User talk:Breaking sticks/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Breaking sticks. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Focurc language

Regarding your deletion request; the grammar, phonology, and vocabulary of the Focurc language show a divergence from Scots that is sufficient enough that it may no longer be regarded as a dialect. With Scots slowly converging to English, and Focurc, by manner of not doing so, growing more distant from what is commonly established as "Scots", calling it a mere dialect of Scots falsely represents the divergence at hand, including for instance the development of a new "default" sentence order and the development of clitics from the old pronouns; for example "mabreður masisturs bror þinm" (My sister is better than my brother) - the new default sentence order (OSV) can be seen as well as the pronoun-derived clitics. A sentence such as \*Masísturs bror þin mabreður, which would follow more typical Anglic-language grammar, would be absolutely incorrect, as confirmed to me by a native speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englisceadwine (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

COI

Thanks for the tips. I am not usually connected to my writings, I try as much as possible to get the required pieces of information with proper references. I am willing to learn new things from you to make Wikipedia a nice place to be. Shammahamoah (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Focurc language

About the deletion request. Focurc is not a “local dialect”. It is unintelligible to Scots and has experienced massive changes in its core grammar (even the pronouns were completely remoddled) since diverging from North-Mid Scots, plus showing conservatism in its lexicon. The changes in comparison to Scots are so large that Focurc can’t be described as a local dialect. Being such a little language it can benefit a lot from being described on Wikipedia.

Haarle (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)HaarleHaarle (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you have put up another deletion notice without responding to any of the three objections. Either reply to us or stop putting the page up for deletion while ignoring the objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haarle (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Haarle: I have explained my reasons for disagreeing with you in my deletion nomination. If you need any clarification of those reasons then please let me know, and I'll try to help. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Focurc language

The Focurc language page should not be deleted at all, it does not portray false information, vandalise, or is even mislabelled. If you've taken the chance to look at any of the references and external links that the author has set, you would see that they all say "language" and not "dialect of Scots".

No dialect of Scots has a pitch accent, or any dialect of English either for that matter, the word order is especially unique and even Scots natives cannot understand Focurc, even written in an English-based orthography. This language has more differences between itself and Scots than Frisian has between itself and Dutch, yet Frisian gets recognition for its own language, a Google Translate option, and it doesn't get threatened to deletion because of "mislabelling".

Your single opinion over Focurc being a "dialect" shouldn't be enough to label it for deletion, that's just absurd. Keep it in Wikipedia. Honestly, the language depends on it.

(PS: If Scots Wikipedia can be labelled as "Scots", a language of its own, and not broken/a dialect of English by this point, despite the userbase submitting the Scots Wikipedia translations being mostly from the United States, then I think Focurc should have 1 single article about it.) --Aarnisdoottur (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for re-adding information and source to the article about Sarah Bird that I had put in twice, three or four years ago, and had been removed twice citing the subject's preferences.

Felisse (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

December 2018

Hi Breaking sticks. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! GAB^gab 21:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification sought

A new editor has indirectly complained in a post at the Teahouse about comments left on their talk page. I mentioned you in my reply to them, so you'll get a ping anyway, but I wonder if you've a moment if you could pop by and explain this unsigned diff, as I was unsure precisely which of their many edits had caused you concern. (Do please remember to sign all future warning messages you leave for new editors, as it can tend to leave them confused and unsure how to respond). Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember what particular edits I had seen, but looking back now I see various links which look rather promotional, and early edits at Lamolithic house don't look very neutral to me.Breaking sticks (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Supposed Disruptive editing

Hi Breaking sticks, In response to your recent message about supposed disruptive editing I am actually removing false comments made by other users. There is no factual basis for any of these comments and no actual real evidence to suggest any of these are true or in fact there is evidence to suggest the opposite. So in actual fact I am fixing these pages of there inaccuracies. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.21.230 (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made an answer to this at User talk:Mell18. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sherborne School Article

Hello Breaking sticks, you have put COI and POV tags to the article I have been editing on Sherborne School. I understand the importance of a neutral point of view, however I have absolutely no link to Sherborne School nor am I being paid by anyone to make the edits. My only point of view is historical fact (hence the citations). There is no COI.

