|
User talk:Atsme/Archive 1
Your emailHi Atsme, and thanks for your email! I can sympathise with you about getting your content removed from Timothy Drury, although its removal does seem to be backed up by Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Still, there could be room in the article for some of the information you added in some form. I suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page and trying to work it out there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Pamela Geller
Your recent edits
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) GA reassessmentWith the recent controversey on the talk page along with the time since it's first review I thought it necessaey to put Anjem Choudary up for a reassessment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
User IssuesI'm not getting involved in a soapopera. WP:DRN is not for user conduct. It's for content. I forget to where to take that to. I suggest contacting a Admin. Do not contact them to handle this situation. Contact them and ask them where this situation should be addressed. The appropriate noticeboard. This conduct issue that you think you have is seperate from the content issue that is going on. As for the content issue I would recommend that you just walk away for the time being. Let the heat cool. In the future I would recommend that you keep your career to yurself. You being a writer doesn't make you a special wikipedia editor. Don't email me. Post messages on my talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) GARA GAR is based on good article Criteria and the additional criteria added under good article assessment. A community review isn't about settling disputes. It is about asking if an article meets good article Criteria. If it doesn't it's about fixing those issues. It's not about conduct issues or content disputes. If you have a conduct issue that actually does need to be resolved go to the propoer noticeboard. If your sure which ask a mod. Here are the noticeboards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Noticeboard_links . I personally don't you have a case. Your issues with user conduct however is seperate from the content dispute. Keep them seperate. This isn't personal so don't make it personal.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Anjem ChoudarySerialjoepsycho, your reason for blaming me for causing a personal attack against me is casuistic, and inappropriate. I stated my occupation AFTER Bencherlite's comment on the revert: "Badly written/sourced/formatted and POV. No thank you". His comment was a condescending personal critique of my work, and why I felt under attack. What followed was said in my own defense. The proper procedure would have been for either or both Bencherlite and PoD to begin civil discourse on the Talk page. I don't see that ever happening in light of the comments PoD made on his own Talk page regarding WP:OWN. His hostility toward other editors is made quite apparent in his comments, not only to me, but to Coretheapple, and Robinr22. In fact, these are the kinds of events that are the catalyst for online articles that discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source. Just read the article, Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia. Based on first-hand experiences with the Islamophobia series, it also appears WP is turning into a propaganda platform for Islamic extremism. Atsme (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Atsme - There are some articles that indeed serve as a platform for islamist propaganda. An example is the article Unite Against Fascism, where a tag-team has been fighting for years to erase every possible critical view (Azad Ali is mentioned in the lede as I added it recently and the gang probably hasn't noticed yet). The fact is, the UAF was founded as a far-left front organization and now it serves the aim of de-legitimizing any criticism against rampant Islamic extremism in the country as 'fascism'. It is really telling, that one of the top functionaries of this 'antifascist' group is an admirer of al-Qaida ideologist Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and has called killing British soldiers his religious duty.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) @Lokalkosmopolit - I agree. We're facing a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Atsme (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Blocked for edit warring {{unblock|reason=I submitted a PP. This is a WP:OWN and WP:Civility issue. It now needs Arbitration"}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Talkback Message added 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Disruptive editingRemoving the Islamophic template from IPT while there is an RFC opened about that subject is disruptive. I'd have to ask you to not that again.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Atsme: Where is this supposed mediation supposed to be? It's not at Medcom to it's not informal mediation. It's not over at dispute resolution. Besides your statement on a number of peoples talk pages there in indication that there is and mediation. Where is it taking place at?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho:I sent them an email request, and received a response stating that it is under review. That's all I know. Atsme ☯ talk 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Guess what. You didn't send it to mediation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC) MediationHere's where to sign up for formal mediation: WP:RFM. Here's the mediation policy: WP:MP. Mediation is for content disputes. Your baseless accusations are not for there as they don't deal with conduct disputes. If you would like to take your accusations somewhere try wp:ani. You go there and tell them all about the tags teams and what other user conduct and conspiracy you have.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
ANIPursuant to my earlier warning, I have reported you at WP:ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Technology articlesI have an article on a technology company and a device it makes. They are currently c-class. And they both need a clean up. There's no real controversey for these devices so if you use quality sources you shouldn't have much issue with anyone. Both articles are fairly interesting or their topics are. Current and future technology basically.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
