This is an archive of past discussions with User:Davisonio. 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.
Davisonio, thank you for the message you left on my talk page. Actually, I don't want to engage in any serious argument In this case. However, you may consider to nominate List of biochemists for speedy deletion with the same rationale that it duplicated [[Category:Biochemists]]. There is no difference in this case and List of notable engineers in Nigeria. Wikicology (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Wikicology, at first I saw the removal of the speedy deletion template and decided to add it back again but after I saw the discussion on the talk page I see your point about the fact that List of biochemists and many other similar examples exist. That's why I decided to revert my edit on the Article and tweak the user talk message. I vote for the article to be kept due to the fact that some engineers which may require just a short summary could be added there and also due to other examples of pages like this existing and proving to be quite useful. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 17:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Davisonio! I'm aware that an anonymous user removed the speedy deletion tag without an edit summary, an edit I don't consider constructive. Initially I thought of reverting their edit but i decided to leave the task for an established and experienced editor. I appreciates your competency. Wikicology (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Whale
Smash!
You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
Hi there Cskumaresan, to help add corrections to the page and prevent it from being speedily deleted you need to change the article rather than adding more information. At the moment it is written like an advertisement, you use words like "Our" and "We" when you should be talking about them in the third person or like you would in an encyclopedia. I would suggest you change the article so it is not written like an advertisment, add some more sources from different websites and remove inappropriate external links in leading paragraphs. I will see if I can change a few things but I can't do much without other references. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 12:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I really think you have your work cut out, there are loads of pages about Saab (all in the lower case). So you would have to rename all the pages to lower case as well as all the files and all the text in them - that would take a lot of time especially by hand. Also please remember that links and files links are case sensitive so if you change the link to them in the article they might not work anymore. On the official website for the cars they use a mixture between lower and upper case lettering (both SAAB and Saab) so I don't think it matters too much to be honest – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Patrolee introduction
Hello. I saw that my user page was listed under your patrol. I figured the best way to dampen any concerns would just be to come here and introduce myself. I'm actually a previous WP user starting over with a new account for reasons not related to Wikipedia, so I'm pretty familiar with the terrain. It's been a while, though, so if there's any major mistake I'm meeting don't hesitate to contact me. Stonerwizdum (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Stonerwizdum, welcome back to Wikipedia :) Sure, I'll let you know if any mistakes are happening but judging by your most recent edit I'm sure it's going fine. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank's for noticing this but it's best not to simply delete critical information from project pages without bringing it to anyone's attention. Fortunately I noticed your edit at NPP. A missing tool like this needs to be fixed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, where would be a good place to report this missing tool? I removed it because I think it's not really useful anymore due to the new pages feed and I couldn't find it anywhere on the new tool labs. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
AfC
Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but simply waiting until one has 500 mainspace edits is not necessarily the only criterion taken into consideration for being able to review Articles for Creation. I have once mentioned to you about your general patrolling and failure to notify users. Could you please let me know why you are moving users' userspace drafts to the Draft namespace. As one of the creators of the Draft namspace I know of no precedent for this, much less not informig the authors of the new location of their pages. I am open to all suggestions so I look forward to your comments so that we can establish the best way to go with these issues or put them to community discussion for possible future amendment to the use of Drafts. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. The reason why I am moving the drafts from the userpage is due to the information on the AFC submission template. Although I read all the information about user drafts and how users may want to keep their drafts, on the template it states "Warning: This page should probably be located at..." which made me change my ideas. My suggestion is that the text gets changed there (it's not really a warning?) and is changed to something along the lines of "This page could be moved to...". It might also be useful if information about moving userspace drafts was added to here. I'll try to notify users to the location of their drafts, if they are moved, from now on. Thanks – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 10:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
(Moving this post down because I probably put it in the wrong place): On closing the RfC to create the Draft namnespace:
FYI, the closing statement on the creation of the Draft namespace was:
A key part of this discussion is the very strong support for the principle that users should be able to store drafts in their userspace. This principle must be adhered to in the implementation of this RfC: the Drafts namespace may be strongly encouraged for new editor, but if a registered editor wishes to keep drafts in their userspace, they must be allowed to do so.