I read an excellent book on the school recently (A History of Sherborne School by A B Gourlay) and noticed that the article could do with some improvement, not least by providing all the missing references in compliance with Citation notices someone had put all over it. I also thanked another editor for making some improvements. It is my first Wikipedia edit and I worked hard to follow Wikipedia guidelines at all times.

As I understand it, POV relates to a lack of balance and a neutral point of view. I have a neutral point of view and do not see where the article lacks balance, but am happy to be advised by you. You might think items like 'The Best Independent School in the Country for Music' is not neutral, but that piece was already there with a Citation notice on it! I simply found and added the citation which is surely only a good thing?

If you could explain where the article is "biased or has other serious problems" in compliance with Template:COI then I will of course amend it accordingly. Thank you for taking an interest in my first edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuseemusee (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fuseemusee:

1. If it had been your editing that I thought showed a conflict of interest then I would have told you.
2. I really don't know what I can say to tell you what the problems are, if you can read the article and not think that.much of it has the appearance of having been written to impress readers with what a good school it is. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks:

1. Thank you for taking the time to respond Breaking sticks - I am a Wikipedia novice and appreciate your input. As I am the only person to have edited the article since last year and your COI and POV went up immediately after my edits, I had assumed, reasonably I think, that it was my editing you took issue with. I understand now that it isn't my editing you take issue with but still do not understand your specific POV issue.
2. I have reread the article and compared it to articles on similar schools and it seems very consistent in tone, content and form. Those articles do not have COI and POV notices on them. In fact compared to some articles, it seems to understate its noteworthiness. Yes, the impression is gained that it is a good school, but this impression is created by a succession of validated historical facts about a school that has been in existence for thirteen centuries and which has consistently produced leaders in every field (including the father of AI and computing). To create the impression that Sherborne is a bad school when it isn't would surely create serious conflict and point of view issues? If you have any negative noteworthy content to add then you are free to add it.
3. COI and POV requires it to be made clear what the conflict and neutrality issues are. There is no COI because I have made it absolutely clear that I have no link to the school and that I am not paid to edit; it's just my first article based on having read a book on the school. In terms of POV, no-one else has joined the discussion on the talkpage to express a view either way. I have asked for your specific neutrality issue(s) so that I can do my best to correct them. If you cannot be more specific, or no-one else can provide clarification, then I invite you to consider taking down the COI and POV. Thanks again for helping me to find my way around. fuseemusee (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It is clear from what you said in your latest message above that you are still convinced that my comments about conflict of interest refer to your editing, even though I have said that they don't. I can't think why. The history of the article does show signs of editing by one or more people working on behalf of the school. The promotional character of the article is more a matter of general tone than of specific statements. "Validated historical facts" can be presented neutrally or promotionally. If it were as simple as there being counter-factual statements then I would have simply removed them. I will try to find time over the next few days to look back at the article and see whether I can make specific improvements. Meanwhile I suggest you think carefully about the tone in which you have expressed yourself to editors you have disagreed with, both here and elsewhere. Even if you are convinced that someone is wrong, you are more likely to get cooperation from other editors if you appear to be approaching them in a spirit of accepting that they have a valid point of view with which you happen to disagree than if you come across as angrily dismissing their opinions and lecturing them on what they should be doing. Remember that we are all volunteers. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks: You misunderstand me. As someone well versed in peer review from my time as a postgrad in one of the world's leading universities (the Wikipedia article on which also creates the impression that it is good) I am merely keen to obtain a reasoned argument so that I can test the validity of your point of view. I am keen to make my first edit as good as it can be, so whether you hold me or others responsible for COI/POV is irrelevant. I have the information at my fingertips and a will to do right, all I needed from you was a clear explanation of the problem (the templates you have applied require and demand this) so that I could try to put it right in the knowledge that you would let me know whether it was along the right lines. I have acknowledged my novice status and willingness to learn, but it is impossible to act on your concerns without a clear and reasoned argument. Even now your objections remain, frankly, woolly. You say I must ask for co-operation, but I have asked for yours and not received it. If you are confident in the neutrality of your editorial intervention here you have nothing to lose by the scrutiny of others. Now I have another editor who objects to my replacing the school logo he created (in the wrong colour) with one in the right colour, as even a Wikipedia administrator has acknowledged. I had planned to make further additions of historic and noteworthy facts (eg on the Saxon era, Edward VI's endowment, and to organise the alumni by century to make it more user friendly) but fear more obstructive and unreasoned objection that it might reflect well on the school. No wonder Wikipedia is bleeding editors if this typical of the low editorial standard. Do as you will - that's me done with Wikipedia. Fuseemusee (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fuseemusee: My apologies. I have now realised that I posted a conflict of interest warning to your talk page, whereas my comments above were made in the belief that I had only tagged the article for conflict of interest. Evidently at the time I did think you ha a conflict of interest, but I was apparently mistaken. I shall remove the tags from the article, and if, despite your statement that you are leaving Wikipedia, you ever decide to come back, you will be welcome to post here, and I will try to answer your questions in a way which is closer to what you desire. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks:Well I had indeed given up on Wikipedia but checked back to see if there was any further response and am delighted to find a spirit of collaboration in full flow! Thank you for all you have said. If my novice's enthusiasm made me impatient I am sorry too. An administrator said that by editing only one article it might have created the impression of a COI so I now understand where this might have come from. Well, I had to start somewhere and I promise that I am doing this from a love of English history and for no other motive. I want to make this article as good an historical record as I can before I move on to other articles. It's the way I work and perhaps a way of showing others that I am keen to become a good Wikipedia editor. So I will tentatively continue to edit the article but please let me know if you feel the article is taking a wrong turn as I value your advice and expeirience. The editor who took against my recolouring of the logo has also sent an encouraging message so I will try to sort that out too. It's been a bumpy journey but a smoother road ahead I hope. Thanks. Fuseemusee (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fuseemusee: I am glad you have come back, and I hope you will continue to edit. As I indicated above, I had forgotten that I had posted a conflict of interest message to you, and I can only assume that it was for the following reasons. First, in more than 90% of times when an editor heavily edits one article about one business, organisation, or anything of the sort, and edits nothing else, it is someone working for that organisation. Second, some of the presentation of information does read to me more like the way it might be presented in a school prospectus than in an impartial account. However, when you asked me about it I checked your editing history, and, seeing nothing wrong with it, assumed my tagging had referred only to the general tone of the article and its earlier history. Unfortunately I didn't think to check your talk page, where I had posted a COI message.

As I said, the tone of the article is more promotional than I think it should be. However, that is a common problem with articles about schools, and I have seen far worse than in this one. It seems to me that a clear majority of schools go through at the least short periods of being edited by someone working for the school to make it reflect the way the school wishes to present itself. When that is done to the extent of blatant spam it is easy to remove the offending content, but at other times it is more subtle, and it can be difficult to eradicate a general promotional tone without scrapping the lot and starting from scratch.

I think the colouring of the logo is much simpler and more straightforward. As I see it, you were perfectly right. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks: Your candour and generosity of spirit is humbling. I acknowledge my own errors in running before I could walk. I hope you can see from today's edits that my interest is genuinely historical and that I have zero interest in writing promotional blurb here or anywhere else. Needless to say, you are free to edit whatever I put up there as I know you will only make it better. I am glad we turned conflict into collaboration; it's the only civilised way to live. Fuseemusee (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleting edit

Why did you delete my edit? You claim is totally absurd, claiming it is personal analysis. You do not know a thing about the subject and you are completely unqualified to revert any change whatsoever.