TalkbackMessage added 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Herald 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC) TalkbackMessage added 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Herald 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Info boxesUser:The Herald How do I add those fun user boxes like so many users have on their user pages? Are they templates, or is there a list of them with the codes somewhere? Atsme ☯ talk 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Changed Topic to Pictures@The Herald: I want to upload some of my own photographs for use on my user page and was wondering if I had to upload via Wiki Commons, or if it can be done right from my page? Do my pictures have to be available for all to use under a Commons license? Atsme ☯ talk 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Got it!! Thank you both!! Atsme☯ talk 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC) File permission problem with File:Old Abandoned Lighthouse.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Old Abandoned Lighthouse.jpg, which you've attributed to Photography on Bonaire. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Welcome to Signpost
How to test the archiving thingHey, OK. If you set the archive field old(90d) to 7 just for a day or two, the bot should archive some stuff so you can be sure it's working, and then after that, if you want to, you can set it back to 90. Just a thought... how's the article going?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC) @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I set it to 7, but I'm not sure what to put in the brackets that say TALKPAGENAME in the code. I also copy-pasted the first archive into Archive 1, so will the auto archive created an Archive 2 in 7 days? What do I do with old archives that are sorted by date? Atsme☯ talk 04:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
TalkbackMessage added 12:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. The Herald 12:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Ready for input on the Racz BLP@The Herald: and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I think the article is close to being ready for submission. I wasn't sure if I should include links to his books at the bottom of the article, leave as is, or make note somewhere in the article as to how many books & publications he's authored. I tried to condense all the awards and recognition he's received as best I could. I know prose is best, but this may be a situation needing a bulleted list? You may find some redundancies here and there, so let me know what you think should be deleted. Alf, you are a master at what I consider "tight, on point phraseology", so perform your magic as you deem necessary. Atsme☯ talk 00:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Ok, I've added categories, and a list of books, and a few more photos. I'm still waiting for photos of the Racz Catheter, and blunt needle, but they can be added later. Will you give it one last review, and if you don't see any glaring errors, I would think it's ready to go. I don't quite understand what you meant by "starting off the talk page with a few wikiprojects." Can you help me with that? Oh, and while the article is in the sandbox, do I just click on "submit your draft for review"?
Some more comments
— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, when you're ready to move it into article space using the move link in the dropdown menu, before you do that, edit out the code that says:
Then it'll look like an ordinary article. After you move it into mainspace, copy that wikiproject code from above and use it to start the article talk page, and that will be that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Archiving@Cobi: That makes two of us. I just want to be able to start indexing my dated archives for easy look-up. Not sure if it's something that can be auto-indexed, or if it's a manual task. I definitely want auto-archiving. I got the info from Archive#Archive_indexing. Also, Sven_Manguard has an archiving system that I really like, but his is manual. Atsme☯ talk 17:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
blanking sandboxThe trouble is that now the sandbox has a redirect to the article. You can tell this because it says in tiny letters at the top left that you were redirected from wherever. If you click on that little link it'll take you to the redirect page, which is your actual sandbox, and then you can blank that. If that's too hard to follow I can do it for you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Sirdog{ {hat | Notability in a nutshell
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
Welcome New Trainee!
Instructions: Sirdog, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting. Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is a litmus test applied to topics to ascertain if it should have it's own article on Wikipedia. As a rule, such topics must have reliable and independent sources report on it. This is necessary to avoid the addition of information haphazardly to the encyclopedia. Notability is determined if an article meets an SNG for a given sub-set of topics, or the GNG for all other topics, and it does not fall under that which Wikipedia is not (e.g a dictionary, a soapbox for promotion, a directory, a blog, etc). An important distinction is that not all topics that meet notability will have their own articles, but all topics that meet notability technically qualify for their own article. The community may decide that a topic is better served, even if notable, as merged into another article - among other options.
The GNG is the written guideline that lays out the things to look for explicitly when evaluating notability. As written, a topic is presumed to be suitable for it's own article if it has significant coverage in sources that are reliable and the sources are independent from the subject. Presumed means there is an assumption an article may be suitable, but it is not a promise. Consensus may be reached that the topic violates WP:NOT or that another action aside from a standalone article is most appropriate. Significant coverage means that the topic is addressed explicitly and in some level of detail. Original research should not be necessary to extract meaning from sources. This can get nuanced, however. This means a source should not superficially mention a topic, but nor does the source need to make the topic the main course to classify as "significant". Reliability means the source needs oversight regarding the information published so that Wikipedians can evaluate such notability verifiably. If the sources themselves are not reliable, then it is borderline impossible to evaluate notability. Sources should always be secondary - meaning a source that is analyzing or assessing a primary source (such as the topic in question being evaluated for notability). There is no brightline number of sources, as they vary in their quality and depth, but as a general rule there should be multiple. Independent excludes from consideration any source that is produced or closely affiliated to the topic. For example, press releases requested by the Final Fantasy XIV team would not be eligible as a source proving notability.