I think that explains it clearly enough. Best to leave users' drafts where they are until they are ready to move them to AfC - if they want to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have re-editted my article H. E. Hussain Jasim Al Nowais the same and use sources such as reuters, financial times, CNBC, Gulf NEWs... etc
can you please accept my article now
Craig deva : hello ,iam so sorry to view the status of being removed my articles naming "upendra devkota" but i dont see why it was removed when it is being written with hard evidences or citation .Iam quite hopeful that you once take your look or have glance on on the articles,Mahendra Niraular— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra Niraula (talk • contribs)
Hi, I removed your edits because they broke the infobox and also you shouldn't take credit for things you have written within an article. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A note on reviewing
Hey Davisonio, I just thought I'd let you know that I came across an article you declined (Draft:Mikhail Chigorin's club) earlier due to the references not being in English. Non-English references are perfectly acceptable. The only reason a draft should be rejected for not using English is when the majority of the draft itself is in a foreign language. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why my page H. E. Hussain Jasim Al Nowais was deleted. your review was to add reference that are reliable and i did add sources from CNBC, Reuters, financial times, etc..
can you please help me, i am new but i am genuinely trying my best,
It appears to have been deleted due to unambiguous copyright infringement. Did you copy and paste any content from other sites? – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 16:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Vianovo tag
Hi there. Thanks so much for taking the Vianovo article live. I noticed that there is still a tag on the article noting that it needs further review for neutrality and COI issues. Would you mind removing that? I understand if you didn't have a chance to carefully review the content, but if that's the case, will you move the article back into draft for someone else to review? I submitted the draft through AfC specifically to have another editor look closely for COI issues before publishing, so having it live and it still needing to be reviewed defeats the object. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm just pinging this thread because I posted a note on the Talk page last month asking for help with a few updates to the article. No one has responded yet, so I just thought I'd see if you had any interest in taking a look. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
19:35:59, 28 January 2015 review of submission by Sebh007
Hi,
I'm not quite sure how the talk pages work, so I hope what I'm typing is appropriate!
I absolutely understand that you think that the subject of the page isn't notable, or, probably more accurately, that it may be notable but that I haven't given sufficient evidence of its notability. I have available many examples of the subject being mentioned in reviews or articles in independent publications/broadcasts etc, but I'm not sure how to include the references without creating some artificial text within the body text so that I can then attach a reference to it. I obviously don't want to write insubstantial copy just for the sake of getting a good reference in to aid notability, so how should I add relevant references please?
Sebh007 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Sebh007. Yep your using the talk pages fine! The article needs some more in-line references from other independent sources, many of the sources are from thenationalopenartcompetition.com. To include references in the text, just include a reference regarding the text in question. For example: "Many eminent people within the art world have acted as judges for the Competition over the years." could have a reference appended to it from a news site with the title "The many judges for The National Open Art Competition" or whatever. Also I couldn't consider leahfusco.co.uk a reference for "The SOUTHWOOD Award £1,000 – Leah Fusco" because it appears that there are only pictures on that web page. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 15:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. I have tried to find external references with some success and I have added the ones I feel are most relevant. There are not that many and that's partly because I'm too inexperienced to know what would be considered acceptable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It seems to me that there are two levels of Wikipedia notability and I would really like your view on this please. The first level is whether the subject matter is sufficiently notable to warrant having a Wikipedia page at all and then there seems to be a second level which is the notability of an individual line or paragraph within the entry itself. At this stage, I'm not quite sure how to match Wikipedia's expectations. Is the subject matter notable? I definitely think so, but I'm not clear whether one reference from a single large reputable external source eg. the BBC, is sufficient to prove that or whether multiple smaller external sources would be better? Is a listing in an art magazine (or multiple art magazines), for example worth including or would they be considered too insignificant to carry any weight? It seems that there are quotations about the subject matter available from notable and reputable sources, but they are mostly one liners, and I'm really keen not to include references which are too 'tangential' or effectively only included in order to try to establish notability. All thoughts most welcome! Sebh007 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
07:54:21, 29 January 2015 review of submission by 109.236.130.11
The article was requested due to copyright violations from the website IRATI.eu. I am the coordinator of this project (IRATI) and maintainer of the website. We wanted the content to be on the wikipedia article and not on the website, since our goal is to explain RINA to the widest possible audience, and the wikipedia article is a far more stable source than a research project website. This is why we have deleted the content from irati.eu, and the contents in the page http://irati.eu/rina-vs-the-current-internet-architecture/ are no longer online (only as part of this wikipedia article).
