being able to honestly say you were doing what you thought best in a potential emergency situation would likely go far in covering your @$$. On which note, I also like the fact that you didn't use bland language in your thread title. When someone drops a line on my talk page that says "When you get a chance can you look at this?", that's not likely to cause me to interrupt trimming my toe nails. On the other hand, using the sort of direct language you did or adding the word URGENT will cause me to stop pretty much whatever I'm doing and your message will become the sole focus of my attention. In any event it's getting late here, and it's time for me to punch out. Have a good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem:I'd probably be more concerned with getting someone's attention fast than worrying about privacy Yes, getting someone's attention is my main concern in situations like this, hence the ANI threads. I also like the fact that you didn't use bland language in your thread title Yes, I suppose using a short, straight-to-the-point interrogative clause as the thread title helps, even before doing the same in the actual body (I hope I've passed that English grammar unit I did for my degree), although I'm not entirely sure if it was intentional: I might have just put whatever occurred to me at the time.
An aside, I must say that Wikilove an discussions like this make a nice change from the ANI and TBan threats I've received in abundance lately. It makes me gay , unlike the drama, which just makes me want to leave Wikipedia . I just hope this keeps up. Adam9007 (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
Re this edit: please don't remove other users' comments from my user talk page. The comments in question were responses to a query I had made to that user regarding edits he had made at an article where we have a content dispute. Removing his comments does not help us resolve that dispute. As an admin hopeful, I would recommend that you refrain from this particular type of patrolling as it violates Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!20:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... It's still possible. If that material had been added to an article, it would have been reverted. If he had created a page consisting entirely of that, it would have been G11d. WP:PROMO applies to talk pages, and WP:TPG does allow the removal of bad material, including spam. Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I rarely never agree with Adam9007 :) but, per WP:SIGCLEAN, that was a good edit: 'Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Removing prohibited material such as comments by banned users, libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.' IMHO of course. — fortunavelut luna16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Sandbox
Isn't it that articles are not supposed to be posted until they are complete? I mean, isn't the sandbox supposed to be used to work on articles before posting them? I didn't know there was a cushion to improve incomplete articles. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐁT₳LKᐃ20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
My question was regarding the sandbox and why it makes sense to promote creating articles and THEN improving them to meet WP standards, rather than creating in the sandbox as traditionally. I understand what you're saying, and it may discourage new users, but at the same time, that isn't how the wiki is supposed to work, it's supposed to be that only sufficient articles are published. And anyway creating a user account and immediately creating an article without knowing essentially any WP policy is probably not good either. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐁT₳LKᐃ20:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we can expect new editors to know about things such as AfC and notability, as many will want to create and publish their article right away, hence the need for NPR. Also promote creating articles and THEN improving them to meet WP standards, rather than creating in the sandbox as traditionally makes no sense: perhaps you meant creating in the mainspace as traditionally? Perhaps we should make bypassing AfC a user right, and make all new editors go through AfC by making articles in sandboxes or the draft space first? Without AfC, there's nothing to stop them from deciding it's sufficient, even without any knowledge of WP policies and guidelines. There's no point in building an article in a sandbox or the draft space only for it to be deleted when moved to mainspace. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
How's that
Adam as I see it everything I wrote was completely factual. I would go as far as saying that I think your bias toward conservatives is why you wouldn't tolerate a correction to the liberal refuse on James okeefe's page. Jimmyboi36 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) Adam's POV about the POV edit was probably the correct POV... On Wikipedia, some editors have a correct POV and others have an incorrect POV, some of the POV is neutral and some not, therefore, some Wikipedians have a neutral POV and others have a non-neutral POV, others a correct neutral POV and others a incorrect non-neutral POV, ... ... wikt:fr:Papou —PaleoNeonate - 03:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think my intention was actually the hyphenated "POV-undo", which would have been bad enough, but without the hyphen it was laughably bad! Meters (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Untitled
i'm not sure how this works ... u deleted material from the Jim Lampley page for lack of source ... I am the source.... I produced those 5 national talk shows.... but better yet...track down his producer James Holm on Facebook....pvt msg him to verfify....he now works at MSNBC i believe .... thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.42.66 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The correction of "full" to "full-flow" is correct. Please do your research before trashing competent contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.162.0.162 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism with [1] at Jonathan A. Jones. Could I ask you to keep this page on your watchlist for a bit as the IP has now switched to an account. I'm obviously too conflicted to do much about this. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm on mobile at the moment, so can't deal with it right now. I'll have a look later, assuming nobody else (such as a talk page stalker) has done so. Adam9007 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I share your suspicions about Conquistador2178, and I also suspect (admittedly with little evidence) that Cumonaveago007 is the same editor. But given that two admins seem to be keeping an eye on the page developments will no doubt prove interesting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Some water for you
Glass of water
Since you've previously stated this is your beverage of choice, have a glass on me [from my local public water supply because I'm cheap ;-) ]. Your consistent work on violence issues is important. Keep up the good work. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: By the way, several weeks ago, I saw some news article that said someone claimed that water makes us gay. I hope that is true, if you know what I mean... Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I hear you, quite cautious myself. It just seems too obvious for me to not at least give G3 a shot; I just can't see it failing. Home Lander (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that. If one selects "custom" in Twinkle for speedy deletion (to type an explanation), it lists it generically. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
In Twinkle it shows as "G3: Blatant hoax" but I'm not sure which parameter it actually uses, "hoax" or "g3". The problem is it doesn't have a box for a rationale like "G6: Housekeeping" and many of the others do, so it forces the use of the custom rationale and manually enter "G3" instead. Functionality to enter a rationale on the ones you currently can't would certainly be nice. Home Lander (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently reviewed a page and tagged with CSD, but the user and author keeps removing template, i have taken further action by reporting to Admin noticeboard. Please ignore the user till admins take action Zazzysa (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey Adam please don't revert anymore so you don't have issues as well. It is advisable to let admins handle it no matter how long it will take but certainly not long. LOL he reported himself??? LOL This should play out well cause obviously they are edit history Zazzysa (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ukpong1: I believe removing CSD tags from pages one has created is considered vandalism per WP:Vandalism and is therefore exempt from WP:3RR? If I do get blocked for this, I'm leaving, because I've just about had enough (I still haven't got over the last load of hoo-ha) . Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey seriously don't let anything or anyone stop the good work you're doing. I just went through your edit history and i'm just wowed at the amount of work you've done.It's people like you that make editors like me want to do more on Wiki and i mean it. Zazzysa (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I am just going to go sleep this whole issue off and wake up tomorrow with messages on my talk page hopefully everything will be fine. It's 1:28am here, not to worry Adam, good guys always win at the end. Zazzysa (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: I knew he was a sockpuppet, but didn't know there were so many accounts (I have a funny feeling there are even more...). I used WP:AIV this time (even though I don't know which account is the master) because the connexion was obvious. Adam9007 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
AIV certainly is fine :) I simply noticed him on my watchlist. We've checked for sleepers and the possibility of a range block but unfortunately he's too varied. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a little-used Wikia account. I fixed it. Always interesting to see all the stuff they use from enwiki though, like {{Vgrelease}} which I currently maintain here. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Adam. Hope all is well with you :) I was just dropping a note because I saw that you removed copyrighted material from Joy Of Creation series (video game). Just as an FYI if you didn't already know, anytime you remove copyright material, you should request revision deletion either by contacting an admin directly or by using Template:Copyvio-revdel. I'll add it to this article, but just wanted to give you a heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Rev del is always necessary if there is a copyright violation, even very small copyright violations require it. The article being at AfD actually makes the revision deletion more important for a few reasons: first, because it makes the article more visible to others, which makes the harm done by the copyright violation more extensive. Second, if the article is deleted without log entries noting the copyright issues and the content is later restored, an admin could accidentally restore the content. Since you've also !voted merge here, its even more important: merges and redirects from page histories are common, and preventing this by revision deletion is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It is the absolute worst template on Wikipedia. I've applied it enough times now that I have a system worked out for it, but it is a pain. Diannaa doesn't usually mind people posting rev del requests on her talk. If you don't plan to do much copyright work, that's probably the easiest place to go. If you do remove a fair amount of it, learning how to work the template is ideal. We'll hopefully get it added to Twinkle at some point soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Well, we can just go to our preferences and add any template to Twinkle. It's just that those that have special parameters can't be used the way they're intended. While we're on the subject of copyvios, Twinkle's implementation of {{close paraphrasing}} is incomplete: we can't specify the source of the paraphrased content with it. This will probably need to be implemented too. Adam9007 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm also happy to do revdels. Yes, the template sucks, yes, it's (eventually) going to be properly added to Twinkle, but yes, in the meantime you're just going to have to slog through terrible revision-finding ;) Primefac (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, keep meaning to do it or find someone to do so. Been rather busy. Will add that near the top of my to-do list. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