As time has gone on the community has come to a consensus as to what classifies as "notable" within particular topic areas such as film, academia, books, etc. The accepted guidelines are numerous, and links to them can be found at WP:NOTABILITY. Generally speaking, SNGs define verifiable criteria which has historically shown that notability-establishing sourcing exists. Thus, topics which pass SNG scrutiny more often then not merit an article. That does not mean an article passing SNG cannot be deleted or merged should an exception to the trend exist. SNGs, by their specific nature, also allow for granting greater assistance to editors - such as giving spelled out examples of sources and coverage (e.g for books, there is a footnote that explicitly goes over types of sites and sources which are and aren't good for meeting the "non-trivial" phrasing of criterion 1) to assist in determining notability. Similarly, the SNGs may assist in clarifying certain things that may intuitively seem notable but actually aren't (e.g the mere fact an individual is in an elected office does not within of itself mean they are notable; that typical applies at a state/province level or higher alongside other qualifiers).
As Wikipedia has increased in size, scope, and international reach organizations have become extremely interested in having both a) articles about them on Wikipedia and b) having such articles speak of them favorably. This is very problematic, as Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and it strongly discourages (and in certain cases prohibits) those with a conflict of interest from editing such topics. As such, the SNG on organizations and companies was developed to iron down such articles in Wikipedia's policies. It is split, generally, into the primary and alternative criteria. For an organization to be classified as notable it needs to meet the primary or alternate criteria or meet GNG on it's own. The primary criteria is basically the GNG but with various safeguards and explanations so as to combat the issues mentioned above. Particularly, it emphasizes higher scrutiny on sources to avoid gaming. Thus, by it's nature, it lists various caveats. One such example is that significant sources may cover an organization due to them possibly participating in illegal conduct. Because the conduct of the organization - and not the organization itself - is the topic, such sources are generally not permitted to be used as establishing notability. The alternative criteria go over various other scenarios that apply to specific types of organizations, such as both commercial and non-commercial organizations, schools, and the like. For example, in regards to religious organizations, just because a building that such an organization congregates in may be notable doesn't mean the organization is notable.
My initial steps would be something to the effect of:
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)This is a guideline I'm quite familiar with as a vandalism fighter. It is the codified belief that all editors should assume that all other editors, regardless of perceived experience or hostility, are trying to in some way improve the encyclopedia (even if actions taken may be damaging in the short-term) unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This does not preclude the ability to give criticism, however, as it is possible to criticize the actions of an editor without presuming their motives are malicious. It is also possible that editors may genuinely be trying to help but they lack the knowledge or know-how to do so within Wikipedia's current framework. Care should be taken when citing this guideline, as the citation of it within the wrong context may within of itself be a negative assumption. Wikipedia is widely used, with many search engines indexing it's results to dynamically display what Wikipedia says to a user without them even having to visit the site. Because this can have a very real and dramatic effect on people if covered by Wikipedia, WP:BLP is an extremely strict set of policies that go over how editors are required to cover an individual who is currently alive. Sourcing needs to be immaculate, the tone should be written with care and be the pinnacle of neutrality, any statement that most likely will be or has been challenged must be removed immediately if unsourced, any criticism or praise given to a subject must be balanced as is appropriate and reported by sources, primary sources are a big no-no for proving identifiable qualities, and so on. The policy is a bit vast, but I believe those were the really big sticking points.