In that case the article can probably be re-reviewed. Although it might get declined for not being notable - doing a quick search for it brings up [1]. Also please take a look at WP:POV as that can sometimes be an issue when the main writer of the article is affiliated with the subject. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 15:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Request on 14:42:00, 29 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Edugrasa
We have just resubmitted the RINA article, removing the content that was already in the irati.eu website (we have removed it from the irati.eu website, not from the Wikipedia article, because we think the content will be of much better use within Wikipedia; I am the one that owns the copyright for that piece of content and want to make it available to Wikipedia).
Hi, if you believe the article is ready for mainspace and you'd like it reviewed please add the necessary tags to the article so it can be reviewed. Sorry for the late reply. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @)
Need help in creating an article
So I met my favorite author at a signing and she is from my hometown! She and I were talking about being famous and she said she wouldn't be famous until she was on wikipedia. LOL I have been trying to set up her a page, so that next time I meet her I can tell her she has a wiki page, but I'm having a terrible time understanding how to make this work. Can I request this page be made? She has a photo in wiki commons but no article. Oh - it's the T. Michelle Nelson submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.65.121 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The article needs much more work to be included on the mainspace of wikipedia. At the moment it has little context. Please see this page - it appears that the article has been created and deleted before. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Request on 05:36:16, 31 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Daytodayebay
The cottage has been mentioned in several notable places like The Guardian and S4C programme.
I am working on finding another citation in Book Handmade Home Hardcover – 8 Sep 2011
I think these two are very good notable source, will the third one allow this article to be approved ?
You could try adding some more references, but please make in-line citations. I'm not sure if this article will be accepted anyway, no matter if you add some more references. What makes this cottage notable enough to put on an encyclopedia and to be included in this category? – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 09:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to ask you for guidance and advice. I respect your knowledge. Thank you for sharing your time with me and reviewing the submission Alexander Liccione.
This is a very special and accomplished artist, so it is weighing on me somewhat that I did not get it published.
I am not seeing where I need to make changes...________?
Is it needing more Wiki markup such as reference links and a box?
Should I do many links?
Is the article in need of being more enlivening?
Would I need a link to the book, or to actual page listed with Liccione, in the reference books like - Who's Who?
I am eager make any corrections and request editing help...
Again, I can not thank you enough.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistsfind (talk • contribs) 03:22, 3 February 2015
Hi, what needs to be changed is mostly the style of the page and the references. In-line citations are needed for biographical articles to verify a statement. Please see this page. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Request on 14:10:32, 9 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kelvege
Hi again. I was just able to upload a logo for Vianovo and I'm reaching out to editors for help adding it to the article's infobox. As you may recall, I don't want to directly edit the article myself due to my COI, so I'm hoping you might you be able to add it. If you have the time, you can find the file here. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We would want to know, more specifically, what we are doing wrong. We have tried to publish the info about our company several times and we have always had the same response. This time, we took Coverity and Klocwork Wikipedia pages as an example to write our own and, sincerely, we don't have a clue of what theirs have that ours doesn't.