(User:shmoom)
|Hi Adam 9007; keep at it; this is no time to abandon the net to the luddites. I don't know who was making edits under 47.144.161.77; I'll start logging into Wiki. My user name is shmoom, embarrassed to be American.Schmoom (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)|
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bullfrog Productions you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC of interest to you
A proper RfC has been opened about the "reflexion" and "mediaeval" matter, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Obsolescent spellings. I hope you'll register your opinion there instead of leave. Not everyone gets what they want all the time here, but one never gets what one wants without speaking up, and I doubt you're alone in preferring at least some of these spellings (particularly with regard to mediaeval). This borders on one-editor canvassing, but I cite WP:IAR, since you were specifically mentioned in the lead-up to the RfC. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: What's the point? They'll just find reasons to use whatever I say against me. Nothing I ever say ever does any good in these situations . But I would have thought that e better place to discuss what's archaic and what's not would be Wiktionary? Interestingly enough, none of the spellings being discussed in that RfC are labelled as such on Wiktionary. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you present some sources (e.g. current dictionaries that are not user-generated content), then it might change the outcome, at least with regard to particular words. After I just groused at the lot of them for using WT:MOS as a compain-about-a-user venue, it's unlikely anyone's going to attack you, especially if you actually do what I suggested. Wiktionary's not a reliable source, so WP isn't going to care what it says. As a matter of "what does a WMF project tell the reading public about a word", Wikitionary is certainly the place to discuss, and to publicly write about, a word like "reflexion". But that has nothing do with a "what should the English Wikipedia's internal MoS for it editors say (if anything) about reflexion", which is going to be determined only by three things: what reliable-source dictionaries, style guides, and other linguistic works say about the word, what the demonstrable usage patterns of it are in the real world, and any Wikipedia-only concerns like "do people keep fighting about this and wasting editorial time?" Anyway, if you really do feel it's time to take a wikibreak, then it probably is. I've taken many myself, once for almost a year. No one likes to come here and have it be a big pile of stress; this is supposed to be fun and rewarding, right? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a look at those, and others. I note that even the British Edition of OxfodDictionariesOnline gives reflexion as archaic [2], but does not for mediaeval, which is actually what I suspected (I was using that spelling in BrEng here, and got yelled at by some British editors who said it was obsolete even in the UK, but I'm not finding actual proof that they're right). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, to a point. I think you're well aware that your campaign to reclaim "gay" isn't taken very seriously and that pushing it all the time is both irritating to various people and apt to make you a target. Same goes for reflexion which you know is obsolete, even if some argument can still be made that connexion isn't (quite). You prefer reflexion for consistency with connexion and per a Latin etymology argument. Everyone else just DGAFs about that rationale, but you won't hear them. I.e., you're actively and rather continually picking some of these fights. I think that's why a WP:ANI case wouldn't go well for you, and why some of your active detractors think it would be easy to get you topic banned or just blocked (I suspect the former is true, the latter is not, but I'm not an ANI expert). Something unhappy would result though, because your unwillingness to drop these matters is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY thing.
In a completely different way, I do know how you feel, more than you suspect. If you were super-bored and wasted time digging into my history here, you'd find that I arrived and pretty quickly set to trying to "fix" the MoS to say what I thought it should say, what was "right" to me, and got yelled at a lot (same with various other policypages; I made a huge pain-in-the-butt of myself during the formulation of WP:Notability, and helped derail a merger of WP:V and WP:RS that in hindsight might actually have been a good plan). Then came some administrative actions against me, because I was following a combative pattern similar to yours. I ended up leaving for a long time. When I came back and took a more project-focused approach, I realized that it's not MoS's job to be "correct", but to be stable and to add rules only if they increase stability and consistency. All these style matters are ultimately rather arbitrary. MoS is not an article and its intent isn't to tell the world the best way to write. It's an internal pressure regulator, telling editors what to stop fighting about lest they get hit with the banhammer for using WP as a venue for endless territorial piss-marking about punctuation and spelling trivia, a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND problem.
The TL;DR version: when lots of editors all demand you stop inserting "gay" to mean "happy" or "festive" into random articles, you need to stop, even if you disagree with their reasoning, or the community will eventually toss you out. That would be true no matter the nature of the dispute; it could be constantly changing videogame articles to refer to videogames as "electronic entertainment", or moving all photos of left-wing politicians to the left side of the page, or replacing references to "fringe science" with "pseudoscience", or whatever. No one cares about the details, just about the "will not stop no matter what" pattern. He who picks the fights is not in a position to claim to be picked on. (That doesn't excuse their outright incivility toward you though, nor trying to turn WT:MOS into a temporary vent-about-Adam9007 zone.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:when lots of editors all demand you stop inserting "gay" to mean "happy" or "festive" into random articles Wait, this is news to me. Can you provide any diffs? Has my account been hacked? Adam9007 (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the one who raised it as an issue; you'll have to ask those who pointed "gay"-related fingers in your direction (and maybe I misunderstood them and they were only talking about talk page posts). So, forget about that for a moment and just focus on the reflexion one instead. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Adam9007, 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.
@Doctorg: I'm posting this here, just in case any talk page stalkers or anyone who happens to see this knows anything about it. I don't know if you check the history, but, as you may have gathered, the stuff from Joystick isn't actually what I was referring to when I said I wanted to add stuff to the article, as I was unaware of it: I stumbled on it while searching for something else. And I'm glad I did . I was actually referring to stuff from Bullfrog Bulletin, Edge, and Retro Gamer, which I've still to do. But Joystick has something that corroborates the stuff from another source I put in the article about the origin of the name being from an ornament in the office. Before I revamped the article, there was an unsourced statement about the name being from Les Edgar's daughter's love of frogs. That information has found its way onto a Youtube video that had taken a lot of information from Wikipedia (of course, I commented there about the ornament). I have been unable to verify that statement (I don't even know if he has a daughter), despite all the info I have access to. It was there for many years, until I rebuilt the article. Do you reckon it may have been a hoax? It's something I haven't been able to rule out with the information I have available. Adam9007 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black & White (video game). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drive by edit - you are behaving in exactly the same manner as the editor you warned. Take note of the last point: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right"Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The point is that you're reverting just as much as Oknazevad - and if you consider him to be edit warring, then by default so are you. I even stressed the bit that is relevant here: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". If you feel so strongly about it, report it to ANE, but just bear in mind that they will look at the editing/reverting behaviour of all editors, not just the reported one. Remember that 3RR doesn't have to be breached in order for edit-warring to happen. I was blocked myself a couple of years ago for exactly this - Article dispute in which I was correct, but being correct doesn't mean I didn't revert 3 times in a row. I reported the other editor - and we both got blocked. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi,Adam! I'm disappointed to see you trying to insist on strange or obscure spellings at that article. I remember you once commented to me (you brought it up, I didn't) that you realize "reflexion" is unusual but you just prefer it. That's fine for your own user space, and for your comments on talk pages. But trying to force things like "reflexion", "connexion", and "mediaeval" into mainspace articles, against opposition, is not good. That article uses British English, as it should, but that doesn't mean it has to use British variant or obsolete spellings. I do hope you will drop this. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Yes, but is there some rule that says they can't? Besides, it was already in those spellings: I didn't change them to the "obscure" ones (does the fact that I wrote it have any effect?). I also disagree with assertions that "mediaeval" and "connexion" are archaic ("mediaeval" especially: even American and British English spelling differences says "mediaeval" is okay even in American English, something that I was unaware of). Also, I'd have thought that as 4 articles (including this one) passed GAN using "mediaeval", there was nothing wrong with "mediaeval" at least. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)While there is no rule, consensus says you shouldn't do it. Hint: When your edit has been objected to twice in good faith, it's time to take a look at your own actions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