The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia which presents information neutrally and in a formal tone. A conflict of interest is when an editor participates in topics on Wikipedia that they are closely related to. This tends to undermine the ability for an editor to write formally or neutrally, as doing so about topics closely related may cause the editor to write in a favorable (or unfavorable) manner when they need to be remaining neutral. A COI can take, generally, 2 forms. The first form is when an editor is just closely related; the topic may be family member, a client of theirs, or a business they run or work for. The second form is when an editor is being monetarily compensated by an entity to perform edits on Wikipedia. Many businesses may pay contractors, or their own employees, to edit their relevant Wikipedia article. If the article doesn't yet exist, the individual may be paid to create it. This historically has caused issues on Wikipedia as the goals of the employer, and thus employee, tend to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's. For the 2nd form, the terms of service as set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation requires that such users disclose the following: what entity is paying them, who the client of the payment is, and any other affiliation that may be appropriate to the topic. For example, a Google employee paid to edit the relevant article would state that they are paid by Google and that the payment is so that they edit that article. Failure to do is classified as undisclosed paid editing which may result in sanctions from an administrator if it persists. Any level of a COI should be disclosed, however, the difference is that for paid editing the Wikimedia Foundation mandates the disclosure.
Copyright refers to the owner of a creative work owning the exclusive right to copy and distribute said work. On Wikipedia, all edits are licensed under CC BY-SA and the GFDL, which is performed automatically after any edit is published per the relevant notice on the edit (or confirm edit) screen. Where things get complicated (to put it lightly) is when Wikipedia wishes to use the creative work of others for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. To do so the creative work must be within the public domain, the relevant copyright has to be explicitly disowned, the copyright has to be under a compatible license, or explicit permission from the owner of the copyright must be obtained. It is also possible to use such works without permission, but under very specific circumstances (such as fair use). If copyrighted material is hosted on Wikipedia without permission or legal justification it constitutes a copyright violation, which is a big non-no for many reasons - not least of which is the legal liability for Wikipedia. It is imperative that such material be removed from Wikipedia immediately and in most cases it is appropriate for an administrator to perform revision deletion. While it is generally not easy to be blocked on Wikipedia, repeatedly posting copyrighted material is one such way. To re-distribute text on Wikipedia it requires credit be given to the authors in one 3 ways: a link to the Wikipedia page, a link to a stable online copy which is freely accessible and gives credit to an equivalent degree as a history page, or a list of all authors is provided. When it comes to any amount of media, how to handle giving appropriate credit would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the copyright of that media. Linking to another website that possesses a copyrighted work does not constitute a copyright violation, however, websites that are violating copyright themselves should not be linked to as that also has similar legal liabilities. Wikipedians also need to take into account copyright law from nations that aren't the United States.
This is fairly straightforward: a hoax is an attempt to deceive in audience into believing that something false is real. This has occasionally been done on Wikipedia, and gone undetected for years, as a means of demonstrating that Wikipedia is falsifiable. This is an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia being a website that anyone can edit and, as of today, it isn't something that can be prevented with certainty. There is no need to prove this, and it only leads to read world consequences - in extreme cases, it could be fatal. Editors - NPR's especially - need to be cognizant of if something is a hoax and, if it is believed or verified to be, to mark it as such and/or mark it for speedy deletion. The above said, there is a fundamental difference between an article written as a hoax and an article describing a hoax for encyclopedic value. The latter is acceptable; the former is not.
Also pretty straightforward: an attack page is a page on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace, wherein it's sole purpose is to threaten, demean, or disparage the subject. Such pages are eligible for speedy deletion under G10 and should be marked as such if found, blanked as a courtesy, and offending editor(s) warned. If the subject is notable, and the page is in article space, then an editor should revert the page to the last neutral version. If such a version does not exist, the page should be deleted by an administrator outright, and a stub made to replace it. This is especially urgent if the subject is a BLP. In a situation where content from an article is split to a separate one for whatever reason, that page would generally not be classified as an attack page, even if a majority of the content reflects negatively upon the subject. All BLP requirements would still apply, though, if applicable.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
It has been demonstrated that a majority of new content on the English Wikipedia is developed by new users. In contrast, there are a lot of policies surrounding content editing (from notability, to the manual of style, to picking reliable sources, and so on). Not to mention more universally applicable setbacks, such as computer literacy. New page reviewers are in a unique position where they will communicate with such editors with high frequency. It's imperative for reviewers to be kind. If an article is good to go, they should send a message of support and thanks for the editor's time. If an article has issues, or necessitates deletion or removal from article space, the reviewer should go over the errors, give feedback on how to improve (usually in the form of directing them to the relevant policies), and above all else encourage them to continue. A shining example of such behavior could be found in Oshwah (within reason; his capacity for kindness and AGF is arguably inhuman, lol).