Besides, we have read your Notability, Guidelines and Gold Rule pages and we don't know what we don't accomplish.
So, please, let us know how can we be in Static Analysis Tool list and help us to understand what we are doing wrong by giving us concrete examples.
Hi there. The references need improving in order for the article to be accepted. For example I don't see how this link is notable. Please see the decline reason for more info. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 09:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
04:50:00, 16 February 2015 review of submission by RAID-LEADER-1
I'm confused on what I need to sight for my page, as I am the author of all of my work, and President of RAID. Everything that has been typed up for my page are in my own words. Please help me understand why this is such an issue.
Just being the President of RAID doesn't mean that everything you write on wikipedia is correct. This is why you need to add references to verify that the information is correct. See WP:REFBEGIN. Sorry for the late reply. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @)
21:09:12, 17 February 2015 review of submission by MichaelOpton
Hello, I've added 3 citations to the page. I have more, if necessary, and which may be appropriate, but my first priority is to see if these are the types of citations you were requesting. Thank you.
Hi, the article has more recently been declined by another editor in regards to the person being non-notable. Perhaps you could speak to them? Sorry for the late reply. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @)
Thanks
Hi Davisonio, just wanted to say thanks for digging through for blanked AfC submissions, it's helped tidy the area up a little :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. There's no minimum length for articles but I'd suggest starting off with just a couple of well-sourced paragraphs for new submission and then extend it from there. Short articles can be tagged with stub templates as appropriate. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
12:09:10, 1 March 2015 review of submission by Steven Paul Fisher
Hi, I could really use your assistance. I believe that my article does indeed "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed". I cite a number of scientific papers that are on PubMed, as well as information from a variety of other sources.
Could you please offer suggestions as to what I can do to make the article acceptable? PROSE treatment is a medical process, available in tertiary eye care centers all over the country, and has been used to save the sight of thousands of patients worldwide. It is the subject of more than 45 scientific papers published in professional journals, and I believe it should be included in the encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hi - I am trying to create a wikipage for our company. Can you please help direct me to the edits that are required to have an approved page. This is all very confusing and any and all help is very much appreciated!
I was confident that the links below prove a notable company. These links below include information from independent sources such as Remodeling Magazine from HanleyWood, NYTimes, Newsday, Wikipedia, Extreme Makeover Home Edition, and the Long Island Press to just note a few.
Hi there, sorry for the late reply. As for the references - please see WP:REFBEGIN for a guide on how to use references to refer to sections of text in an article. Also, wikipedia articles can't be used as references in other articles. Click the resubmit button on the draft article and a reviewer will review the article and accept or decline as necessary. Hopefully that cleared some things up for you. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 17:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Request on 03:23:59, 4 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nahidacste36
I tried many times to write an article but every time it is rejected and I am not sure how to edit the page I mean the format of writing in the editor page.Please help me.
If you'd like the article to be accepted please read the notes at the top of the page. The article is not supported by reliable references. To add references see: WP:REFB Thanks – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @)
08:57:28, 6 August 2015 review of submission by 86.161.141.28
Please let me know where the problem is. I have given peer reviewed articles to support my entry. What else do I need to do?
86.161.141.28 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:8BitBoy Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
Hello, Davisonio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Help with Vianovo?
Resolved
Hi Davisonio. I'm reaching out to see if you have any interest in helping me update the entry for Vianovo. I posted a set of updates on the Talk page over a month ago and left messages on various WikiProjects, but haven't had any responses as of yet. You approved my initial article draft through AfC a couple years back, so I thought it made sense to ask you for assistance. No worries if you're busy. I prepared the changes on behalf of Vianovo, so I won't make the changes myself. Thanks so much for your time! Heatherer (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am continuing work on the Vianovo article in place of my (now former) colleague, User:Heatherer. I am still looking for volunteers to review one or both of the edit requests seen here. I'm happy to respond to any questions or concerns on the article's talk page, or on my user talk page. Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirPower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Davisonio. 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 Davisonio. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:The Letter (video game), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Created three weeks ago. Thank you. ~ Amory(u • t • c)15:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Rollback granted
Hi Davisonio. 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.