As you point out, Adam, you wrote most of the article. I'm guessing the reason you didn't "change" to the variant spellings was because you used them in the first place. And if nobody had challenged them, they would still be there. But they HAVE been challenged, by several people, and Wikipedia works by consensus so I can't see a good argument for edit warring to keep them in. The "spelling differences" article identifies "mediaeval" as a "minor variant" so it's hard to see how insisting on it, over opposition, is helpful. It does not seem to be used at our article Middle Ages except for one parenthetical mention as "occasionally". And although "reflexion" is mentioned at Reflection we don't seem to have any articles titled that way. On the other hand, "Connexion" does seem to have some currency here. Your spellings were reverted by two people, but only one of them is discussing at the talk page, where the two-person discussion (you and him) does not seem to be making any progress. How about this: could we ask for a wider consensus, maybe at MOS Talk or someplace? --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I'm sorry you had to see the mean things people were saying at the talk page. I'm sure you are upset; I would be too. Please keep in mind that there ARE people here who like you and think you do good work here. Take a break, then come back and resume doing the things that you enjoy. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I've asked that that discussion (of the editor not the content) stop there; WT:MOS isn't a user behavior forum. That said, WP:ANI will obviously be the next step someone takes, if this WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH / WP:NOTGETTINGIT behavior, with self-declared style manifestoes to battleground about "correct" English, doesn't stop. Everyone has favored style peccadilloes, but they have to be left at home when one writes at WP or any other publisher with its own style guide. That's just the way the world works. WP editors mostly don't care about style nit-picks, but they will restrain disruption caused by an editor who cares about the trivia too much and starts warnding into WP:NOTHERE territory. The the last nationalistic style crusader we had got topic-banned, then topic-banned more broadly, then blocked, then indefinitely blocked. Let's not have a repeat of that. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a rule anyway, MOS:JARGON (and, for "mediæval", MOS:LIGATURE). These spellings are obsolete except in a few specialist contexts, which makes them jargon. Their use outside those contexts (e.g. the Methodist doctrine of connexionalism) is just obsolete/archaic, and we don't use archaisms except inside quotations (MOS:QUOTE). These specific terms have also all been repeatedly discussed before, and the clear and lasting consensus is "don't use them" [3] except for the specialized senses. That consensus has been reaffirmed this very day, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of alternative, uncommon spellings (not a long discussion, but WP:SNOW so far). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: It took a while to figure out exactly what to say: I seem to be offending everyone with everything I say and do here, and it seems it's all I ever do. Right now, you're the very last person I want to offend. You're right: I saw that thread and decided "that does it". I was deeply offended not only by the porky-telling behind my back (since when have I ever been changing "happy" to "gay"?), but also by the mere suggestion that I'm not here to contribute to the project. As for the issue, I was under the impression that once a particular spelling style has been established, you don't change it without consensus. But as usual, it's one rule for me and another for everyone else: I know exactly what would happen if the rôles were reversed. If I had changed the spellings the way they did, I'd be blocked for disruptive editing. All I ever seem to do is cause trouble. About my retirement, it's a shame, because I was actually intending to continue work on Theme Park World, and perhaps tend to the GAN of Bullfrog Productions, which is currently under review. But it looks like that's not going to happen ((Doctorg's not going to be pleased I was so close too...). I have probably messed this up and worded it in a way that'll cause offence. If so, I apologise. Adam9007 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Adam, you haven't offended me; you have never offended me. Even when I advise you to drop something or stop doing something, I am not offended. I am usually just hoping to get you to stop pursuing some issue that a) causes you stress and b) isn't likely to come out the way you want it to. This is one of those issues. There is currently an RfC which is probably going to settle the "variant spelling" issue shortly, if it hasn't already. (I know you find it frustrating that Wikipedia operates by consensus, but that is the reality here.) In this case, I am upset and angry, not at you, but at the way people talked about you on that discussion page. It was just mean and I am not surprised you are hurt by it. I have scolded them for it. I'm sure they wouldn't have talked that way if they had stopped to think that you were likely to see it; they were misled by the "anonymity of the internet" and their false assumption that they were having a private conversation. Anyhow, I can understand if you want to take a breather from Wikipedia generally, although I don't see why you wouldn't continue to follow up on your GA nominations. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:Adam, you haven't offended me; you have never offended me. Even when I advise you to drop something or stop doing something, I am not offended. That's good to know: it's a lot easier to inadvertently offend someone when you're in a bad mood. These days, I can't be sure that anything I say or do won't offend someone. I'm told (not by Wikipedia editors) that this is mostly my fault, and that I was asking for trouble, whether I realised it or not. I just wish that the rules mean what they say (or say what they mean). they were misled by the "anonymity of the internet" and their false assumption that they were having a private conversation. I think I got there by your link. Anyhow, I can understand if you want to take a breather from Wikipedia generally, although I don't see why you wouldn't continue to follow up on your GA nominations. Either I'm retiring or I'm not. Either I'm going on a Wikibreak or I'm not. There's no (unless I'm missing something?) official "about to go on Wikibreak" status. I knew something like this would happen sooner or later (it always does, and frankly I don't trust myself any more ), but even in my wildest dreams, I didn't think it would be over spelling. If I can't even get that right, what hope do I have? There I was, gaily (or so I thought) writing articles, and then all this happened right out of the blue. If I were to stay, even if just for my GAN of Bullfrog Productions, it will just get worse, as people will think I was just throwing my toys out of my pram. The sad fact is that noöne cares about the good stuff I do anyway, only the dramas . Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
RE: Either I'm retiring or I'm not. Either I'm going on a Wikibreak or I'm not. There's no (unless I'm missing something?) official "about to go on Wikibreak" status. That is completely untrue. Wikipedia editing is not either-or; it's a continuum. You can spend most of your time on Wikipedia, or a lot, or a little, or next-to-none. Even a Wikibreak can be complete-or-partial, long-or-short, read-but-don't-post-much; it's all what you want to make of it and it's different for all of us. And it depends on what your reason is for a Wikibreak: is it to relieve your own stress, or because you are trying to make a statement, or just because you need a break? Nobody can tell you what to do or what not to do, and "There are no fixed rules" certainly applies to Wikibreaks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:it depends on what your reason is for a Wikibreak: is it to relieve your own stress, or because you are trying to make a statement, or just because you need a break? All three really. If it'll make anyone happy (myself included), I'll come back for Bullfrog Productions and Theme Park World, but then I'm going on an indefinite wikibreak because, frankly, I need it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution. And don't feel bound or limited by "being on a Wikibreak": when you are lurking or reading and come across something you want to say, say it. And finishing up your GA's (and possibly starting a few new ones?) sounds like a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Not going to do it right now though as it's gone 3 in the morning here. And don't feel bound or limited by "being on a Wikibreak": when you are lurking or reading and come across something you want to say It's just that if I keep doing that, any wikibreak status may begin to lose its effectiveness, just as people no longer take my "retirements" seriously. finishing up your GA's (and possibly starting a few new ones?) Well, I'm hoping to get Theme Park World to GA, even though I haven't really played it in years (I'm much more acquainted with the original, and I don't think I've ever played the third one), and there's this bit about some Gold Edition I haven't been able to properly source. But if I can't despite extensive searching, it's probably not that important . Adam9007 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I think the main "issue" people have (at least based on this thread, previous ones, and comments elsewhere) is that when you go on "wikibreak" you put the "retired" template up. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking a Wikibreak (we all do it), or retiring (some of us do), but when the retired template has been placed and removed on a page a dozen times in as many months it stops losing it's effectiveness. Thus, I completely agree with MelanieN regarding taking a break (while finishing up those GAs), but I think changing {{retired}} to {{wikibreak}} would be a much better option in the long run. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: When I put the {{retired}} template up, I mean it: when stuff like this happens, I really do think things like "there's no way I can make this work out". In fact, if it wasn't for my outstanding GANs, I probably would be retiring. Adam9007 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I think Primefac made an excellent point about the difference between "Wikibreak" and "Retired", and I'm glad to see you have adopted the "Wikibreak" terminology. It doesn't commit you (meaning the "you" of a week or a month from now) to any seemingly irrevocable action. It allows you to come back whenever you feel like it without apology or explanation. It recognizes the fact that your previous "retirements" did not in fact turn out to be retirements - because it turned out that, for reasons you yourself can't always explain, you do get something out of participating here and want to keep doing it. It's good to set your status in a form that recognizes that impulse on your part. And it keeps your credibility intact. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Due to recent experiences, I am now more convinced than ever that the only way to avoid Wikistress is to avoid Wikipedia entirely . Sad but (hopefully not) true. When nonsense happens, I sometimes become utterly convinced of that, and impulsively take the preëmptive action of putting {{retired}} up. Yes, something keeps drawing me back, and I'd really like to know exactly what. However, I'm thinking maybe I should avoid participating in any "mainstream" discussions (RfCs, XfDs etc), because at times it seems that no matter what I say, someone takes offence, or it's otherwise taken the wrong way. Noöne otherwise generally pays much attention anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
All of those Wiktionary edits look constructive to me. As for the "retired" thing, it rubs people the wrong way here because of WP:Don't be high-maintenance (which used to be called WP:Don't be a diva. There's been a long-running problem of certain editors trying "give me my way on this or I will quit!" histrionics a WP:GAMING tactic, and all it does is piss people off and make them wish that the person in question really would leave for good. I can remember a case where admins finally told the person that it was actually time for them to make good on their threat and leave for real, on WP:CIR / WP:5THWHEEL grounds. I don't think you intend to put yourself in that category, but others will put you in it if you keep "retiring" when you're really just taking wikibreaks. It's like over-use of hyperbole and sarcasm; it gets old fast, and most people don't care for it even in small doses. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Wiktionary has 3 temporal terms: Dated, Archaic, and Obsolete. They are different levels (dated being the lowest and obsolete the highest). I don't know if people talking about archaic spellings here are using the same definitions, or if they're using "archaic" as an umbrella term for anything that isn't ultra modern. In case you're wondering what "asylum" has to do with this incident: nothing. I encountered it in the video game Little Big Adventure, and yes, the article uses that term, although in this case it is appropriate as that is the term the game uses. Speaking of what's appropriate and not, I remember that "gaiety" was dismissed as inappropriate without explanation. How is it inappropriate? Last I checked, it meant happiness/cheerfulness. Well, the Cambridge dictionary says it's old-fashioned, but the Oxford dictionary does not. Same for "gaily". I left those entries of Wiktionary alone as I wasn't sure if I ought to change them.