Wikipedia is big. As time has gone on, and as the membership has waxed and waned, it was found to be beneficial to create templates for generic notifications of various things. The ones I am most familiar with are the vandalism warning templates used in WP:RCP (which I remember with fondness substituting by hand until I learned that Twinkle and RedWarn existed). Generally, they are useful for repetitious tasks or for tasks wherein policy mandates a notification (such as WP:ANI or making sure all leveled warnings are issued for WP:AIV). However, in most cases - and especially in NPP - it is preferred to give non-templated responses when possible. New users aren't stupid; they can tell if a message is coming from someone trying to help or if it is a "corporatized" generic response. They will be far more likely to become inflamed, or simply leave outright, in the latter scenario. Such notifications can also be long-winded and intimidating (such as the copyright warnings). Regular users are even less stupid, and it is against best practice to give them templates at all unless mandated by a process or policy.
When speaking with new users (or with anyone, really, as most article creators are probably invested in said article) it is important to speak in a friendly, welcoming tone so as to avoid coming off as WP:BITEy or impersonal, otherwise, the editor may be encouraged to abandon the article or the project. Information should be distilled clearly. It is trivially easy for an experienced Wikipedian to drown a newcomer is jargon, shortcuts, and complicated policies which can be extremely overwhelming. Using simple language in favor of complex language, when appropriate, to get across an idea is also ideal - not all editors are fluent or native in English, and these editors are not in any way less valid than others so long as there is not a competence issue. Being knowledgeable in the relevant policy and processes is paramount; misinterpretation or a complete lack of understanding can result in a waste of administrator time (e.g improper CSD), cause a negative experience for the creator that is unnecessary (e.g rejecting an article on false pretenses when in reality it is acceptable, or vice versa), waste community time (e.g improper AfD), among other poor results.
When communicating with other editors, and especially newcomers, it is very tempting to only focus on the bad. However, this can lead to the feeling that the only result of a conversation will be poor and that the positive contributions of an editor outside of whatever the current topic of the day is aren't relevant. This would be incorrect, as any constructive edit made to the encyclopedia is worthy of praise, because it is the work of the volunteers that have made Wikipedia what it is today. As such, it is important to find ways to compliment and thank fellow editors for their positive contributions from time to time, rather than just making corrections or criticisms. These go a long way towards creating a positive rapport, respect, and trust between editors. WikiLove is an informal yet widely accepted[citation needed] community doctrine to aggressively be nice with one another and wholesomely thank other editors for a wide array of things. Not least of which being an editor's very existence on the project. This can be accomplished by a simple talk page message all the way to long lists of templates dedicated to this purpose.
Warning templates are a specific type of notification meant to advise an editor that a particular behavior is undesirable and that it needs to stop and/or be corrected. They are most commonly used in anti-vandalism to systematically warn vandalizers against their behavior. After a level 4 warning (or 4im) is issued and ignored, an administrator will block on sight or in response to a report to WP:AIV. That said, there are warning templates for an extremely wide-array of scenarios. In the case of NPP, relevant warnings to issue may include (but aren't limited to): warning editors about copyvio, advising page creator that a page is up for CSD/PROD/XfD, warning editor for creating an attack page, warning an editor about a potential COI, warning an editor about UPE, advising editors tagging articles to avoid doing so when done improperly, warning editors about BLP violations, and so on. These warnings are important so that, in the event an administrator becomes involved, it can be demonstrated that an editor was advised to avoid X and continued to do so anyway. That said, issuing such warnings with templates is not wholly necessary (barring exemptions), and NPP's should evaluate what is most appropriate based on the circumstances.
Deletion (Pt. 4)Articles for deletion is a venue where editors can formally discuss whether or not an article should remain on Wikipedia or if another course of action would be appropriate (e.g merging, redirecting, userfying, draftifying, etc). AfD, like most processes on Wikipedia, is not a vote. It is standard practice to preface a comment with Support or some other indicator of the desired result, but this should be followed with an argument. Arguments that discuss how an article meets or fails a particular policy take precedence over arguments that do not. AfDs discussions remain listed for 7 full days before being evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. Said administrator will evaluate the consensus reached and close the discussion with such evaluation being provided. Non-administrators may also do this, but it comes with various caveats.