The page itself had alot of false statements and unreliable information. My edit was representing pure academical research. Iskander Imran (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to ask me again, in a civil manner, and explain why you think the existing content and its sources are wrong, rather than just asserting that they are "false" and that what I have done is "absurd". If so I will be happy to consider what you say, and offer any answer I can provide. Breaking sticks (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsourced personal comments from an article

Very unclear how to communicate with you. It seem that you only care about your own "rules" and not really the truth. Would be nice if you would contact editors instead of just deleting things with no message. For me personal observation is MUCH more real than some vague and often false formal "reference." But I can dig up photographs that clearly show and confirm the validity of my comments before next edit. Please let me know if there is a better way to contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssetzer (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cssetzer: I don't understand your message about "deleting things with no message", as I did post a message to you each time I reverted your editing. I don't have any of my own "rules": what I referred to was Wikipedia's policy, not mine. Your personal experience may well be more real to you than published sources, but unfortunately since almost anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, there is nothing to stop people from coming along and posting false information, and many people do so, all the time. The only method available to deal with that problem is to require citations to reliable sources. That is the reason why Wikipedia (not me) has that policy. I hope that helps to clarify the reason for my editing, but if there is still any aspect of it that you aren't sure about then you are welcome to ask me. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleting post.

I created a page called Lightyear, with all information I have researched from the internet (which I linked relevant sources). I am currently doing a research project on Sustainable cars for my University which I dont see as a conflict of interest. I made editing an Tesla's page as well, as other articles. I used Tesla and BMW's writing structure as a guideline to write my articles which is why I dont understand why my article may have seem so bias? Can you please elaborate?Riegmar (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Riegmar: What you have said here may well be true, but it is not the whole truth. You may be doing a university research project, but you are also doing work for Lightyear. What is more important is that it shows. Your writing described Lightyear in a way which showed enthusiasm for what a great job Lightyear is doing. If you knew that was how you were writing then you were trying to use Wikipedia for advertising, which is not allowed, and if you didn't know that is how you were writing then that shows exactly why Wikipedia has the kind of guideline on conflict of interest that it has. Someone writing about an organisation they are working for is likely to write in a way that looks promotional to others even if they don't realise they are doing that. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed A7 From CricTracker

Hello, @Breaking sticks: you added A7 on CricTracker which I was creating and reverted my edits while I was editing the article. though I have reverted your edit. let the patrollers review and if you wish to submit for Deletion go for AFD. MrZINE | talk 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI I've put it back as that reason is well I can't even describe that. Games of the world (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

yes yes now I dont even care about that, I'm fan of cricket and i have been following their page since long, they are probably fastest news providers in cricket. thats thereaso ni thoug hthey might deserve an wikipedia article, but wikipedians dont see that way, all they want ot submit as much as article for AFD 7 A7. I know how things work here been doign that almost more than a month. MrZINE | talk 23:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Role of international community Rwandan genocide

Hi Breaking sticks, I edited something on the page Role of the international community in the Rwandan genocide, and I am sad to see that you deleted my edit. I would like to know why, because the information was not untrue. Can you tell me why you edited this? Elisabethruemke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabethruemke (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I answered on Elisabethruemke's talk page. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Breaking sticks. You have new messages at Kappa Kappa Mu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kappa Kappa Mu (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Advisor Group

Hello Breaking sticks. RE: reverting Advisor Group page to previous content. I'm brand new to wikipedia, and, as disclosed on my user page, am a paid contributor. Essentially I've been paid by Advisor Group to update their page. I have read and understand (to the best of my ability) the COI issues around contributing to Wikipedia, and believe I'm acting in good faith. In editing the Advisor Group page, I've tried to stick with facts, avoid promotional language, etc., and have cited multiple third-party sources to back up those facts. So, rather than simply clicking "undo" at your edit, I wanted to reach out and see what can be done to allow the changes I'm trying to make to the page remain. Please advise. Thank you.