As for my "retirements", sometimes I get so worked up that I feel I can't carry on here. But something keeps drawing me back. Maybe it's the fact there's so much I'd like to get done (GA and FA targets etc). Maybe I do enjoy editing, when people aren't having a go at me all the time. But sometimes it seems that people have a go at me no matter what I do (or don't do). Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Hence I make impulsive and perhaps even irrational decisions that the only way to avoid the stress is to just not edit. Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Most dictionaries don't have that many levels of obsolescence tracked, so people tend to use "obsolete" or "archaic" as blanket terms in discussions like this. Several dictionaries do distinguish those two terms from each other; if it's not at least a century or so out-of-date, it's usually given as "obsolete", "rare", "uncommon", etc., not as "archaic", which usually implies things like "four-score and seven", "thine", "wherefore art thou", etc. I noted what you were doing with "asylum" and agree; it's generally only used that now in noun phrases like "mental asylum" (itself an obsolescent term) and proper names (including fictional ones like Arkham Asylum). Most uses of the word today refer to political asylum. "Gaiety" seems fine (it's not connected to the gay=homosexual usage), but it's also a PoV (emotive and "mind-reading") word, which we wouldn't have any normal reason to use outside a quotation. We generally shouldn't be talking about subjects even be "happy" or "unhappy" without quoting or paraphrasing a quote, since we cannot peer magically into subjects' mental states. Anyway, if one major dictionary says something is old-fashioned that's sufficient to avoid it. Not every dictionary has part of its mission to catalogue frequency/currency, and OED in particular is on a completeness mission (which is why it's by far the largest dictionary in the world), as well as to establish earliest known usage [about which they're often wrong], a detail many dictionaries don't care about. You can find all kinds of stuff OED, like words only found in the 16th century in eastern Kent, etc., that other dictionaries would not include. I think their online and other abridged editions are moving toward frequency/currency info, and paring things down to words people are likely to ever encounter in their lifetimes, but that's going to be a years-long process.
Re "sometimes I get so worked up that I feel I can't carry on here. But something keeps drawing me back" – Sure, lots of us get that. I thought I was quitting, too, and used a retirement template once, and did leave for about a year. I now regret having used the template because in made me look "WP:HIGHMAINT". Given how much pushback you get on style and titles matters, it would indeed probably be best to focus on GA/FA work, which is rewarding, less psychodramatic, and will make you more friends anyway. Heh. (I only have one GA I wrote almost entirely myself, and sometimes think of doing more of them and giving the nit-pick work a rest for a while, but at this point I'm one of the main sources of "institutional memory" on these matters and there always seem to be ten fires to fight at once.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simon the Sorcerer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, they're not about the same person (who is apparently a pilot - I hope he's stopped drinking :-/ ). I took a quick look with petscan, and there are tens of thousands of articles that have last been edited by anons, and in the timeframe we're talking about, so if the edits exist, I really don't know how to go about finding them. I would think of looking at ranges of IP addresses, but I'm not sure how much that would help. --Slashme (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?
2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?
3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?
4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?
5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?
6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?
7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?
8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?
9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.
10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.
11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?
12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing?
Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?
13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?
@TonyBallioni: Thanks! I frequently come across copyvios in userspace when looking through new pages there. I notice there aren't nearly as many new articles in article space as there used to be: have non-confirmed users been prevented from creating new pages there? By the way, that should be "it's" (it is/it was/it has), not "its" (possessive) . Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. To your questions, yes. WP:ACTRIAL launched in September. I'm quite a fan of it (which is expected since I was one of the main people pushing for it.) I don't do much much userspace patrolling myself, but have noticed in the last 36 hours that a lot of the requests for G12 or RD1 that people put in come from userspace. Thanks again for your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: So that's why AfC is being taxed? Also, is there anything stopping non-confirmed users from creating a page in draft or user space and then just moving it to article space? Adam9007 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Non-confirmed users cannot move an article. This might have a relation to the AfC backlog or might not. The WMF has a data scientist analyzing everything that is happening with page creation for us and we'll get more results the longer the trial runs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
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.
@MelanieN: Well, I've beaten the devil car umpteen times, and have even done something widely believed impossible to it (then again, I've done the same to the angel car). But I've done it against the devil more times, so maybe you're right in saying I'm good . Adam9007 (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course you are. If you're not familiar with D&D, see Lawful Good. A person who is REQUIRED by the rules and their own personality to do good, as opposed to other alignments that are not so restrictive. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I do the best I can and still fail miserably . It is extremely frustrating. Sometimes being here is so stressful that I half wonder how I haven't dropped dead of a heart attack. The queer thing is that I can't seem to retire, or even take a wikibreak of any significant period, no matter how hard I try. But anyway, I'm good, but not in the sense of quality or ability . Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You would enjoy Wikipedia - and, I suspect, life - a lot more if you would just stop kicking yourself and admit that most of your efforts are pretty good. And at all times, well intentioned. And not dwell on the occasional misfires. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN:most of your efforts are pretty good. And at all times, well intentioned Thanks. I like to think so. But it's not what I think that matters: it's what others think. If others think I'm a loony (and they do), then I'm forever labelled as one. That said, I do perhaps take things too deeply to heart: you don't wanna know how I dealt with my feelings during the last hoo-ha! Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The irony of this is that most of us do appreciate the work you do, it's actually the self-deprecation that gets annoying sometimes. :p
@Primefac:We're all a little bit crazy I know I am, hence this (which isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously). who cares if someone thinks you're loony? I do. Should I? it's actually the self-deprecation that gets annoying sometimes. :p It annoys me to feel the need to do it. I wouldn't be doing it if I wasn't that annoyed . Adam9007 (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: Well... this just goes to show that things are not always what they seem to be! What made you suspect it wasn't vandalism? I doubt I'm the only one who'd take one look at this and think it's vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It felt like an internet meme. Or tag line. I had a page deleted as nonsense when I first started. I had no idea how humorless Wikipedia can be, and the content I posted was too in universe-- about "Mother Hitton's Littul Kittons". I also did not reckon on the lack of familiarity with classic sci fi.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I do. Adam created the page, the user created a massive spammy article on their talk page, TJH2018 placed the notice, Adam was notified, and I reverted everything back to the last-good version before the spammy addition. Thus, when Adam went to check there was nothing obvious. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)(talk page stalker)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Discworld (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw your addition of {{User grieving}} here. I just wanted to let you know that I was thinking about you and that I wish you well. Take all of the time you need to grieve fully, properly, and healthily; the project and us be here when you're ready to come back. I hope that you find emotional closure and peace in regards to your loss. I am here and available via email if you need anyone to talk to. Yours truly and sincerely -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Thanks. It's my pet dog and it just came right out of the blue. In fact, if you'd told me when I woke up today what was going to happen and how soon, I wouldn't have believed it. We've (me and my relatives in real life) had him for nearly 13 and a half years but never thought the end was just around the corner . Needless to say, I probably won't be in the mood to edit for a little while. Adam9007 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I will be going through the same thing within the next three years with my dog. She was the most hyper pup you could ever own, and we grew up together through my teenage years. She'd run around the house and in circles at full speed.. you couldn't force that dog to contain its energy if it meant saving your life lol. I went off to college, she stayed with my parents and became a depressed dog after I left. Apparenly she'd spend all day laying in front of my room door, and would lay in my bed and cry at night wondering where I was. She wouldn't eat her food, and she would constantly sit by the front door waiting for me to come home. It was sad to hear my parents talk about it, but I was in school, and I had no choice. I'd of course be home for Christmas, breaks, and summers, but I became so busy that coming home was tough to be able to do. Engineering is a difficult major (lol) She eventually moved on of course and she and I would see each other occasionally (my parents own her and she's three hours away). Fast forward today: She's now 15 years old. Her hearing is going, she sleeps a lot, and she doesn't jump up on the bed like she used to. I ask about my dog on the phone when I talk to my parents, and they just tell me, "She's getting old, Oshwah....". I'm visiting my parents next week, and I'm honestly more excited to see my dog more than anything (I'm not implying anything bad about my parents or anything.... BUT I GET TO SEE MY DOG!!! lol). She's now at the age, and I now see my parents at the level of frequency (mostly during holidays, visits to town sometimes, etc), --- that this will be one of the last times I'll get to see her spend time with her. It makes me very sad to have to acknowledge that fact and understand it, but I know that it's it's the truth. she's transitioning into the elder stage of her life, and I'll have to watch and hear my parents tell me over the phone about how she's slowly declining and when her time to pass might come. It eats me away emotionally knowing how life gave her such a ridiculously hyper amount of energy and a strong-willed personality and spirit... and how that very life is now slowly taking her away.... I'm so sorry for your loss. I'm sure that your dog was your best friend and companion, just like my dog was mine. Grieve hard and grieve well my friend, and get it all out of your system. I think that people who become permanently affected and scarred by loss is because they didn't allow themselves to do that. Keep your chin up, be healthy, positive, and well, and get closure and peace with the loss. Like I said... we'll all be here when you're ready to come back. The trolls and vandals aren't going anywhere ;-). Yours truly and sincerely -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: This has actually happened before (with another pet dog too), but for whatever reason, I don't think I put a {{User grieving}} notice up. Maybe it's because I was "well" prepared for it: 4 months with Lymphoma and no treatment. This time however, it came as a complete shock, despite his age. I had about an hour and a half from when I knew it was going to happen. As for not being in the mood to edit, I couldn't resist doing this. Maybe I'm beginning to recover already? Adam9007 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That's hard - I'm sorry for your loss. I am happy to see you back. Don't feel guilty moving on; if your dog was as awesome as mine, it's exactly what he/she would have wanted you to do. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Maybe it's best to wait until I've fully recovered (I did say I was (maybe) beginning to do so ) before doing any serious editing? I had a queer feeling I'd be back before I thought I would, given my previous failed attempts to retire or go on long wikibreaks, but didn't think it'd only be 1 day. That'll just destroy any future "I'm on wikibreak" or "I'm not in the mood to edit" statements' credibility. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No it won't. You put up the template with the anticipation that you're probably going to need to take a break for awhile. Your break was just shorter than you rough. Why would other editors hold that against you? There's nothing for them to even hold you accountable for... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Well, I say the feeling was strange (and maybe it is...), but it can actually be rather easily explained: Why would other editors hold that against you? I've put {{retired}} tags up before, with the anticipation that I will not be editing any more, several times. When have I ever been right about that? Never. Thus, such tags are no longer taken seriously. Adam9007 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, so what? If an editor gives you grief over this, it's not only an absolutely ridiculous thing for someone to be critical about, but to me it's against the fundamental idea of keeping a community together. People who care about the community, keeping a welcoming culture, and editor retention - wouldn't make statement such as, "You put a retirement flag up but you ended up coming back, so I'm going to hold that against you", or "You put up a template saying that you're morning the loss of someone close, but you returned sooner than your originally thought - so I'm not going to take your future template like this seriously". I mean... really? I'd say to them, 1. Who cares? 2. Wow, so you're upset that the editor didn't actually leave forever like they said - way to manage your priorities and keep editors on the project... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I think people are sceptical about such tags because I always end up coming back afterwards. And wikibreaks always turn out to be shorter that I stated they would be. And yes, I think some are starting to hold such behaviour against me, because they think I'm just throwing a wobbler. I do sometimes get so stressed I (sometimes immediately) feel I've reached the end of the road here. That's what I put {{retired}} up. But for some reason, they never turn out to actually be retirements. Not so long ago, I was talking about an indefinite wikibreak that has yet to happen, so it's little wonder noöne believes me when I make such statements. Adam9007 (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Adam9007. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
Martnet is Refusing to Say if He/She watches CSI Miami: Driven.
I want to ask You if You watched [CSI: Miami: Episode: Driven], which Wasted my Time.
1. Why didn't Half-Dumb Delko ask the Male Driver to Describe the Thief's face, who Sold the Stolen Car?
2. Becuz of Delko's half-fault, the Male Driver knew Where the Thief worked, so the Male Driver killed the Thief who Broke into another House but Was the Thief's death Seriously self-defense Shooting?
3. In real Life Cops would get Sketches, so Y the Fug didn't the TV do It? I doubt You have Good Reason?
@TonyBallioni: Thanks! I noticed that everyone else was getting "Merry Christmas"s while I was getting cr@p like this. Although clearly not made in good faith, I do still think there's some truth to it . On the other hand, unless I'm much mistaken, I appear to have won £100 by participating in one of our Christmas traditions! Yay! . Your wish has come true, touch wood . I only wish my Wikipedia activities can bring me this sort of gaiety . Adam9007 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Yikes! By the time I got to replying, Christmas Day was almost if not over in my time zone, so it didn't occur to me to wish you a Merry Christmas back! Oh well, Merry Boxing Day! No wonder nobody likes me: I'm hopelessly socially inept even for an autistic person! Adam9007 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
@Lee Vilenski: Thanks! I'm surprised the guy doesn't have more coverage (at least that I can find. I have a funny feeling that the old Bullfrog crowd have all been somewhat overshadowed by Peter Molyneux, but that's pure speculation.). As for good referencing, I'm a bit concerned about the develop-online source: I'm 99.99 per cent sure that everything in the first two paragraphs (in the Mark Webley section) is Gary Carr (whose article you also reviewed?), not Mark Webley, and that they seem to have mixed the two people up somehow. Obviously, I can't use it to support material about Carr because it says Webley. Is it a reliable source? Adam9007 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lionhead Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eidos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Would it be possible for you to provide me with a scan of the Sonic Adventure article? It's fine if you can't, just asking. JOEBRO6400:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking you could upload a picture of it to imgur or something similar; you don't have to if you don't know how. I just want to know if there's anything in it I'm missing. JOEBRO6400:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Adam, thanks for all your hard work looking for copyvios. I love it when I see your name in a revision history because I know you've done your homework. I just wanted to leave a brief note because I noticed you're being a little too conservative with G12 and over-requesting RD1 when speedy deletion is probably preferable. If the only thing left is an infobox or a picture, then G12 applies. Additionally, if only one sentence is free text, and the rest is copyvio, it is likely that the one sentence is also infringement from somewhere else that we just can't find, so tagging it as G12 makes sense. This also makes it easier on reviewing admins, because it is easier to verify copyvio with a G12 tag than with RD1, because RD1 requires looking at the page history and loading that into the software. I'm not saying that you should tag G12 on a whim, but you could be a bit less conservative on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: It's nice of you to say that I've done my homework: I mean, a lot of it is just Page -> Tools -> Copyright vio detector, and a quick check to make sure there are no non-copyvio versions and that the apparent source is not public domain or licensed (which are things everyone should be doing when tagging for G12), though I do use Google if the tool turns up nothing. The reason I used RD1 on the page with an image is because it was a user page, and I believe it's okay for it to use a free (I assume: it's been up for some months on Commons) image? It may not be worth it for articles, but aren't userspace rules different? Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really, copyvio is copyvio. It's also just much easier for admins to deal with G12s than RD1, and it is easy to recreate a user page. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I really only left a note because I wasn't sure if ZLEA was aware of the 3R exemptions, but I am sure they are (now). Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about the confusion, I reverted the edit and only later I found it was in User space. I'm not too familiar with the rules on that, so - better safe than sorry - I reverted my edit and my warning. BytEfLUShTalk04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It's an LTA. A steward found it when we had another account globally locked, and I didn't bother dealing with a local block since there was no way it would ever be unlocked. DoRD CU blocked when it intersected with another of the LTAs accounts on en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Editorforart (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC) It was recently made an editing to page Draft: Oksana Tanasiv. Regarding Dollar art and Code U collection it is an intellectual property of artist, all art created by artist. The idea and conception of both collections developed by Oksana Tanasiv Editorforart (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi... Soon after I saw the strange message on my talk page (and removed it), I found that you had placed a redaction request there -- Special:Diff/829769189. I assume the goal is to completely remove the text of the message, which is great by me, but... is there something I need to do? Or just wait until an admin takes care of it? Thanks! WikipelliTalk21:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikipelli: Yes, the goal is to completely remove access to the copyvio. No, you don't need to do anything: an admin will come and assess the request. Adam9007 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Add: I notice it seems to be licensed under CC-BY-SA (it doesn't say what version it's version 3.0), so maybe we should just provide attribution instead? Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC) It's actually copied from here. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 site copied from them. Adam9007 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I thought I undid my CSD nomination, apparently I hadnt done it. And yes, your assumption is correct, it was indeed a test See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk)01:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
I was curious to know if you would be interested in expanding that article. I've found numerous sources, but it appears you might be more familiar with this subject than I am. Valoemtalkcontrib18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Valoem: To be honest, I'm not that familiar with either aromanticism or asexuality. I'm not even 100 per cent sure I fit those labels exactly: all I know is that I'm definitely somewhere on their spectrums. I really don't think someone who isn't 100 per cent sure is qualified to call themselves "familiar" with them :(. Adam9007 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.