WP:BEFORE is a section of the AfD policy which goes over various things editors should check for prior to submitting an article to AfD. These have been developed so as to minimize the number of articles submitted to AfD that are there improperly, or where the outcome is so glaringly obvious that the AfD process is not a productive use of editor time. First, the editor should be informed regarding deletion policy so they know what the valid grounds for deletion are and what alternatives exist. They should then also inform themselves regarding the content policies that are primarily used in deletion debates: notability (both GNG and SNG), verifiability, reliable sourcing, and WP:NOT. Second, the editor should perform a myriad of checks to ensure that AfD is necessary and not another process. Is CSD/PROD more appropriate? Has the article been nominated before and thus the concerns currently held have already been addressed? Is the article's current state due to vandalism/disruption which simple reversion will immediately correct? Has enough time passed for renomination (if applicable)? Etcetera, etcetera. Third, the editor should entertain the idea of improving the article and salvaging it - if reasonable and applicable - rather than simply sending it to the chopping block. Or, if a fix is well supported by policy or is otherwise obvious, perhaps the editor can simply do so themselves per WP:BOLD rather than forcing a consensus be established (e.g if it is clear the topic itself isn't notable, merging it into another article may be a solution the editor takes unilaterally). Finally, if the primary concern is sourcing, can the editor find that sourcing themselves? The minimum check expected prior to an AfD is a regular Google search, a Google books search, a Google news search, and a Google scholar search (if the topic relates to academia).
Proposed deletion is a process editors can utilize to mark an article that they believe is not in compliance with a relevant policy, but also does not meet CSD criteria, for deletion. This is designed for articles where there is a low chance a consensus will be needed to ascertain what should happen to it; ergo, it won't be controversial. Once the template is placed, if any editor whatsoever objects (including the article creator), the process is aborted and may not be restarted. The reason for objection is immaterial, even if in bad faith, with 2 exceptions: a) the removal of the template (a typical sign of objection) is clearly not an attempt to object (e.g vandalism), or b) if the removal is performed by a banned user or a sockpuppet. If the editor that placed the PROD still believes deletion is warranted despite an objector's rationale, the process would need to escalate to AfD. If the PROD template remains on the page for 7 days uncontested an administrator will delete the page. WP:BLPPROD is a process to delete an article about a living person that has no sources whatsoever in any form (e.g external links, inline citation, further reading, etc) that support any statement made within the article. This is not used for any other purpose; such as determining notability or correcting any violation of a WP:BLP guideline. In order for the tag to be removed, at least one reliable source must be added to support some statement made within the article. If the tag is removed with no sources added, it may be returned with the expiration date not being affected. If there is contention as to the reliability of a newly provided source, the article should be directed to AfD. If the nominator believes the article still warrants deletion for any other reason, then a relevant deletion process should be utilized. The timeline to remove the tag is the same as PROD; after 7 days an administrator will delete the article if the requirements for the tag's removal are not met. In both processes, administrators are just like any other editor (this is always the case, but is sometimes forgettable). They may decide to object to a PROD or provide a source for BLPPROD rather than delete.
Soft deletion is a form of procedural deletion where anyone may request the page be undeleted indiscriminately at WP:REFUND. This is generally used when a deletion discussion has very little participation. The closing administrator is directed to make the fact the deletion is soft clear. A possible alternative to soft deletion is a blank and redirection if no one suggests that deletion is appropriate per established community consensus.
The criteria for speedy deletion refer to a very regimented set of criterion where administrators have consensus to bypass PROD or XfD and simply delete a page unilaterally. Out of all of the deletion processes, this is the fastest (relevant to how fast an administrator sees the CSD tag). The process is started by an editor wishing to delete something placing the relevant template on the page, along with notifying the page creator and any major contributors. There are criteria for general deletion (GX), which apply to all pages; article (AX), which only applies to articles; redirects (RX), which only apply to redirect pages; files (FX), which only apply to files; categories (CX), which only apply to categories; user pages (UX), which apply to user pages; and portals (PX), which apply to pages that act as a "main page" for a broad subjects. I know it was kinda redundant for me to list them out like this; I mainly did it to ingrain the categories internally. I have bolded "very regimented" because it is an unfortunately common practice for editors, when evaluating to CSD something, to stretch the criterion when it otherwise does not apply. Some examples include:
The creator of a page is prohibited from removing a CSD template unless it falls under G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, or U1. They can instead contest the deletion on the article talk page which will be taken into account once an administrator reviews it. If an uninvolved editor removes the template, the deletion is classified as contested, and another deletion process should be selected (with potential common-sense exceptions being G9, G12, and U1).