--Richardmlange (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richardmlange: I'm actually not sure where to start in answering that. Much of what you wrote really had the feel of marketing material for the business. It is possible that every word of what you wrote was objectively true, but the tone in which you expressed it and the selection of what to mention gave a promotional impression. If you honestly can't see that, then that is just an example of exactly why the conflict of interest guidelines discourage editing in the situation you are in. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do want to point out that, because I was a new contributor, I modeled the changes I sought to make on the Advisor Group page on the existing “LPL Financial” Wikipedia page. (LPL is the same type of company as Advisor Group, essentially the Toyota to Advisor Group’s Nissan, if that makes sense.) In other words, I sought guidance for writing the Advisor Group page from Wikipedia itself, and not from, say, the Marketing Department of Advisor Group. In addition to using the same headings, and therefore the same structure, I tried to hue as closely as possible to the subject matter and tone of the LPL page. It would be of immense help if you could take a look at the LPL page and let me know where I’ve missed the mark. If possible, please site specific word choices, phrases, etc. I would be happy to edit accordingly. My goal is not to be promotional, but to accurately describe the company, its history, and share secondary sources that support that information. (If I’d been “trying” to be promotional, I certainly wouldn’t have included the fact that Advisor Group was, up until 2016, owned by AIG, a company most people associate with the 2008 financial crisis.) Again, working in good faith, I’m trying to get this right. I very much appreciate your time and help. Thank you. --Richardmlange (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard: If you look at the article LPL Financial now you will see that it's been cleaned up. It seems natural to take existing articles as a guide to what is acceptable, but it doesn't always work. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. While not the response I was hoping for, that seems quite fair. As a regular user of Wikipedia and an occasional financial supporter, I'm actually happy to have pointed out unwanted content, however inadvertently. (For what it's worth, you might also look at the Cetera Financial Group article, which I also used as a guide. It has a lot in common with the old LPL Financial article.) I may yet have some suggestions for the existing Advisor Group article, as one of the sentences is essentially inaccurate, and there is at least one typo, but I'll make them in the page's Talk section and see what others think. Thanks again. --Richardmlange (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Help a Friend?

On the page for Birmingham there's something I've been trying to add, but really lack the basic knowledge on how to do so. Birmingham has a - recently expanded - Tram network, and I've noticed that the wikipedia articles for other major cities with tramways have these listed in their respective infoboxes (see Manchester). The article for Birmingham is currently missing this information, and I was trying to add it under the list of 'Major Railway Stations' but couldn't figure how to get the right syntax in with the edit. The tramway in question is the West Midlands Metro, and the link for UK tramways, to spare you the trouble of finding a link, is here. Is there any chance you could add the relevant information to the page? Oldhamtw (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No Mads22333 (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Why do some links appear red. I put an appropriate link to the subject and I was a real link yet it still says that it is incorrect. ALSO I RIGHTFULLY EDITED A VERY UNPOPULAR PAGE AN IT WAS PUT UNDER , opinion....

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!.!.?.? Please tell me why and I will be much less angry.

WITH LOVE,

MADS22333 Mads22333 (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@MADS22333:

1. A wiki link is red if there is actually no page with the title it tries to link to.
2. Whether something is "fun and creative" is a matter of opinion. One person may think it is fun, another person may think it is totally boring. I guess that's the edit that you mean. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I do think I get it now. Would you like to see a page that I just did and see it I did it right, I edited this page, www.wikipeadia.com/pastries Mads22333 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@MADS22333: If you mean your edit at Pastry then I already saw it before you made your latest post here, and it looks fine. I have to go now, so any more messages you post to me will have to wait until the next time I edit, which won't be until at least tomorrow. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding YouTube links

Adding YouTube links might not be a good idea as they are not authentic and violate copyrights. This is not true if the videos uploaded on YouTube are from the original owners of the copyrighted material. I have added offical YouTube links which is absolutely safe and hence should be allowed on YouTube. Swapnilraj55 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Breaking sticks,

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

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 822 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Tools

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

Reviewer Feedback

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

Second set of eyes

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

Arbitration Committee

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

Community Wish list

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

---

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

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