If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
I forgot their name--they're a longterm harasser, someone from some India-related scam. They had a reddit and all that, something bizarre about how I was on the take with Intel because I approved some edit in some Intel CEO's article. They had some kind of weird issue with the Intel CEO cause they claimed the guy had stolen some magic crystal or whatever (I'm not making this up, though I may misremember a detail or two). Every now and then they come back to harass me and others. Hey, next time you see something like that happening in user space, don't bother with the vandalism 1, 2, 3, etc warnings--we don't see notifications for such edits, and this was obviously an OUTING and BLP violation. Ping an admin on AN if you can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Good call. Thanks. Bishonen, HELP THEY'RE ON TO US CAUSE YOU HATE JIMBO WALES AND I AM HELPING THE GUY WHO STOLE THE CRYSTALS IN THE LAPTOP. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the crystals confine the magic smoke in the chips - once the magic smoke leaks out of your computer it stops working - logic, yes? Acroterion(talk)01:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
And yes, it's the same person as the IP that posted the screed on Bishonen's page - they're using proxies, so I'm going to go ahead and extend the blocks to six months or so, although it's conceivable that they have a teleportation booth that lets them get from Tunisia to Romania without changing in Atlanta. Acroterion(talk)01:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, I actually think it is a newer person, I'll send you an email. Also, I have yet to receive my latest payment as a secret paid editor who is really on the payroll for people despite being one of the loudest critics of paid editing. Whom at HR do I need to contact again about having the funds wired to the Swiss account? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, if it is the same guy, it's funny that you should mention HR since they wrote an extensive letter complaining about me to my employer, and so I got to meet all the people at HR. It's that type of assholery. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear Adam9007: I noticed that you have marked the draft above as a copyright problem. Now I see that an article about that topic has been added to mainspace. Some of the copyright issues have been addressed, maybe not all. I've tagged it for notability.
By the way, thanks for taking on copyright issues. These can be a bit thorny, and I haven't been able to figure out the process.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Hey Adam, sorry to undo your edit, and while I’m normally fine with your choice of diction, I don’t think that particular word is ideal to use in these circumstances. Feel free to revert me, but I’d suggest picking another word just out of respect for others. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I'm not sure what was wrong with my wording? Yes, it has multiple meanings, but I don't think anyone with any common sense will seriously believe it meant what you're thinking of (especially as it doesn't have that meaning in UK English). Comparable words didn't quite fit. Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Eh. Let’s strive to avoid shock whenever possible. The offensive meaning is known in all varieties of English, even if not the primary usage. Blame it on the States exporting it’s pop culture if you must. Regardless: on a website with people from a variety of backgrounds, it’s best to use caution. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: The offensive meanings of "Gay" and "Queer" are widely known across the Anglosphere. Does that mean we shouldn't use those words? I don't see how this word should be different, especially as, to people from around my parts, it means something totally different. Adam9007 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the one you used is much more offensive to most people. To be blunt: I think you’re doing it for shock value given the context of your deciding to reclaim gay. ENGVAR isn’t an excuse for this. Please pick another word. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: And what if I used it in the primary British meaning? Both the sense I used it in here and that one are clearly listed in all the major dictionaries as British. The offensive one is clearly listed as American. So engvar is an excuse. The offensive meaning simply isn't what it means to me and others from this part of the world. Adam9007 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not, as every other British person on this website has the commonsense not to use it that way, and you have a history of intentionally using words for shock value. If you had just reverted me with the excuse that you preferred it, I would have just chalked it up to you having a weird obsession with having especially British language, but the more we talk the more I think you’re just trying to shock people and get attention.It’s also just the decent human thing to do to not use it when someone tells you they take offense to it, even if it isn’t your meaning. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: If I had reverted it, someone would likely have reverted me back, for whatever reason. So I thought it better to just have the discussion now rather than being accused of being disruptive. So far, no-one (apart from a troll) has claimed to have taken offence at my user page. If someone does claim to have taken offence, surely the way to deal with it is to try to get them to understand how it isn't, not censor perfectly innocuous language? That just encourages their misunderstanding. Adam9007 (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I take offense to your usage of hate speech to get attention and I take even more offense at your playing dumb about why someone might take offense, and I find it even more offensive than that that you are claiming your nationality as an excuse to use a word that is extremely offensive to many people who use this website. This is not about your being British. This is about you having no respect for others. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Hate Speech? No respect for others? It has nothing to do with a certain group of people. Is the word "poof" in the sense of "disappear" homophobic too? (it's an offensive term for a homosexual in UK English). Adam9007 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Adam, stop playing dumb. I’ve defended you before when it hasn’t been popular, but I draw the line. This is an international website with people from a variety of cultures, and part of making that work is avoiding using speech that causes unnecessary shock or offense. I’m confident you knew someone would revert you and this conversation would happen. That makes your using it worse, not better. You used a slur with a double meaning to cause an issue and you fell back on your nationality when someone raised objections, again, I’ll point out, most other British editors have none of the language problems you do here. Finally: I’ve told you I find it offensive. It is entirely reasonable for me to do so, even if none of my assumptions about you just wanting attention are true. When someone in good faith tells you they find something that a reasonable person could find offensive offensive, the correct thing to do, on Wikipedia and in real life, is to avoid causing offense when it is not necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: You know the word "Fanny"? In UK English, it s a vulgar word for something I probably shouldn't say here. Should we move the article Fanny pack because it might offend people like me? (for the record, I'm not offended, because I know what it means). Of course not: Wikipedia is not censored. Adam9007 (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that article titles referencing proper names are different than conversations with others and banners on user talk pages. I’ll make this simple: if in the future you use any double meanings to play word games with slurs I’ll just block you. It’s disrespectful and disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Adam, you know that I have often defended you. I’m not defending you in this case. Tony is absolutely right. That word is HIGHLY offensive, unlike the other words you have cited here like “fanny”. The word you used is indeed hate speech - the kind of word that is shouted by someone while they beat someone else up. If you didn’t know that before, you know it now, and you should have listened to Tony when he tried (repeatedly) to tell you so. I see that you have posted “retired” rather than respond to this guidance and advice. I hope you will return some day but that’s up to you. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN:@TonyBallioni: If I have caused any offence to either of you (well, I can see I have to Tony), please accept my sincere apologies. I assure you that was not my intention. I was aware that it was a slur in America, although I didn't know the details. Please, please understand that to someone from the UK (I don't know about other parts of the Anglosphere), that word means something totally different and completely innocuous. In fact, there are three British meanings of the noun: cigarette (this is the one most Brits are familiar with, and I daresay the one we think of when we see or hear that word in the absence of context indicating otherwise), a tiring, boring, or irritating task (the one I meant here), and (I think this is old-fashioned) a pupil who does jobs for a more senior pupil. I admit I naïvely assumed that people who know I'm not American would figure I didn't mean it as a slur, because (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) the slur is confined to North America. I don't think I have ever encountered a Brit using it that way. As for my retirement, I really don't think I can handle the stress any more. I'd rather quit while I'm ahead than get so worked up I do something stupid and will come to regret later, like I nearly did back in September (or was it October?). I lost a lot of sleep over this last night, and as a result, I'm knackered. So I'm probably not thinking straight right now... Adam9007 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Adam, I know you’re British. I know the British meaning(s). I also know that you use words to make a point and that you use non-standard usages and then complain when people are confused. I also am pretty sure that most British people are aware of the American meaning, know it is a slur, and know how offensive people in North America find it (to the point where I have seen multiple British people flinch when someone from North America uses the British meaning in the U.K.) I’m all about the assumptions of good faith, but given the context of your vocabulary choices in the past, I’m comfortable saying you did this for attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to AGF that you did it initially in innocence, knowing it was a slur but thinking it was a mild one, like queer or poof. Trust us, it isn't. It is an exact equivalent to what Americans call the N-word - a word so offensive, so bigoted, so hate-filled, so much of a fighting word that we don't even say it out loud. I'm willing to believe you that you didn't know that at first. But your refusal to accept correction when Tony explained it, your apparent insistence that you have every right to use it even after it has been explained, your multiple posts here saying everything except "Oh, now I understand, I won't use that word any more" - that was and is a problem. You need to become able to accept good-faith advice, to learn something, to respond to correction in a more positive way. Can you do that? That's something for you to think about during your retirement. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN:@TonyBallioni: No, I wasn't aware just how serious it is. I mean, poof is used for its other meanings without causing offence, and I admit I was struggling to understand why this should be any different. I don't know how serious poof is here, but I think Ritchie333 was involved in an incident involving that word (I could be remembering wrong, I'm pretty sure if it was poof) a while back. Maybe he knows more about it. But you must understand that here, our meanings aren't slurs at all: they're just normal words. I admit that it was perhaps foolish of me to use a word that could be easily misinterpreted as a slur by those less knowledgeable about the word than I am. As for accepting advice, I can do it, but I interpreted what I was being told as that word is offensive (rather than simply that it could be mistaken for being offensive) full stop, no matter how it's used. Maybe that was the wrong interpretation, but I did wonder at some points during the discussion.