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Wikipedia has a lot of templates. One kind of template are improvement tags. These can be assigned to an article to alert readers (and thus, editors) of various problems that may exist with the article. This can be about copy-editing, copyright violations (both real and suspected), plot summaries being too long, an article being written like an advertisement, and many more. There has been contention in the community as to whether or not these templates are useful, as it would be preferred if the editor WP:BOLDly corrected whatever the errors. However, the general consensus at present is that - presuming an editor has already decided to not fix the problem - it's better to tag it than do nothing. As editors are volunteers it is their free choice as to whether or not to fix a problem. It's also possible the problem requires knowledge or expertise, both in Wikipedia policy or topic knowledge, which the editor lacks (CCI is a common example of requiring basically both). Any editor without a COI to the article may remove any tag if they cannot find the error that is described. However, unless it was a glaringly obvious tag (e.g lack of categorization), a talk page note is encouraged anytime that this is done. It is possible to overtag an article, which is problematic within itself, as it may discourage editors or readers from doing anything. This is because it gives off the perception the article is irredeemable. At most only 3 tags should be on an article at once, and these should be reserved for the most severe problems, even if other problems exist. The less severe problems can come later; there isn't a deadline. When tagging, the most specific tag should be selected for a given problem. The template {{cleanup}} is nice and all, but it is very vague and puts the onus on future editors to find errors when they have technically already been seen. Does the article need sections? Is the view not balanced? Are there not enough citations? Etcetera, etcetera.
Categorization is a function on Wikipedia wherein if readers know a defining characteristic of multiple topics and want to find related articles, they can. All articles on Wikipedia should have a minimum of a single category and this category should be the most specific branch of category available. For example, when categorizing Abraham Lincoln, using Category:19th-century American politicians is not as ideal as using Category:19th-century presidents of the United States (though in this case the actual article has both). Any category assigned to an article should be verifiable, remain neutral, and be a defining characteristic of the subject. For example, randomly categorizing someone with Category:Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan without reliable sources commonly associating the topic with such a category is defamatory. Categorization is physically performed by adding [[Category:CATEGORY_NAME_HERE]] to the bottom of an article page, though nowadays, people mainly use HotCat.
A stub is classified as an article that has some useful information but lacks coverage expected from a typical encyclopedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting is a project designed to organize stubs into specific stub-categories. This is done so as to increase the likelihood of editors finding stubs that may interest them and expanding upon them, rather than letting the article sit in the void and wither away. Many articles moved to mainspace by new users have a high probability of being stubs to start off with, and so NPR's are in a particularly good position to perform this function; knocking out 2 birds with 1 stone.
NPP ExerciseI will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. State of Article at Review: [1]
2. Emma Bolger State of Article at Review: [2]
State of Article at Review: [6]
4. Dave Rosser State of Article at Review:[7]
5. WWE Hall of Fame (2023) Article was redirected at time of review. Moved back to first revision prior to this, being [8].
Ok, Sirdog - here's your first 5. Happy reviewing!! Oh, and don't hesitate to boldly edit if you've the mind to do so. Atsme 💬 📧 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Additional 5 exercisesThis go-round, please go ahead and take the appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation. I think you are really making me earn this green tick mark, and I both love and loathe you for it. What an evil article to place on my evaluations. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 So, in all honesty - for me - this article is unreviewable. The knowledge is so above my paygrade that I cannot answer most of the questions on the chart. I can't attempt to find my own references because, while I do get hits for That said, I had an epiphany about an hour or so into this review to check the page history to see if it's ever had references. Lo and behold, I find [9]. I can't evaluate the source, however it was added by a currently active editor with a Ph.D in mathematics. Odds are, the reference is appropriate. Is it notability establishing? I've absolutely zero clue. But, it does get the article a reference. Official Answer: I've restored the reference to the article and adjusted the tag to say that more references could be added. Were I to have the NPR right, I would mark patrolled at this time, repeating basically the same chain of events from 2011. Looking at a couple of other mathematics related articles they also appear to be light on citations. The article has already been linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and - considering the article's revivor, D.Lazard, is a very experienced editor (e.g mostly mainspace contributions, 25K edits, mathematics professional, no blocks, good AfD stats, has been drug to WP:ANI but appears to have been in the right, etc) - I do not believe I am doing the encyclopedia harm by allowing it to remain under their stewardship. I totally get if this answer is completely inappropriate, in which case I'll just take the loss, but I simply would not go for any kind of deletion; at worst, I'd draftify. PROD would obviously get contested; no CSD criterion apply (or any that could apply I cannot do with certainty, for example, I've no clue whatsoever if this article is making a claim of significance - nor do I believe any administrator regularly patrolling would be comfortable touching it with a 10 foot pole); and I would be deeply uncomfortable going to AfD, as I cannot perform a WP:BEFORE.