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! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Removal of material that is not sourced and that has been tagged for some months as needing citation is not vandalism. Please undo your revert. Thanks. 94.119.64.0 (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this. I presumed due to the lack of source that this was a invalid edit, especially due to the rise in Commonwealth-athelete related vandalism. – Craig Davison (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for reviewing my article. It's not clear to me what else is required as I have added 15 new references from notable sources since it was first reviewed. My article bears no relation to a former article about the subject from 2008, which I was not aware of. My article has over 20 references to academic sources and reviews of the author's work, which demonstrate their significant contribution to their field. His work has been translated into multiple languages, which also indicates the significance of their work to others in the field.
I'll look into this again. If this has enough notability and an infobox and categories alongside it it may be good enough for submission. I was weary particularly from the previous deletion discussion. – Craig Davison (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you for agreeing to look at it again. I'd put quite a lot of work into finding sufficient citations and was starting on the basis that another entry of a similar person in the field had an article approved.
Thanks for restoring the deletion. Companies like this need to be held accountable for their shortcomings. If they spent more time working on their screwups and less time trying to hide from their mistakes the world would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CazFaw (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I agree, it's important to keep companies shortcomings on Wikipedia as this helps create informed decisions! – Craig Davison (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Davisonio.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)06:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Davisonio. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Outline update
Hi.
I noticed your comment about outlines at the portal RfC. It's nice to come across editors who appreciate their value.
So, I thought you might be interested in what has been happening with them lately...
I'm learning JavaScript, so I can automate outline construction and maintenance.
The goal: full automation. That's hard. Within easier reach are interactive tools that can assist editors and increase their productivity. Semi-automation.
One approach I've been working on is magical vision for editors who work on outlines. No, not special glasses, but changing how Wikipedia is presented on the screen so that anything that has built-in outline structure, they see as outline material. Shown in wikiformat, without going into an editor first, right there on the screen. From where they can copy and paste it into a wiki editor.
Outline material abounds on Wikipedia all over the place. It's just not noticed as such by most, because it is formatted differently. As you know, outlines are trees, and trees have branches. Those branches can themselves be outlines (i.e., have more branches), or they can be straight lists.
Straight lists are outline material?
A single outline can include many straight lists.
One of the places to find straight lists on Wikipedia are search results. No branches. Just a list of destinations. But cluttered with lots of extraneous data.
So, I started experimenting with reformatting search results, to convert them to a form that is easy to copy/paste.
By the time I was done, it wasn't just useful for outline developers. It was generally useful.
It's got several features that modify search results, and each is given a menu item that serves as its on/off switch. Each can work on the output of the others (that was a pain), and the script remembers the setting of each switch between searches. Once you turn a feature on, it stays on. Until you turn it off.
One of the features is sort. Another strips out details, giving you a single-spaced list (showing a lot more results on the screen, which is much faster to browse). Another toggles the sister project results. And another toggles those sometimes annoying redirect/category-based results. The outline developer's feature wikifies the entries, though sort is quite useful to them as well.
If this sounds intriguing, check it out and let me know what you think.
I hope you find it useful. All feedback is welcome.
Am a big fan of outlines, thanks for brining this to my attention I will check it out! Always appreciate scripts like these from WIkipedians. – Craig Davison (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
14:22:41, 12 April 2018 review of submission by Cupidandpsyche
Hi, please can you pinpoint which lines still need references? I've tried to be as thorough as possible but may need guidance what is and isn't suitable as a reference. Reputability is unfortunately quite a vague term. Many thanks.