I've had an idea: maybe there should be a guideline on engvar in user and talk pages? Our current guideline focuses exclusively on articles, but to my knowledge there's nothing anywhere about it in user and talk pages. Adam9007 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Adam, thank you for your response here. It makes me feel a lot better. I don’t think we need a version of ENGVAR for non-mainspace pages. Just generally taking others people’s words when they tell you a term is offensive in their dialect and it might be best to not use TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And I'm sure you have been around long enough to know that different "slurs" have different levels of acceptability vs. offensiveness. Just because there are some "slurs" that are fairly innocuous, that doesn't mean that all other slurs meaning the same thing are equally innocuous. Look, I'll give you a really blunt example to get your attention: There are words for the sex act that merely produce a giggle; there are words that cause an eyebrow to go up; there are words that you absolutely must not use in polite company; they all mean the same thing, but they have very different levels of when and where you can use them. The same is true of words for women; words for gays (yes, I know you insist that word means "happy" but you know perfectly well what it means to most people nowadays); words for excrement; words for body parts; this is a well known feature of language. I can use the word "excrement," but there are words meaning the same thing that I can't use. And when someone tells you that you have (accidentally) used one of the forbidden words, your response should be "Oh, sorry, I didn't mean any harm, I'll remove it" - rather than insisting "but it's OK when I use it because I meant something else!" OK? --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Adam, to go off of what Melanie said and also add a bit where I’m coming from, I knew the first two British meanings (never heard the school boy one), and know a few other meanings in American English. I went to school during the height of the current movement at a university where gay rights were probably the most significant social issue on campus, which is why I’m very sensitive to this sort of thing.While I know that it can have different meanings in a British context, many people on this side of the Atlantic don’t. To use an example: it’d be like an American using ‘Paki’ thinking that it was just short for Pakistani because most Americans aren’t aware of how offensive it is. That’s the level of offense it could cause. When you’re operating in a multi-cultural context, you need to keep these sorts of things in mind and try avoiding offense even when not intended. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. 0;-D Now you understand. And I'm glad to see you have softened your "retired" tag above and are back doing useful things (like finding weird stuff to revdel...) --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Hello again Adam. I'm sorry about your discouragement about editing and hope that you take breaks as needed then return refreshed instead of leaving for good. Have a good day, —PaleoNeonate – 15:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
This user was socking earlier as GoodMuthaF. I spotted the similarities in the username and started an SPI. You're helpful to the project here; hope you stick around. Home Lander (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism inside the sandbox is generally not destroying Wikipedia so I think warnings are not necessary. Even if that IP is angry, their edits aren’t disruptive, destructive and not PA. Cheers ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 02:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Adam -- I saw your note to a new student editor and ask if you could have a look at this issue. One presumes the project is to improve food content, but many of these students are copying the same content and source, then putting into any food-related article on their project list. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zefr: I'm no expert on the subject so I can't judge how appropriate the content is, but from what I can tell they're not actually supposed to be putting it in mainspace yet. Looking at the course, it seems that they're supposed to do it in their sandboxes and then propose the edits at the end. Adam9007 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
A blocked editor who has had their talk page an e-mail access revoked, and contains a thinly veiled attack on other editors. Why do you feel it should stay? --Tarage (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the situation, but it looks like he's blocked, not sitebanned. From what I can tell, he can appeal. Him being gone for good isn't a certainty. Adam9007 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
(EC)He has been site-banned. The community voted to block him, his talk page access has been revoked, and further his e-mail access has been revoked. If he were to come back, he would have to get community agreement. And in that incredibly unlikely event, he can simply revert my erasure, can he not? I have seen plenty of blocked users who have had their userpage replaced with a block message. What makes this instance different? --Tarage (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Note after EC, I would be fine with a tag. I just want the thinly veiled attack gone. Blank, tag, either are fine with me. --Tarage (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Then that's fine with me. Since you are more familiar with tagging than I am, would you mind doing the honors? And thanks for talking this out with me. --Tarage (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
First, where's the notice that he was sitebanned? I can't find any. I thought sitebanned editors were blocked indefinitely anyway? Adam9007 (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but he was participating in the discussion, and was only indeffed by consensus. I'm confused . Maybe a talk page stalker can shed some light on this? Is {{Blocked user}} appropriate? Adam9007 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gearheads (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Sorry, I screwed up with that last post. Maybe it is time for me to take a break, at least for a few hours. I had finally decided to reply to the disruptive user even though I had put a special message on the user's talk page. I had written that final reply, but then the matter advanced to the point where the user was blocked. I had copied the reply to move to a blank page in case I needed it later. In any event, the user could not accept that a non-neutral, mostly irrelevant, negative comment was unacceptable, even if it was based on an opinion piece in the New York Times. Again, sorry for the wrong post. Thanks for reverting the edit to my talk page. I could not press the thank button because of intervening edits. I actually wrote something similar to this so I am not sure how I ended up with that draft being placed here. A little disoriented perhaps. Donner60 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Retirement
Please don't. You are a great contributor and help to the project. I know about discouragement. We want to be perfect and make mistakes like I did with the wrong post. Users who mainly revert vandalism and edits contrary to guidelines are not given enough credit for keeping the project credible. It is easy to feel unappreciated. Then to get hit by vandals or having to set disruptive, or even clueless, editors straight can begin to weigh on one. But other users who do the same thing and a good number of administrators do appreciate such work. There would be more instances of the faults of Wikipedia being publicized without it. I have not looked to see whether you make other contributions but getting away from the vandals for awhile, whether working in other areas, creating content, or just taking a break can help. I have created content and do some other things and am about to shift mainly into those areas myself. I have taken a few days off here and there when I get discouraged, often by wondering whether I could have done something better or not made a mistake. I try not to let a few mistakes, soon corrected, bother me now. I also try to tell myself that my contributions are overwhelming helpful. I think yours are. So please continue. Donner60 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Donner60: It's being going on for ages: CSD, BLPPROD, NPP, my userspace, and even stuff like spelling (yes, spelling). It seems I can't do anything without offending someone or cheesing off half the community. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of being Wikipedia's Aunt Sally. I said something a couple of months ago, but even that caused uproar that made me wonder why on Earth I continue here. Unappreciated is an understatement: hated with a passion is perhaps a more accurate assessment, especially as some think I'm racist or homophobic (nothing can be further from the truth, and I don't recall ever saying anything on here that is either). This isn't the first time I've threatened to leave either. I long for my old gaiety but I don't think it'll happen as mud sticks. The sad fact is that no-one cares about the good stuff (plenty of others do it): it's the cr@p we're remembered for, whether it was justified or not . Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
("We", for sure.) Sadly, there is truth in what you have written. I hope these problems are coming from vandals and disruptive users. I suspect that a few of those causing you grief, however, are likely regular or experienced users. I have tried to get over the abuse from vandals, disruptive editors, POV pushers and the like. I think such abuse is probably much like that endured by at least some of the good administrators.
I don't doubt that too much abuse and lack of appreciation and positive feedback can weigh one down. I have been encouraged by a few users like yourself who try to maintain a steady, neutral point of view. Still, if a neutral editor does not support a point of view, people who hold that view without question and believe it is the "truth" may heap on the abuse and unjustified name-calling despite one's best efforts just to follow the guidelines in a neutral way and to work on the project as an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.