So, this is actually a fairly straight forward review, don't need to think about it much. A much welcome change of pace from the above article, to be sure. It appears an IP editor decided to just undo a redirect with information that appears to be accurate, but is held in the article OAED Vocational College shooting. So, I've simply reverted the IP editor. Presuming the page need a patrolling, if I had the rights, I would do so. Easy, peasy. While it is possible (but improbable) that Dimitris could be notable enough for their own article, at that point I would just be writing the article myself, which would be outside the scope of NPR.
8. Leah Felder Most all searches for Leah online are talking about her divorce from (or marriage to) Brandon Jenner, who is in the Jenner family. Unlike Dave Ross, which I can understand the notability there, these sources don't mention things that she has done specifically whilst talking about these events. Most everything that may establish notability is purely on the basis that she was with Brandon or in the band Brandon & Leah. While the band Brandon & Leah meets notability, Leah herself as a musician or as a person is not notable. She wouldn't meet any criterion under WP:NSINGER; the closest would be criterion 6, as last time, but she's only been in 1 band. All other criterion would apply to the band, but not her (e.g billboard charts, creating music for a television show, appearing as a guest on a television show, etc). My official answer is I've restored the redirect to Brandon & Leah which was undone a couple of days back.
So, this is a borderline case (atleast to me). On one hand, WP:ANYBIO states that if a person In this case, I would favor inclusion. There could be resources that I cannot evaluate that show more notability, which would make sense considering this person's position, and I'm comfortable with ANYBIO getting 2 out of 3 criterion met. I've tagged for a request of more citations, and I'd mark patrolled.
10. Three Days (Pat Green song) Earwig screamed about a potential copyright violation with basically the entirety of the existing prose, the violation originating at [10]. Our article was created on day 1 with that exact line of text in 2016. The website according to https://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/#https://www.lyrics.com/ was made in 1996. I am physically incapable of determing when the specific lyrics page was made (and it wasn't a lack of trying; I used the carbon date website, I tried searching the source code of the website, I tried running a year search in Google - the works). All rights on this website are reserved. about 45 minutes later I actually went to the CCI section of the Wikimedia Community Discord and ask for a 2nd opinion. DanCherek responded and said that lyrics.com is notorious from pulling Wikipedia text to it's website, and that it apparently used to have some kind of "More info" button that would declare this, but it appears to be absent. So, in any case, I don't believe a legitimate copyright violation is present. In my view this song is a violation of WP:NSONG, specifically (bold added by me):
This song has only been charted once, and fair enough the charting seems to be a good one, but it's a single charting. A cursory Google search (which is already impossible for a term known as "Three Days") doesn't pull anything else up. This will most likely permanently be a stub. TenPoundHammer came to the same conclusion, and so redirected it, but Donaldd23 reverted the redirect stating I've started a discussion on the talk page. It may have been more expedient to simply nominate for AfD, but if Donaldd23 perhaps simply forgot a policy or is otherwise neutral and concurs with my and Hammer's assessment (or demonstrates notability), I think that would generally be preferable. If there isn't a response in a reasonable time period, I'll then take to AfD.
DiscussionOk, Sirdog - I've added 5 more exercises for you, only this time go ahead and follow through with an appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation for each in the reviews above. Atsme 💬 📧 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) EvaluationSirdog passed the course, and did quite well on the reviews. He has all the makings of being a top notch NPP reviewer. CONGRATULATIONS, Sirdog!!🥂🎉 🙌🏻 The evaluation is complete, and you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Be sure to add a link to this review. You can also request NPP user rights directly from one of the participating administrators. Atsme 💬 📧 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|} NPP TrainingHi Atsme, Please, I am interested in the NPP training. I believe you are super busy. I'm a serious learner and creative. I won't waste your time. Please, grant me the opportunity to learn from you. Best, Beston Beston77 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC) New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022Hello Atsme,  Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section. Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.  Suggestions:
Backlog:  Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
|
.svg){kind=spacer}