Cupidandpsyche (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah there's too many Discog references and not enough to show that he is notable. Can you find any news, articles or significant coverage of them as an artist? If not I don't think it can be accepted. Also note notability is not inherited even though his father has a page. Thanks. – Craig Davison (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Kastus Technology declined
Hi Davisonio,
I'd just like to make an inquiry as to what needs to be done to improve a page I created on Kastus Technologies. I am aware that the page was created and deleted before, however I think this was as a result of it being overly promotional and not because of the subject's notability. I had rewritten the article and removed the material that, in fairness, was very promotional. In terms of the subject's notability, I am really struggling to see why it isn't meeting Wikipedia's standards. The subject has received significant coverage in the Irish media, including an article published just yesterday in The Irish Times (https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/new-developments-by-kastus-in-commercialisation-of-its-innovation-1.3457110) - Ireland's most popular newspaper. This is the latest in many articles on the subject in this paper. Also, one of the sources cited is RTE, which is Ireland's state broadcaster. Another source is a Nature journal article, which is an independent peer-reviewed scientific journal, proving the effectiveness and value of the subjects technology. If these sources aren't sufficent enough, then what coverage does the subject need to be deemed notable enough for inclusion? Thanks in advance for any further help you can provide.
Caileam Raleigh.
Caileam Raleigh (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I'm definitely weary of accepting. It is quite promotional in nature and that will definitely need fixing, no surprise due to your COI. I don't think there's any evidence that it has improved since the last time it was deleted and there is not a range of references showing notability except one on you mentioned. – Craig Davison (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for missing these, I have just created them now! In future, it's best to put the multiple redirects separated in one line so it's less likely we'll miss and we can do all of them or some of them at the same time! Thanks. – Craig Davison (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Davisonio, many thanks for looking over my draft. I see that you declined it because it does not adequately show notability, and I was wondering if you could provide some more details about why the references included are not suitable? I included articles from well-read German newspaper Der Bund; pieces on a number of Swiss and German music blogs; an interview from Red Bull; an article in a local Swiss culture magazine, Ensuite Kulturmagazin; as well as other sources. I've certainly seen lots of other pages on Wikipedia with less relevant independent sources than this - and while I know Wikipedia is HUGE and therefore I'm sure it's impossible to verify the notability of every single page to the same standard, I do feel - with respect - that the sources I've included in this one show that the record label in question is notable (certainly in Switzerland and Germany). If you could clarify this for me that would be great. This is my first attempt at creating a page on the platform so I appreciate your guidance and patience! With warm wishes, Izzyarcoleo (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
True, this article is mentioned in a few of the articles however it doesn't show its importance that much. Maybe improve the manual of style and remove some of the external links and another reviewer can take a look. I'm not sure it is notable even though it has been mentioned in a few articles. In fact searching for Everest Records Switzerland brings up some results for mount everest. – Craig Davison (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me on this - it's much appreciated. I hope you don't mind, but I do want to point out that the label isn't only mentioned in newspaper articles - two of the articles in Der Bund are whole page spreads solely about Everest Records. And yes, Googling the name does come up with pages about Mount Everest but that's not very surprising given that the world has a fascination with both the mountain and achieving records on the mountain..! An unfortunate name for the label in terms of SEO placement, perhaps. By removing external links, do you mean the links to the label's website etc.? Thanks for the clarification. Warm wishes, Izzyarcoleo (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
12:47:07, 16 April 2018 review of submission by Augusztino
Hi Davisonio! Thanks for the review! I find that the article is encyclopedia-like and I would like some guidance on what you find bothering so that I can change those parts. I feel I have not exaggerated and have not used peacock terms. I also feel like the article has many independent sources that prove his track record. Please advise on how I should proceed! Thank you!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Where Are Ü Now, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM (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.)