While I have left a word of encouragement, continuing to volunteer here is a personal decision, of course. If it is no longer fun, and more so if it is no longer good for oneself, retiring may be the best option. It is an important project but users are volunteers and owe nothing but their best effort to the project. Also, interests can change; time commitments can become burdensome. That's life and can change the rationale for continuing. The project is now the go-to encyclopedia, and thus preserving it and expanding it productively, are important. On the other hand, volunteers cannot be expected to continue when it becomes toxic or harmful to themselves, especially if support for maintaining the neutral and encyclopedic nature of the project, even perhaps by those in charge, is lacking.
I am not at the point of giving up, but I can see how it could get there. I am at the point of slowing down and spending more time on content creation in (hopefully) less controversial areas. Sorry for the rambling. I hope it is of some value. Good luck and best wishes either way. As you remain around, I hope we may have opportunities to co-operate. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: I'm not so sure they're actually the same person. This source says Abbas' debut was in Creature 3D, from about a decade later than Khan's debut in Laaj. Abbas' biography and filmography also doesn't match Khan's. Neither does this. Also, looking at Khan on this page and comparing him to Abbas, they don't look like the same person. I reckon the Dawn article could have made a mistake. Further complicating matters is that there are several Imran Khans. Also, did you notice that the pre-Laaj films added to Khan's article by an IP in April appears to have been a hoax? Adam9007 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is a mess. Taking all into consideration, we have two options - A7 or AfD. I'm going with A7 to save us all a great deal of time. There simply is not enough verifiable information to warrant keeping it. The BLP fails WP:Notability (people). Atsme📞📧17:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
Project news
The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
@Me-123567-Me: That might be a tad premature . We're not sure it's actually been resolved (see above). Knowing my luck, it'll probably turn out I've made things worse... (though I certainly hope not) Adam9007 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg
Hi Adam9007. It’s not really a good idea to overwrite a non-free file like you did; it would’ve been better to upload the image you found as the new file to WP:COMMONS instead. The non-free would’ve been reviewed by an administrator and deleted if it didn’t comply with relevant policy. The speedy deletion tag was contested, however, and the reviewing admin might’ve decided that more discussion was needed to sort things out. What you did may ultimately lead to the non-free versions’ deletion, but it would be because of WP:F5, which is pretty much done without any discussion and typically only a cursory review. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I've ever done something like that before so I'm not sure how it's supposed to be done. I thought that just replacing the non-free image with a (hopefully: I'm 99 per cent sure it's the same person and I can't find the image elsewhere. I'm actually kind of surprised the uploader said he couldn't find a free one...) free one will put a swift end to the dispute. Does it really matter if the non-free image is deleted under F7 or F5? Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Normally, it’s not a good idea to overwrite a file like you did (see c:COM:OVERWRITE for some reasons why Commons doesn’t allow it) unless it’s a minor change, such as a crop or straightening, etc. where basically the image is the same because it’s possible that the original may be being used somewhere where the new image would be out of context, etc. It might be possible that there may still potential new uses for the original file as well. None of that probably matters in this case since the originally was almost surely going to be deleted as replaceable fair use. However, the uploader did contest the speedy deletion tag, so they might still want to argue that the original file should be kept which then might make the overwriting an issue. Regardless, you can, if you want, upload a higher quality version of what you found to Commons since the licensing appears at first glance to be OK. You can use c:COM:UPLOAD for that. At the same time, once the older non-free revisions have been deleted, you can add {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to the file’s page, and a file mover will eventually move it to Commons. You might also want to add {{Information}} to provide a little more info about where you found the image, etc. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your revdel-request on User talk:JordanMicahBennett. What I can't see is where the infringing content was added, and where it was removed. If it's just the few words you added with this edit, I don't really think that revdeletion is needed or justified. Now would be the perfect time for me to add some witty aphorism that would make you want to stay on Wikipedia for ever. I can't do that, witty aphorisms are not easy to come by; I can say that you've been a valued contributor, and that I hope you won't leave just when we need all the hands we can get. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers and Beeblebrox: I accidentally added a sentence from the source. I don't know how it happened; I most certainly did not select it and copy it. I was trying to copy a url to use for the G12 tag. I did not notice the error until the tag was placed, and the error of course also happened on the message to the page creator. Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Actually, on reflexion, I think i may have copied it, but if I did (I don't think it was that particular sentence anyway), it was to Google it to make sure the page wasn't a Wikipedia mirror or anything like that. I could have sworn I copied the url before pasting to Twinkle. What I meant by the above was that I definitely didn't copy it and then just paste it into Twinkle (because that would just be silly even if it wasn't a copyvio). When I spotted the error, I tried again (right-clicked on the cliakable url and pressed 'Copy'), but it still pasted the same sentence. I actually had to open the link and copy the url from the address bar. Forgive my rambling; I'm just trying to fathom how this could have happened.... Adam9007 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Adam9007, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Community Wishlist Proposal
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this 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.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Adam9007,
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.
Hi. You left a message on my talk page saying I'd made and you'd removed an unsupported edit on the Dana White page. I didn't, and I don't see my name in the history, so I don't understand what this is about. —JerryFriedman(Talk)14:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Now I don't see it either. Maybe I didn't notice that I wasn't signed on, and was looking at the talk page of some IP address where I work? Sorry to bother you about this, anyway. —JerryFriedman(Talk)20:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Adam9007. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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.
Hello, Adam9007. 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.
Acephobia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001reviews), Semmendinger (8,440reviews), PRehse (8,092reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016reviews), and Elmidae (3,615reviews). Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, 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.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders 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 3December 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-minutevideo 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.
Hi Adam! Don't retire, you'll only end up coming back. I know you have a tough job. People are tough. For a long time I was hoping to find a niche myself, but there aren't any. Anyway, to the matter at hand. Your plea for help reached me. I have covered the topic on the article's talk page. My recommendation is SPEEDY DELETE! It has been a bad article for over 10 years and no one but you seems to take any interest. I suppose the original authors lost interest a long time ago. No, I didn't copy it. Why would I copy junk? We've had to deal with this long enough. Ciao, thanks for your service, and I do not think you should retire.Botteville (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Botteville: The article is 13 years old, so I don't think CSD applies.You mention a 'heavy edit'. Edit of what? That's the first revision of the page. Was the content originally from another page? The urls predate the article. As I said, I'm hoping there's something I'm missing, but a 93.9 per cent Earwig match that's been there since the first revision (and from a page that can be proven to predate the article) is a little worrying, and that's not taking into account the other url. By the way, new talk page threads go at the bottom. Adam9007 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Well. You said it yourself, "heavy edit" of what? Why would I edit if there was not something to edit? And why would the other article have my edits in it? How did you get to the Wayback Machine? Obviously somehow our history got cut off, would you not agree? I do not know enough about it to say how. It must happen, as obviously it has happened. I've never been an administrator, so I have no powers here. I do know that very nasty messages have been left for me without signature and apparently without trace of any sort, an event which requires administrative powers of some sort.
What do you think? I cannot make better reply than this. I did not write the article, I did not copy the article. I do not copy articles. You seem not to like my solution of a deletion. But, your solution leaves a blank article. Furthermore, if you take me for a liar, you will be obliged to begin deleting everything I have worked on. Well, what do you think, am I a liar? If you think so, I believe I will have to ask for higher administrative intervention. Apparently, someone - I'm not saying you - does not want me on Wikipedia. I do have enemies, and so does Wikipedia. I've been a good editor, just what some people do not want.Botteville (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)} Adam9007, I don't know why your talk is on my watchlist, but it is. Botteville, I haven't looked at this in any detail, but I imagine that this is one of the three pages you split off from what is now Campaign history of the Roman military on 31 December 2005/1 January 2006. The earlier history of the content is in the history of that page. If there's a copyright problem it'll need to be sorted out, and if there isn't, then so much the better. I think everyone understands that this was a very different place in 2006 (I wasn't here), and that much less attention was paid to copyright matters. All we need to do now is sort it out and move on – no-one needs to leave or feel threatened. I'll try to look at it soon, but it might be a week or more before I do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Botteville: I know exactly how you feel; I can think off the top of my head of several editors who would rejoice if I were to leave Wikipedia and never come back (as, I see you've noticed, I've threatened to do several times before). I too am convinced that there are those who don't want me within 100 light-years of Wikipedia, but do not have sufficient justification for booting me out. I feel like it's only a matter of time before someone deliberately (I strongly suspect) misconstrues something I say or do and tries to make me out to be a complete f*ckwit (as has happened several times in the past). First it was CSD, then it was BLPPROD, then it was spelling on an article, then it was my userspace (actually it was lumped with the spelling thing, as it if was somehow related... ), and most recently it was something I said on this very talk page. Anyway, as for the matter at hand, I was going to say something, but Justlettersandnumbers appears to have shed some light on it, so I'll hold for now. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