Hi. I previously declined this draft, and I see that you've declined it again for the reason of WP:RS. Why do you consider the references provided to be unreliable? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
18:53:55, 24 April 2018 review of submission by Sdhakray
what else sources you need. I have provided best sources including Articles from Times of India, ABP news and other sources. I don't think your rejection is justified. It would be great if you guys help me out completing this article instead rejecting it from last 2-3 years. systema 18:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You reviewed my draft of an article entitled Constance Savery. Your comments were helpful, and I have been working on compliance with WP:MOS. I have been delayed by a hard drive crash, but am now picking up where I left off. This is a progress report and does not require an answer.
Thank you for the feedback on this article. We have been concerned about "notability" all along, especially since, in general, the participants in the University of Illinois PLATO System did little at the time to publicize what really were remarkable technical and educational achievements. In fact, the first major publication I'm aware of came out only last year: the book "The Friendly Orange Glow" by Brian Dear. That book has motivated a number of us who worked on the project early in our careers to try to preserve--if only belatedly--a little more history and information about the project and its principals. Given your experience at WP, do you have any suggestions that you think might help? thank you in advance.
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
I'm hoping to get more detail on why my request to post a page was denied on "notability" grounds. I reviewed the requirements, and my citations include two articles in independent, reputable news outlets as well as a book from a reputably publisher, and all content I submitted was cited. What specifically was missing in terms of notability?
Davisonio, thank you for your review and providing insight on how to improve the draft. I referenced the links that you provided to have more of a formal tone and changed the peacock terms. I have reviewed Wikipedia resource pages, but with your experience on Wikipedia, I would greatly value and be open to any further suggestions on how to improve the draft. Thanks for your help. IrfanAli512 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Thanks for taking the time to review this draft. First, I wanted to mention that the main purpose in creating this page for Rob was to correct an earlier post that was riddled with misinformation. That post, likely created by a political opponent, has since been deleted, but I thought it would be fair to set the record straight by creating another one in its place. You mention that the post should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, and I believe it does. Almost every source is either a reputable media outlet, or public voting record. I would appreciate if you wouldn't mind indicating precisely which areas of the article you feel show undue bias in favor of Rob Cornilles, or which areas "read like an advertisement."
Hello Davisonio/Archives, 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.
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
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 Davisonio/Archives, 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.
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Hello Davisonio/Archives, 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).
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
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 Davisonio/Archives, 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.
Hello Craig, I have long been using Wikipedia. But I have some doubts. Will you clarify the same? If you have received my message, reply me as soon as possible. Moreover, what are the ways of communication with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhadadedinesh (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
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 Davisonio/Archives,
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.
Hello, Davisonio. 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.
Hello, Davisonio. 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.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
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.
Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.
There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:
A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!
Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:
Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors.
The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:
The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.
Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.
New and active projects
This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.
Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how:📲Try Edit Cards.
Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use. The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.
Looking ahead
Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.
Learning more
The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.
Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
Technical news
As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!
Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.
Talk Pages
The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.
The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.
Mobile visual editor
The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.
In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.
Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.
In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.
If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here
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 817 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
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Thanks for uploading File:Hover Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
a rich-text visual editing option, and
other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Reply tool: This is available as a Beta Feature at the four partner wikis (Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian Wikipedias). The Beta Feature will get new features soon. The new features include writing comments in a new visual editing mode and pinging other users by typing @. You can test the new features on the Beta Cluster. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.
New requirements for user signatures: Soon, users will not be able to save invalid custom signatures in Special:Preferences. This will reduce signature spoofing, prevent page corruption, and make new talk page tools more reliable. Most editors will not be affected.
Research on the use of talk pages: The Editing team worked with the Wikimedia research team to study how talk pages help editors improve articles. We learned that new editors who use talk pages make more edits to the main namespace than new editors who don't use talk pages.
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.
Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:
The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.
More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[5]
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
New requirements for user signatures
The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.
Next: New discussion tool
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Resolved
.png){kind=logo}
